The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth

[Joy]

http://www.kingdomwarrior.o-f.com/Th...Beorhtnoth.doc

I was just re-reading this today and was reading the Battle of Maldon.

If you have read Maldon, The Last Survior's Speech, The Wanderer, or Beowulf, please comment on the style, the prose, etc of this work.

What connection do you see in the code of ethics that the Norse lived by? Was it Heroic Code or was it more the Chivalric Code? When did that change take place? Which code was seen in the Sil; in LotR? Or was there a mixture in which the race decided the code?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

This has the look to me of a set essay rather than a subject for discussion, but this work of Tolkien's deserves more than any other to be discussed with reference to Anglo-Saxon heroic verse in general, and the Maldon fragment in particular. Perhaps my response will prompt those with more knowledge of the subject to contribute their opinions.

The Battle of Maldon, to which The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth is a sequel, is a late flowering of the English alliterative epic style, in which the battle of August 991 is described from the formation of the English troops to a point just before their final destruction. Most space is given to the speeches of various East-Saxon combatants, housecarles of Beorhtnoth who elect to fight on to the last man rather than retreat; but an important passage that occurs at lines 85-90, shows Beorhtnoth agreeing to a cunning request from the Vikings that they be allowed to cross a vital bridge, which they could only have taken with great difficulty. Beorhtnoth accedes to this request "for his ofermod" (for his excessive pride), and according to Tolkien crosses the line that divides heroism and chivalry. In so doing he condemns those whom he commands to death, and his people to Viking depredations.

It is probably wise to point out at this stage that the word 'chivalry' is not one that the Anglo-Saxons would have recognised. It is a medieval French word that derives from chevalier: a knight or horseman. Tolkien's definition is between the behaviour that one might encounter in the Morte D'Arthur, in which fights to the death are treated as sporting contests, and simple heroism, which causes a man to go to extreme lengths in the pursuance of a particular goal. Beorhtnoth has a duty to his people and to his king to defend them from the invading army, but his insistence on seeing the contest as essentially a sporting one (prompted, no doubt, by excessive self-confidence) causes him to fail in his duty. Heroism, as evinced in his refusal to hand over treasure to the Vikings without a fight, overreaches itself and defeats its own object. By contrast, Beorhtnoth's household, by refusing to abandon their leader and retreat, are shown in much the same light as Tennyson's Light Brigade: men condemned by another's incompetence to die, and yet prepared to do their duty nonetheless. The speech of the old retainer, Beorhtwald, is regarded by many, Tolkien included, as the finest extant expression of the Northern heroic spirit:

Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre,
mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað.
Her lið ure ealdor eall forheawen,
god on greote. A mæg gnornian
se ðe nu fram þis wigplegan wendan þenceð.
Ic eom frod feores fram ic ne wille,
ac ic me be healfe minum hlaforde,
be swa leofan men, licgan þence

(Thought must be the harder, heart be the keener,
mind must be the greater, while our strength lessens.
Here lies our prince all hewn,
good one on grit. He may always mourn
who from this war-play thinks now to turn.
My life is old: I will not away;
but I myself beside my lord,
by so loved a man, think to lie.)

Beorhtwald's speech is an expression of heroism; of the intent to keep one's word or do one's duty in the face of insurmountable odds. By contrast, his lord's magnanimity toward the enemy is in direct conflict with his responsibilities to those under his command and protection. Beorhtwald is motivated by loyalty, Beorhtnoth by pride and the pursuit of honour. The poet leaves the reader in no doubt as to which is the more noble motive.

A similar lesson is taught by The Wanderer. At lines 66-73, the poet lays down his criteria for a good warrior:

Wita sceal geþyldig,
ne sceal no to hatheort ne to hrædwyrde,
ne to wac wiga ne to wanhydig,
ne to forht ne to fægen, ne to feohgifre
ne næfre gielpes to georn, ær he geare cunne.

Beorn sceal gebidan, þonne he beot spriceð,
oþþæt collenferð cunne gearwe
hwider hreþra gehygd hweorfan wille.
Ongietan sceal gleaw hæle hu gæstlic bið

(The wise man is patient,
not too hot-hearted, nor too quick tongued,
nor a warrior too weak, nor too foolhardy,
neither frightened nor fain, nor yet too wealth-greedy,
nor ever of boasts too eager, before he knows enough.
A warrior should wait when he speaks a vow,
until, bold in mind, he clearly knows
whither mind's thought after will turn.)

The perfect warrior shows moderation in all virtues. Neither is he a coward, nor does he charge into every situation without thinking. He vows only what he knows that he can achieve, and certainly he is never foolhardy. Ofermod is always deprecatory. As Tolkien points out in his essay on the subject, it is used twice in Anglo-Saxon literature: once of Beorhtnoth and once of Lucifer, and a man motivated by it could only be taking a foolhardy action.

Beowulf teaches much the same lesson. Throughout the poem, we see various acts from the eponymous hero that may be considered chivalrous: he insists upon fighting Grendel with his bare hands; he travels to meet Grendel's mother in her own home, even though it is deep underwater; and as an aging king he travels to face a dragon alone, leaving his loyal retainers behind. On the first two occasions, what Beowulf stakes is simply his own life, so despite being contrary to Hygelac's advice to him on departure, they redound to his credit; but as we see from the conclusion of the epic, when he fights the dragon he stakes the wellbeing of his entire kingdom. Beowulf's funeral pyre is that of his people's fortunes, and again the echo can be heard of the cry of 'ofermod' when Wiglaf says: "Oft sceall eorl monig anes willan wreaec adreogan" ("Often by one man's will many must woe endure"), lending force to Hrothgar's exhortation at lines 1758-68, which advises Beowulf to shun pride in favour of eternal rewards. The clear implication is that a leader has more to consider than his own honour. He has a responsibility to those under his command neither to waste their lives nor his needlessly. Beowulf and Beorhtnoth both leave their people without defence against hostile foes, but each is culpable in different ways. Beorhtnoth sacrifices the lives of those most loyal to him for the sake of pride, whereas for the same reason, Beowulf sacrifices the security of his country. In refusing to allow his retainers to aid him, Beowulf denies them the opportunity to discharge their own responsibilities; and eventually the dragon is killed only because his orders are not universally obeyed. In both cases, acts of bravery are carried too far; in both cases this is disastrous.

We can see the same form of contrast throughout Tolkien's writings, but I will confine myself here to two examples: Húrin and Huor's rearguard action at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad and Eärnur of Gondor's acceptance of single combat with the Witch-king.

In the former case, the men of Dor-lómin, led by Húrin and Huor, fight a doomed action to cover Turgon's withdrawal. This is a necessity if any Elven host is to leave the field intact, and the men of Dor-lómin, by their sacrifice, allow a small hope to be retrieved from the crushing defeat.

But the men of Dor-lómin held the rearguard, as Húrin and Huor desired; for they did not wish in their hearts to leave the Northlands, and if they could not win back to their homes, there they would stand to the end.

The Silmarillion p.194

This last stand is heroic because it is necessary. Someone must cover the retreat of Turgon's army, and by so doing the men of Dor-lómin guarantee the future salvation of the Noldor and Edain. The praise that Tolkien has the Elves heap upon Húrin, including naming him Thalion, the Steadfast, are an indication of how Tolkien himself saw this action. The behaviour of Huor and Húrin is directly analogous to that of Beorhtwald: men prepared to die in the service of a cause because to live in defeat is unthinkable.

By contrast, when King Eärnur accepts a challenge from the Witch-king of Angmar to single combat, his action is entirely unnecessary. When the first challenge arrives on his accession to the throne, he is dissuaded from accepting by the counsel of the steward Mardil, whom Tolkien describes as 'the good Steward'. Mardil quite rightly sees the Morgul Lord as one not to be trusted, and the proposed duel as a trap, but we have already been told that Eärnur's courage outstrips his wisdom. When the Witch-king repeats his challenge, adding fresh insults, the king can be restrained no longer and rides out to face his treacherous enemy, exactly as Beorhtnoth allows his enemies the advantage for the sake of his own honour. His inevitable disappearance raises the spectre of the Kin-Strife and places his country, to which his first loyalty ought to be given, in a state of uncertainty. The incident, from the description of Eärnur's character until his disappearance from the narrative makes it plain that his is a selfish and foolish decision; and if Tolkien wrote an account of the last stand against the treacherous enemy, I have no doubt that it would have borne a striking resemblance to the Maldon fragment. One should never, says Tolkien, allow the desire for honour to stand in the way of one's responsibilities and obligations; and in this he echoes the exhortations to wisdom that the ancient poets directed at their warlike and aristocratic audiences.

It is no coincidence that Tolkien and the authors of the other works I have mentioned above shared a common religious belief in the sinfulness of pride. Morgoth, Sauron and the Witch-king are all excessively proud characters, and in each of them this leads them from wisdom into evil and eventual destruction. In giving himself up to the sins of the Enemy, Eärnur literally places himself at their mercy, as the Maldon poet might have said, for his ofermod. By contrast, in sacrificing themselves in the furtherance of a noble cause, Huor and Húrin become deservedly heroic figures in the legends of the Elder Days. Although pride undoubtedly plays a part in the latter action, it is sufficiently restrained to stop at heroic self-sacrifice without bringing this about needlessly.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth differs markedly from both its Anglo-Saxon forbears and from Tolkien's other writings in that it does not stop at criticising the folly of chivalrous pride in a leader. It goes on to question war itself and therefore the whole basis of the very epic poetry that inspired it. It is no coincidence that the poetry in the piece is spoken by the callow Torhthelm, whose grandiose verses are deflated by the old soldier Tídwald. When Tídwald does use the rhetoric of epic poetry, it is with satirical intent:

No rest for you yet! Were you reckoning on bed?
The best you'll get is the bottom of the cart
With his body for a bolster.

TORHTHELM

You're a brute, Tída.

TÍDWALD
It's only plain language. If a poet sang you:
'I bowed my head on his breast beloved,
and weary of weeping woeful slept I;
thus joined we journeyed, gentle master
and faithful servant, over fen and boulder
to his last resting and love's ending',
you'd not call it cruel. I have cares of my own
in my heart, Totta, and my head's weary.

As such, although it purports to have pretensions towards being in the Anglo-Saxon alliterative tradition, Beorhtnoth is a self-consciously later work. At the end of the piece, Tolkien incudes both rhyme and the Latin dirige, representing the rhyming verse and religious psalmody that were already displacing the Anglo-Saxon epic when The Battle of Maldon was written. The use of Tídwald's world-weary outlook to counteract Torhthelm's high-flown and courtly verse, while echoing the theme of implicit criticism described above, directly and repeatedly satirises the very poetry it imitates. Torhthelm, who has never seen a battle, sees war as a grand pursuit, filled with noble lords and brave heroes. Tídwald, who, like the dead on the field, has seen it at first hand, speaks in a simpler and more heartfelt style, redolent of the knowledge of his subject:

Aye, that's battle for you,
and no worse today than in wars you sing of,
when Fróda fell, and Finn was slain.
The world wept then as it weeps today:
you can hear the tears through the harp's twanging.
Come, bend your back! We must bear away
the cold leavings.

Although the Anglo-Saxon epics are capable of the world-weariness of Tídwald, they do not criticise the act of war itself as an evil better done without. In this sense, The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth is very much a twentieth-century work. It should never be forgotten that Tolkien's ventures into these ancient styles were those of a modern man and not an Anglo-Saxon. He understood the spirit of the age, but not so instinctively as those living at the time would have understood it. By instinct he understood his own age, which has been too deeply scarred by misplaced heroism and chivalry and by the twisting of meaning and motive to write in the style of Beowulf or the Maldon fragment. Although as late as Tennyson the same effect could be achieved, by Tolkien's day war itself was a disaster, and such defeats as Maldon only lesser tragedies within it. By portraying the conflict between the soldier and the poet, both of which roles he had played himself at one time or another, Tolkien at once attempts to resolve a conflict in himself between his love of epic poetry and what he knew of the reality of warfare, and to pay homage to a world in which he saw so much that was admirable. His motives are those of the modern poet and the historical philologist, and markedly so; but Beorhtnoth still stands as an excellent insight into what lies beyond the poetry: the Anglo-Saxon world that remained Tolkien's main professional interest throughout his career.

[Bêthberry]

This has the look to me of a set essay rather than a subject for discussion, but this work of Tolkien's deserves more than any other to be discussed with reference to Anglo-Saxon heroic verse in general, and the Maldon fragment in particular. Perhaps my response will prompt those with more knowledge of the subject to contribute their opinions.

A set essay indeed, Squatter and one I have long and several times perused it in contemplation of how best to extend the discussion. You have with eloquence compiled several facets of Tolkien's thought on Maldon and on heroic narrative.

To my mind, you provide an admirable explication of Tolkien's argument in the third section, "Overmod" to The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, where Tolkien contrasts the selfishness of chivalric sport with true heroism. As an addendum to your evidences from other works I would add a passage from LotR, Faramir's words to Frodo in "The Two Towers" chapter 'The Window on the West' which I think bear quoting here at length. Particularly Faramir?s words answer Joy's question about whether the races were differentiated by the kind and type of heroism each upheld.

'Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us, enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them, and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts. Such is the need of our days.'

I would also agree that Tolkien's Homecoming reflects a modern atttitude towards warfare, perhaps the closest Tolkien comes to the perspectives of war poets such as Sassoon and Wilfrid Owen. The dialogue of Tidwald and Torhthelm reminds me of the antiheroes' speech in Beckett's Waiting for Godot.

By instinct he understood his own age, which has been too deeply scarred by misplaced heroism and chivalry and by the twisting of meaning and motive to write in the style of Beowulf or the Maldon fragment.

Yet if it can be said that The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth reflects a modern disenchantment with the ideal of war, does this temper our understanding of war in LotR? How are we to apply this thought to the War of the Ring where war so clearly is made necessary? And, more especially, if in his "sequel" to Maldon, as you name Homecoming, you see Tolkien choosing not to write in the heroic style of the Old English epics, how are we to characterise the archaic style Tolkien creates for LotR? Does it bifurcate into the contemporary style and manner of the Hobbits and the archaisms of the latter parts of the book?

[davem]

Feeling uncertain about adding anything after Squatter's masterful analysis, I shall still dive in (another example of ofermod?)

There is an interesting essay in the collection 'Tolkien's Legendarium': Turin's ofermod by Richard C West.

West analyses Tolkien's understanding of ofermod, as set out in the Homecoming, in relation to the Turin saga. He points out first of all, though, that Tolkien's interpretation is not universally accepted:

Tolkien's views in this regard have had a decidedly mxed reception from other critics of Maldon & of Beowullf. There are many who argue that this sort of heroic excess was considered highly admirable by the Ango-Saxons & by other medieval peoples both before & long after the time of the poem. this may be typified by the assertion of Ralph WV Elliott that heroes such as Beortnoth 'court disaster magnificently, with their eyse wide open, &, according to their lights, rightly'. Many others feel that Tolkien's close reasoning & his sensitivity both to nuances of language & to aesthetics have provided a very persuasive reading. Some say it is too ppersuasive. TA Shippey, himself an eminent scholar both of the Middle Ages & of Middle earth, rejects Tolkien's reading as 'tendentious & personal to a marked degree', & notes that its wide acceptance is due to 'Professor Tolkien's fatal skill iin rhetoric!'

West, however, goes on to point out that none of that is important for an understanding of Tolkien's 'own ambivalent view of the heroic ethos, & he was free to use it in fiction of his own devising.'

The essay focusses on Tolkien's exploration of ofermod in the Turin saga. To what extent can Turin's suffering be put down to Morgoth's curse, & how much does Turin bring it on himself? 'Can Morgoth's baleful influence penetrate even the Girdle of Melian?' West asks. 'The story of Turin is replete with this musing of Tolkien on the pros & cons of the heroic ethos. A hero's valiant deeds are never without cost even when they also benefit people, & they may not even do that if undertaken rashly & without serious thought' 'The same sort of overmastering pride that Tolkien discerned in Beortnoth consistently overmasters Turin'. 'Turin's story is tolkien's speculation on the limits of heroism, & how the mightiest hero, who achieves feats at which everyone marvels, nevertheless needs humane values.'

The difference between father & son is clearly set out by Squatter's description of Hurin's self sacrifycing stand with his brother. We could also compare Turin's building of the bridge over the Narog, enabling the Elves more easily to make war on Morgoth's forces, with his cousin's construction of an escape tunnel from Gondolin - descretion clearly being, in Tolkien's view, the better part of valour. Who knows, though, how the son would have turned out if not deprived of the father?

But, was Turin's pride entirely a bad thing? Would he have gone to face Glaurung if not driven by his ofermod? How many were spared by his reckless heroics?

Which brings us to the question - was there some part of Tolkien which admired ofermod? Was he perhaps 'protesting too much? Turin comes to a bad end, yes, but he comes there heroically. Even at the last, he will not crawl. The WW1 veteran cannot glory in warfare, because he knows the human cost, yet he never entirely cast aside the original ending of Turambar:

but Turambar indeed shall stand beside Fionwe in the Great Wrack, & Melko & his drakes shall curse the sword of Mormakil

Would a Turin free of ofermod have earned such a place? Did Tolkien retain a sneaking admiration for the reckless hero? Ofermod - he could warn against it, because it is certainly a dangerous thing, but maybe he was enough of an Anglo Saxon not to entirely disapprove of it. His reckless heroes tend to end heroically, making the world a little better, for all their faults. (Boromir springs to mind).

[Kuruharan]

This is a mere technical point to interrupt the flow of this excellent analysis, but Morgoth’s curse is driving me to make it anyway.

But, was Turin's pride entirely a bad thing? Would he have gone to face Glaurung if not driven by his ofermod? How many were spared by his reckless heroics?

I find there to be certain problematic qualities with this.

Even though his excessively heroic actions spared the Haladin (mostly) Turin’s interactions with Glaurung greatly abetted the dragon’s career. Turin’s pride caused him to convince the king that the Narog should be bridged, which allowed Glaurung to lead an army and destroy Nargothrond.

During the sack of the kingdom, Turin’s pride allowed Glaurung to taunt Turin into doing something that can only be called stupid, which also cost many lives.

Many more were lost because of Turin’s reckless heroics than were ultimately spared. If not for Turin, Nargothrond would not have fallen (at least in the way it did) and Brethil would not have been attacked by the dragon (or at least not a dragon in search of Turin).

Even though it did accomplish something useful in the end, I believe that Turin’s heroics were essentially undesirable. Whether or not Tolkien retained any admiration for ofermod I don’t think can be justly determined from the tale of Turin. The problems contained in the tale are too tightly woven together.

Boromir may be a slightly different case. Unlike Turin who (indirectly and over a long period of time) drew Glaurung to him, Boromir died doing something that needed to be done in a situation that was not entirely of his own making. True, he tried to take the Ring from Frodo and his return was what caused the Fellowship to scatter to the four winds. However, the Fellowship might have broken up to look for Frodo. In such a circumstance, Boromir might have died defending Merry and Pippin anyway. I think that Boromir’s death was (to a degree) more noble than Turin’s because Boromir died in a situation that was less of his own making.

[davem]

Kuruhuhuaran I wouldn’t disagree with any of those points regarding Turin’s pride. But Tolkien seems slightly ambivalent as regards ofermod. Clearly, his (concious?/official?) position, is condemnatory, but some of his greatest heroes clearly display ofermod. Feanor,greatest of the Noldor is a prime example of this overweening pride - & would he have achieved as much as he did were he not so supremely self assured?

Turin does bring disaster on others, no doubt, but he is remembered, held up as a hero & elf friend by those in later ages, & he, not one of those ‘others’, will be the one who faces down & defeats Morgoth in the Great Wrack. Turin is, for all his faults, a great hero. He is a tragic hero, not a villain. Much the same could be said of Feanor - for all the disaster he initiates, he is never seen simply as a ‘bad guy’. He is usually referred to as the greatest of the Noldor, Morgoth’s first & most implacable foe.

My point is that Tolkien doesn’t see ofermod as simply a trait of villains - though we do find it in villains - Saruman a prime example. It is also a flaw in some of his greatest heroes, & in their cases it is a tragic flaw, but it is essential to their greatness - they would not be great without it - or not as great. In the essay on Maldon Tolkien never goes so far as to present Beortnoth as a ‘villain’. Beortnoth is a flawed hero, as is Turin, Feanor & Boromir.

In other words, this particular form of pride is not the prerogative of villains. It is not, either, a fluke, a one off event. Turin is the hero he is because of the ofermod which is so much a part of his character. He ‘suffers’ from it from childhood - he is born Lord of Dor Lomin, & all through his childhood he is made aware of this, particularly by his mother. He kills Brodda as much because Brodda is a usurper as because of the offences he has committed against Turin’s family & people. Without his ofermod he would have probably become a slave himself. Whatever Turin achieves in life - & it wasn’t all bad - he brought periods of peace as a result of his actions - was a direct result of his pride & refusal to submit.

So, I submit (your honour ) that Tolkien wasn’t as unambiguous in his condemnation of ofermod as he’d like us to think. It is in the nature of the hero to suffer from this ‘fault’ - especially in the ‘heroic age’ of the Elder Days. It obviously has less place in the Third Age, when lessons have been learned, & wisdom gained. Yet, heroes are heroes, & they are necessary sometimes - for all their faults. Turin is presented as ‘mistaken’, or overconfident, cocky, as much or more so than he is presented as foolish or callous.

[Kuruharan]

I remain unconvinced. I don’t believe that a trait has to be found exclusively in villains in order for it to be condemned. If it is considered a flaw then it has merited some degree of condemnation.

Turin does bring disaster on others, no doubt, but he is remembered, held up as a hero & elf friend by those in later ages

I believe this is true because people like this make such exciting stories. They are not the type of leader that I want to be following or try to exist alongside. The Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” should have a corollary that says something like “May you follow an exciting leader.”

Whatever Turin achieves in life - & it wasn’t all bad - he brought periods of peace as a result of his actions - was a direct result of his pride & refusal to submit.

The periods of peace he brought were only breathing spaces while Morgoth prepared to unleash his bolt. Things always (save for the last act where Turin died) ended up much worse than they had before. His little kingdom around Amon Rhud was destroyed, followed by the much worse destruction of Nargothrond. The poor man was just a military disaster waiting to happen. It was much better to stay away from him.

It is in the nature of the hero to suffer from this ‘fault’ - especially in the ‘heroic age’ of the Elder Days.

But there were heroes who did not behave in such ways as Turin and Feanor. Finrod leaps to mind. Is Finrod less heroic because he did not die because of his overwhelming pride, or is his story somehow less compelling?

Yet, heroes are heroes, & they are necessary sometimes - for all their faults.

Well, yes, constructive heroes are. However, I think that heroes guided by their pride rather than their duty are much more trouble than they are worth. Look at all the suffering that Turin and Feanor unleashed (although I’d accuse Feanor of being a much greater offender in this regard). Beortnoth too (returning to the original topic of discussion) allowed much suffering because of his pride. I’m obviously not an Anglo-Saxon in mentality but I would not want such a man commanding me if I were a soldier or responsible for the defense of part of my land if I were a king. Such a man is downright counterproductive.

Perhaps ambiguity in this issue from Tolkien is a reflection of his understanding of the mentality of the society. They placed a certain value on the creation of a good tale through your life that had value beyond practical results.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I’m obviously not an Anglo-Saxon in mentality but I would not want such a man commanding me if I were a soldier or responsible for the defense of part of my land if I were a king. Such a man is downright counterproductive.

I suppose this is the issue - lets take some 'Anglo-saxons' - the Rohirrim, Faramir's 'middle men', who love the glory of battle. Would they have had such a 'negative' view of Turin's actions? Their behaviour seems to border on the suicidal sometimes, because for them not feeling ashamed in the Halls of their fathers is the central motivating force. Turin forced things - he was a kind of 'wild card' who made things happen. The conflict with Morgoth was not something which could be avoided. It was simply a case of if it doesn't happen now, it'll happen sooner or later. Morgoth was the bad guy, & he wasn't going to stop. Turin's thought, & Feanor's, & Boromir's, was simply if we're going to go down, at least we will go down fighting. Yes, they go down in a blaze of glory, dragging too many unfortunates with them, but in the end the battle is going to come to them.

Lets take a look at Aragorn's 'ofermod' before the Black Gate, when he has just been given 'evidence' of Frodo's capture, the failure of the Quest. Defeat is inevitable, but he has been offered terms of surrender, & life & safety for his people. Does he take it, & 'live to fight another day'? No, he decides he will make a last stand against an overwhelming force, which, after it has destroyed his & his army, will go on & wipe out or enslave the rest of the West.

Ok, that's not as extreme as Turin's actions, but its bordering on them - a 'glorious' defeat, going down fighting, rather than thinking of 'saving' his people he does what Beortnoth does & decides 'better death than dishonour'. And we know that Sauron wouldn't have simply slaughtered all & sundry, because he wanted slaves, not corpses.

These kind of 'rash' actions run right through the Legendarium. Ofermod is a 'bad' thing in Tolkien's mind, dangerous, callous, & he'd prefer a 'civilised', 'Christian' world of universal love & peace, but, by the gods, ofermod can be glorious, it can also inspire succeding generations - who inspires you most, who did most damage to Morgoth, who 'lives on' - Turin's, Feanor's, or 'that elf guy, the tall one with the blue tunic, in Nargothrond' (can't remember his name, or exactly what he did, etc, etc.)? Turin inspires, so does Feanor. And the reason they inspire is due in large part (& whether Tolkien likes it or not) because of their ofermod.

[Kuruharan]

Their behaviour seems to border on the suicidal sometimes, because for them not feeling ashamed in the Halls of their fathers is the central motivating force.

While I agree in a general sense with their desire to feel honored in the halls of their fathers, could you provide some specific instances of suicidal action on their part.

Theoden fought because he had to. He made every effort to salvage as much as he could out of the wreck. This stands in stark contrast to the actions of Feanor and Turin who led their people (or in Turin’s case, several peoples) down the road to ruin.

Yes, they go down in a blaze of glory, dragging too many unfortunates with them, but in the end the battle is going to come to them.

They could have fought in a manner that would have spread less havoc of their own creation to their side. Although, I believe Boromir to be a different case.

Lets take a look at Aragorn's 'ofermod' before the Black Gate, when he has just been given 'evidence' of Frodo's capture, the failure of the Quest. Defeat is inevitable, but he has been offered terms of surrender, & life & safety for his people. Does he take it, & 'live to fight another day'? No, he decides he will make a last stand against an overwhelming force, which, after it has destroyed his & his army, will go on & wipe out or enslave the rest of the West.

Ah, well, this is a different case. Aragorn and Company were there for a specific reason to do exactly as they did. Pride did not drive them there as much as necessity. Something needed to distract the Eye. Fighting him on his doorstep was the best means of keeping his attention away from the inside of his house. Feanor and Turin put people in bad spots that it was not necessary for them to be in.

he does what Beortnoth does & decides 'better death than dishonour'. And we know that Sauron wouldn't have simply slaughtered all & sundry, because he wanted slaves, not corpses.

He does not do what Beorhtnoth does because Beorhtnoth could have achieved a decisive victory by force of arms through fighting like a sensible general. Aragorn could not win by force of arms. He was endeavoring to do his part in a plan to defeat Sauron in which arms were a distraction away from the real issue.

And Sauron would have killed every member of the army. There were plenty of slaves in the Western lands to take and he’d want to set an example.

Turin inspires, so does Feanor. And the reason they inspire is due in large part (& whether Tolkien likes it or not) because of their ofermod.

While this is true to an extent, it would be better to have heroes to inspire future generations to act in a temperate manner. These sorts of heroes have a way of coming to bad ends and taking a lot of people with them.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

While I agree in a general sense with their desire to feel honored in the halls of their fathers, could you provide some specific instances of suicidal action on their part.

Eowyn.

Ok. Take Eomer's reaction at finding Theoden & Eowyn on the field - Death, Death, Death, Death take us all. And all the Riders take up the cry. Rohan's is a 'death &/or glory' culture, very like that if the dwarves. Their concern is less with living a happy, peaceful life, as going down doing something heroic & having a song written about it.

Aragorn and Company were there for a specific reason to do exactly as they did. Pride did not drive them there as much as necessity. Something needed to distract the Eye. Fighting him on his doorstep was the best means of keeping his attention away from the inside of his house.

Well, that's why they went there, but once they've seen Frodo's gear, & are facing (apparently) inevitable defeat, they decide to stand & fight anyway, rather than either surrender, & live to fight another day, or stage a tactical retreat, regroup, & make an organised assault on Sauron later. Aragorn decides to throw away his own life & the lives of his major allies - Eomer & Gandalf.

He does not do what Beorhtnoth does because Beorhtnoth could have achieved a decisive victory by force of arms through fighting like a sensible general. Aragorn could not win by force of arms. He was endeavoring to do his part in a plan to defeat Sauron in which arms were a distraction away from the real issue.

But Anglo-saxon generals weren't 'sensible'. It was about more than simply winning, it was about winning honourably. Beortnoth believed, & so did his people, that a victory gained dishonourably was a moral defeat, & that it was better to go down fighting & win the moral victory. Turin wins a 'moral' victory over Morgoth in that sense, as does Feanor - they never choose the 'sensible' option if that means letting the enemy win even a small victory. Viewed from our, 'sensible' 21st century position, their actions seem gross & ridiculous, as well as callous in their disregard of others. But lets not forget that no-body has to go along with them. Something in them, in their ofermod is darkly attractive - something in all of us has felt that way at some point - 'I know its stupid, I know I'm going to suffer for it in the end - its not 'sensible', but I'm just not going to take this **** from that ***** any longer!'

While this is true to an extent, it would be better to have heroes to inspire future generations to act in a temperate manner. These sorts of heroes have a way of coming to bad ends and taking a lot of people with them.

Yes, but unfortunately, we're humans, & temperate manners don't inspire us -
Tolkien quotes Chesterton in the Fairy Stories esssay - something along the lines of Children like fairy stories where the villain is put to death, or suffers some horrible fate, whereas we adults feel uncomfortable with those outcomes. Chesterton says its because Children are innocent & prefer justice, while we adults are wicked & therefore prefer mercy.

Turin & Feanor simply never give in, & if they have a choice of losing the battle but winning the moral victory or winning the battle 'sensibly' but losing the moral victory, they'll choose the former, because its not just about who's standing at the end of the fight. Its about never crawling, never begging, never giving your enemie a moment's peace, & never letting him forget you - you're the thorn in his side. You're going to stand & fight honourably, so that in the end if you do win, you can say I won by right, not by cunning, or because I had the advantage of the higher ground. You thereby deprive your enemy of any excuse. He, & everyone else, will know you won because you were a true warrior, & the best one on the day.

[Saraphim]

Several of you have mentioned Feanor, and his own pride and burning desire to never surrender, even in the face of certain death.

But what about his half-brother? Fingolfin, becoming so fed-up (for lack of a better term) with evil, and having lost most of his people in the Battle of Sudden Flame, an act that was unexpected and the opposite of chivalrous, decided to march (alone, mind you) straight to Angband to do single combat with Morgoth.

Fingolfin no doubt knew the odds that were stacked against him. He must have known that the Valar had all, at one point or another, fought Morgoth, and only just managed to hold him captive.

Any way you look at this, it is a suicidal mission. A single elf going against the most powerful creature in Arda.

And yet he went.

I don't think this is chivalry. I don't think this follows what some of you have said about the quest for glory, even though by that act Fingolfin won about as much honor as could be won. This was heroism, but it was also a sense of protection.

Fingolfin went, knowing he would most likely not come back alive. He went in the hope that somehow, he would save his people, who had already done so much for him by following him out of Valinor and into an uncertain fate.

I think the tale of Fingolfin is much better told in poetic for, as in The Lays of Beleriand than in the paragraph form of the Sil.

This could be something right out of Beowulf:

...He was crushed, but not conquered yet...

When Morgoth's foot came crashing down, Fingolfin knew he was going to die. But in a last attempt, he took up his sword and gave his foe a limp for the rest of his life on Middle-Earth.

It was this, and the seven scars that the elven-king left as well, that Morgoth would remember. Fingolfin had died, but there were more out there with the same courage, and Morgoth would remember that.

In conclusion, Fingolfin was full of ofermod, and his actions had good effects, and did not harm anyone else but him.

[Kuruharan]

Rohan's is a 'death &/or glory' culture, very like that if the dwarves.

I beg your pardon?

Eowyn (Eomer) and Fingolfin

I’m going to deal with both of these at once because they are rather similar in my mind (sort of).

Eomer reacted in a passion during a period of intense stress. Such things are a natural part of combat. This in no way indicates that Rohan had a cultural policy of foolhardy battle-mania wildly driven on by unchecked pride. As I noted above, Theoden (who died in a way befitting a hero of that mode) never displayed that type of behavior. If he had he would have bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest

In conclusion, Fingolfin was full of ofermod, and his actions had good effects, and did not harm anyone else but him.

Fingolfin just sort of snapped. After the crushing defeat in the Battle of Sudden Flame, he just went a little funny in the head. Note the words “a great madness of rage was upon him.” I don’t believe that chivalry or pride had much to do with what happened. He just went crazy.

Anglo-Saxons

But Anglo-saxon generals weren't 'sensible'. It was about more than simply winning, it was about winning honourably. Beortnoth believed, & so did his people, that a victory gained dishonourably was a moral defeat, & that it was better to go down fighting & win the moral victory.

If I wanted to be flip I would suggest there to be a strong correlation between this and the reason why they ultimately fell (or, in fact, fell several times). However, I have too strong a sense of history. The Anglo-Saxons were not as simple as that and they were not lacking in an appreciation of practical results as compared to moral victories, in spite of what their literature could lead one to think.

While this is probably not the place to discuss this at length, but just to provide a few instances:

King Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge caught King Harald Hardrada with his pants down (or more accurately, with his chain mail off) and Harold singularly failed to do the honorable thing and allow the Norse to retire to the other side of the bridge, bring up reinforcements, and get their armor on before he pounced upon them.

King Alfred at the Battle of Edington not only sensibly snuck up on the enemy at dawn, but he seized the high ground and attacked the Vikings by charging down the hill to give his men the best advantage. That doesn’t sound terribly sporting to me.

in their ofermod is darkly attractive

Perhaps these types of characters are best used to inspire people when they need to do something that must be done that (hopefully) cannot be avoided or dealt with in a better way. Perhaps it can even be used when the people in question are actually operating from an advantage.

Aragorn and Company

& live to fight another day, or stage a tactical retreat, regroup, & make an organised assault on Sauron later. Aragorn decides to throw away his own life & the lives of his major allies - Eomer & Gandalf.

They could not retreat. They would easily be overtaken and surrounded. Once they were there they had little choice but to continue their little diversion on to the end. They would all have been killed anyway, in very unpleasant ways if they had surrendered.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Perhaps these types of characters are best used to inspire people when they need to do something that must be done that (hopefully) cannot be avoided or dealt with in a better way. Perhaps it can even be used when the people in question are actually operating from an advantage.

And that's it - the 'evolutionary advantage' if you like. Putting aside their actual behaviour & focussing on their literature, we have to say that the AngloSaxons held ofermod in higher esteem than the kind of 'cunning', logical behaviour in the examples you gave of actual battles. I'm not sure if there are songs or poems about Harold's or Alfred's exploits, but I suspect if there were they would depict them as displaying reckless courage over tactical cunning.

Eomer reacted in a passion during a period of intense stress. Such things are a natural part of combat. This in no way indicates that Rohan had a cultural policy of foolhardy battle-mania wildly driven on by unchecked pride. As I noted above, Theoden (who died in a way befitting a hero of that mode) never displayed that type of behavior. If he had he would have bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest

Well, I suspect that if Theoden had 'bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest' (& won) he would have been held in even higher esteem than he was, & if his forces had been totalled by Druadan ambush in the forest, he would have been condemned for his 'cowardice' in refusing battle on the road.

But I can only cite Faramir's words to Frodo (don't have the quote to hand) about the Rohirrim being 'middle men' who held feats of arms & martial glory as things to be admired, & how even the Gondorians esteemed such things above music & lore.

Once they were there they had little choice but to continue their little diversion on to the end. They would all have been killed anyway, in very unpleasant ways if they had surrendered.

I don't see this - Sauron had offered them terms of surrender - he wanted control, he wanted slaves, & he wanted that as quickly & easily as possible. I think if they had surrendered he would have accepted that, if for no other reason than that if he had taken their surender & then slaughtered them then everyone else in the west would have fought to the death, & it could have taken his years to achieve victory - indeed, it would have increased his chances of ultimate defeat - even with the Ring we can't be sure that he could hold back the whole of the people of the West, if they were certain that he would slaughter them if they surrendered.

[Bêthberry]

But I can only cite Faramir's words to Frodo (don't have the quote to hand) about the Rohirrim being 'middle men' who held feats of arms & martial glory as things to be admired, & how even the Gondorians esteemed such things above music & lore.

Perhaps if you scrolled back up to post #3, davem, you would see that the quote is at hand.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Perhaps if you scrolled back up to post #3, davem, you would see that the quote is at hand.

Erm, yeah

My only excuse is that I was posting before rushing off into work & didn't have time to check board or books.

As an aside, has anyone checked whch are the most often quoted sections of LotR on the Downs? Or have we got most of the book here, scattered across the various threads?

[Kuruharan]

This has become a pretty broad thread.

I'm not sure if there are songs or poems about Harold's or Alfred's exploits, but I suspect if there were they would depict them as displaying reckless courage over tactical cunning.

I’m sure there are. I am tragically unfamiliar with them, or at least I’ve forgotten reading about them. I know that Alfred’s story in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (an account which he was so thoughtful to sponsor for us) portrayed it as being more of a rags-to-riches story more than anything else.

Harold’s victory at Stamford Bridge is so overshadowed by his defeat at Hastings that perhaps not as much attention was paid to it by the English. There is a saga about the death of the Norwegian Harald. That one is certainly steeped in the traditional heroic mode, although (as usual) over the course of his life Harald did a number of things that according to that mode were decidedly unheroic.

Anyway…

Well, I suspect that if Theoden had 'bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest' (& won) he would have been held in even higher esteem than he was, & if his forces had been totalled by Druadan ambush in the forest, he would have been condemned for his 'cowardice' in refusing battle on the road.

Possibly no and probably yes. (Confusing enough?)

If he had defeated the army on the road his own force would have been in such shambles as to be no use in relieving the siege of Minas Tirith. Theoden clearly possessed a strong sense of purpose in what it was he was trying to do and what was needed in the situation.

Yes, if he’d been ambushed and wiped out to the last man in the woods it would not have been good.

I don't see this - Sauron had offered them terms of surrender - he wanted control, he wanted slaves, & he wanted that as quickly & easily as possible.

Sauron was a pathological liar. Note the bit about “faithless and accursed.” Under no circumstances could the leadership of his enemies be allowed to escape or live. They could be the source of much trouble later. If I’d been Sauron I would certainly have killed them as quickly as possible. And why spare the army when a tremendous massacre could be used to inspire terror. I’d almost have rather that they fought so that I could give them a good trouncing and cripple the morale of the survivors on the other side of the river. Remember these were his enemies in arms that had marched right up to his gate.

Double Anyway…

Perhaps something about the appeal of ofermod is it attempts to provide comfort for the loss of family and friends. It is perhaps easier to accept if they died in a Thermopylaesque bout of over-heroics rather than as a result of “dear old Beorhtnoth was an overheated twit who did not understand his business.”

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Sauron was a pathological liar. Note the bit about “faithless and accursed.” Under no circumstances could the leadership of his enemies be allowed to escape or live. They could be the source of much trouble later. If I’d been Sauron I would certainly have killed them as quickly as possible. And why spare the army when a tremendous massacre could be used to inspire terror. I’d almost have rather that they fought so that I could give them a good trouncing and cripple the morale of the survivors on the other side of the river. Remember these were his enemies in arms that had marched right up to his gate.

Right, I'm going to go off at a tangent here:

The question I'd ask is, whether massacring a surrendered army would inspire terror or desperation. I don't think Sauron would want to create a situation where his enemies felt they had nothing to lose, & would be slaughtered anyway. That would make them desperate, & they'd fight to the death.

The question that underlies this is how powerful Sauron would become with the Ring back in his posession. Would he become effectively God on earth, able to manipulate reality, cause his enemies to blink out of existence, etc - would it be absolute power, or would he simply become far stronger than anyone else, so that victory over him became virtually impossible. If he put all his enemies into a position where they felt they would die anyway, whatever they did, would he be sowing the seeds of his own ultimate defeat? I suppose this depends on the size of the population.

Perhaps it was a more complex matter - Sauron knew (or feared) that the Valar would intervene if he embarked on mass slaughter - would they stand back & allow the Eruhini to be obliterated? - if he was to achieve total victory his only chance would be to enslave the Children through getting their surrender, effectively being able to claim that they 'chose' him as their leader. This would put him in a position of danger, admittedly, as living enemies are potentially dangerous, but they would be more manageable than the Valar arising in their wrath against him. The Valar's role is to protect the Children, so they could not allow their wholesale slaughter, but they cannot intervene as dictators, so if they (the Children) surrendered & accepted Sauron's rule, the Valar would be in a difficult position, as overthrowing Sauron then would be interfering & 'imposing' their decision on the Children. If the Valar had intervened in this way & forced their will on Middle earth, to what extent would they be driven by pride, ofermod, in that assaulting Sauron, with the Ring in his posession, could have been as devastating in its results as the Assault on Morgoth. It seems to me that the only way Sauron could achieve his goal of domination of Middle earth, without risking his own destruction, would have been to accept the surrender of his enemies, & basically hold to what he'd offered the Captains - at least at first.

[Kuruharan]

The question I'd ask is, whether massacring a surrendered army would inspire terror or desperation.

Ah, and a question of long standing it is too. It puts me in mind of the Mytilenian Debate in Thucydides.

I don't think Sauron would want to create a situation where his enemies felt they had nothing to lose, & would be slaughtered anyway. That would make them desperate, & they'd fight to the death.

Possibly. But it might also reduce his enemies to mindless gibbering wretches. Both have happened.

Would he become effectively God on earth, able to manipulate reality, cause his enemies to blink out of existence, etc - would it be absolute power, or would he simply become far stronger than anyone else, so that victory over him became virtually impossible.

I tend toward the latter. I think that Sauron’s reality bending days were behind him. That being said, if he regained the Ring nothing short of divine intervention was going to unseat him.

Perhaps it was a more complex matter - Sauron knew (or feared) that the Valar would intervene if he embarked on mass slaughter - would they stand back & allow the Eruhini to be obliterated?

I never meant to imply that he would massacre all the non-orcs in the world. He had obviously not done so in the lands he already ruled (although, one would likely find precious few Elves there). I did mean to imply that he would massacre every member of the Army of the West that had the impudence to knock on his door.

Hopefully, that clarifies my position on that matter a little.

Rereading the final paragraph of my last post I came to the startling realization that I had laughably failed to make my intended point but had instead said something completely inane.

What I intended to say was that tales of ofermod can be used in such a way. Ofermod itself can generally only be used to cause the loss of said relatives.

I hope that clarifies as well.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I hope that clarifies as well.

It does. I think I veer too much towards the 'poetic' side of things - I agree that, from the practical pov you are correct. Ofermod is too dangerous & destructive to be allowed out into the 'primary' world - especially these days. It belongs in the world of poetry & legend, & that's the source of too many things that we wouldn't want straying into the waking world. Didn't someone once remark that 'even Gollum would be good in a story' - but you wouldn't want to run into him down a dark alley!

Its an odd thing though, that like Dragons, we love to enter into the legendary world but would be terrified if its inhabitants strayed into ours. Even our maddest dreams can seem logical, fascinating, places - while we're dreaming. Its only when we awaken that we step back, analyse them & realise their craziness. To carry over a point I made in the 'Old Forest' thread, we're not Frodos, who seem to have strayed into this world by accident, & only really belong in the Dreamtime - we're Sam's, who love the dreamworld, & happily, even eagerly, stray into it, but know how to keep it in its place, & can avoid being overwhelmed by its 'glamour'.

So, I suppose we can all admire ofermod, like dragons & elves & wizards, as long as they stay in their own world. Ofermod in this world would, & has, caused as much devastation as a troop of dragons would. It belongs in the world of heroes, where we can (at least secretly) admire it.

[Joy]

Thank you all for your comments here.

I had to leave again due to health shortly after making this post. I am going to have to go back and throughly re-read all these posts.

You all have given some wonderful information for me to sort through.