Power to the People

[Bêthberry]

I'm going to put this comparison here in Books, as I think it pertains best to Tolkien's and Lewis' books, but if Esty thinks it belongs better in movies, why, I'm sure she will wave her magic wand and we shall find ourselves in the popcorn gallery rather than in the coffee house.

One of the points which I think we Downers have come to repeatedly in terms of Tolkien's work is his sympathetic stance with anarchism and his fervent horror of statism; for all his conservatism, his attitude towards authority is not absolute. After all, the error of Saruman is his desire for power over others. The implied reunification of the kingdoms suggests more a diplomatic association rather than an empire from sea--Nurnen and Rhûn--to sea--Belegaer. The Shire has considerably autonomy. And what little we see of Elessar the King suggests he is anything but an absolute monarch.

Can we say the same of Lewis' work? I recently saw an article which made the claim that Narnia is a horrible movie because "the reward for heroic behaviour is getting to have political power over others." Now, is this sour grapes? A fair statement to make of Lewis' work?

Is there a significant difference between these two Inklings here in terms of their stance towards authority?

And since it's been ages since I read Lewis, I will gladly leave the floor to those of you more read and more recently read in Narnia.

[the guy who be short]

Are you limiting this to a comparison strictly between Narnia and Gondor, or a wider comparison of Lewis and Tolkien? Just thought I'd ask...

[Bêthberry]

Far be it from me to limit discussion in such a controlling way, tgwbs. I think both might be kind of interesting, although personally I might be more intrigued by the wider one.

[the guy who be short]

In that case, I will actually need to read some non-Narnian Lewis. It'll be interesting to see if anybody here has read Out of the Silent Planet or anything else.

As for Narnia; I'm not really sure a direct comparison can be made between Narnia and Midde-Earth. The former was aimed specifically at younger children, the latter at, to generalise a little, the oddballs in society.

But more importantly than that is the religious message behind Narnia. Narnia is accepted as a rewriting of the Bible, more or less. That makes Peter and co. divinely appointed rulers rather than dictators. And - though Medieval kings may have claimed this - the difference here is that the children were appointed as rulers directly by Aslan. Their rule is a theocratic one.

However, they are benevolent dictators. In this respect, Lewis doesn't differ from Tolkien. As Elessar rules in name but gives regions a lot of autonomy, so the Children rule in name but, I presume, let the inhabitants of Narnia go about their business. Certainly we see no Big Government, whether dictatorial or communistic, but an appreciation of individuality.

So, by my method of rambling about the first thing to come to mind, I have determined that their political views were more or less that same. Which means the difference is not in terms of political outlook or stance on authority, but in rewards.

[Formendacil]

I haven't read the article you refer to, regarding the Narnian monarchy, but the author of it seems (willfully or otherwise) ignorant of a very major fact of the Narnian monarchy: that it was MEANT to be held by Children of Adam (humans), and that the children of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are the first humans in Narnia in over a hundred years.

Now, to the modern political correctness, it might seem wrong that the throne can only be held by humans, when Narnia is largely populated by mythological creatures or by talking beasts. However, becoming Kings and Queens of Narnia after the fall of the White Witch, isn't so much a reward for the Pevensie children as it is the fulfillment of their role in Narnia.

That said, I DO agree that there is a major difference that to be seen between the absolute monarchy of Narnia and the more "constitutional" monarchy of Greater Gondor. But whether or not this a good thing, or bad, I am not qualified to say...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

It will take some thought to make a more reasoned
analysis. off hand, the various aspects of Narnia
(rulership?) seem to be, as noted above, variants
of benevolent dictatorship--- with apparently no
noted dissension or rebellions. Middle-earth,
or the other hand, is interestingly varied, and more
in tune with the history of humanity. You do have
non-regal societies (Laketown, and the Shire)
and even more interesting, M-e peoples get
dissatisfied for various reasons and seek to change
their governmental organizations. And even Gondor after
the War of the Ring requires at least a pro forma
ratification of Strider's kingship. Much of the cause of
strife in Middle-earth, indeed, seems to come from
human restlessness and interest in change
(often just for the sake of change, even Numenor
not being exempt).

[Son of Númenor]

One thing that's always fascinated me about Tolkien is, to put it crudely, his politics.

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. Letters, 51

We see, roughly, an example of enlightened 'Anarchy' in Rivendell, and King Elessar's realm is nothing if not the model for Tolkien's ideal monarchy. What I find interesting is the vast chasm between Tolkien's political and social views and the reality of his (and our) time. The idea of self-sustaining anarchy in the time of WWII would have been laughable, and monarchy in any form was rapidly becoming archaic. Tolkien, I think, spurned 'practical' politics altogether, in the sense that his confessed "political opinions", as well as his almost regressive (not necessarily in a negative sense of the word, mind you) social ideals, seem divorced from the reality of the time . Tolkien, it seems to me, lived in the political idyll of his mind--and, to an extent, of Middle-earth.

These thoughts are cursory at best. I do not claim to have great insight into the subtlety of Tolkien's values. And I have said nothing of C.S. Lewis, who I am far less familiar with; I will leave it to others to comment on his beliefs.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien always seems somewhat politically confused to me. I always explain it away to myself by comparing his views to those of a lot of the traditionally middle-class English people, as opposed to liberal, Guardian reading middle class people. They like tradition, and approve of monarchy, just so long as they can have 'their say'. Structures such as the police are important, but the state is not always looked upon that fondly, usually where it interferes in freedom of choice and taxes!

However, we cannot assume Tolkien's views. He may have believed something entirely different. This idea of his about 'anarchy' still intrigues me. Tolkien clearly has no time for those who desire to rule. I get the impression that power and authority are something of a burden in Middle-earth, a duty which must be borne as well as possible. In that respect, party politics must have been something he disliked - in all ages party politics has been a cut-throat business concerned with getting power.

I think I'll wait and see what pans out from this, it looks interesting.

[Nogrod]

I'm not sure, if I'm just too easy-going with this one - all you Tolkien-connoisseurs', beat me up for a cause.

But wasn't Tolkien just a child of his time (and the understandable follow-up of his child- & adulthood - as we all are ours')? He seems to have ideas about a good community / society in line with all the basic insights of the romantic / utopian western world, from Plato and More onwards (- even clinging to Lenin?), combined with the kind of chivalric notion of a noble leader. You know, "noblesse oblige"? There are those who are more worthy, and those who are not, and the first ones should reign over the latter.

So the society is not democratic, but aristocratic (being greek, and meaning, the power of the best ones), and the romantic side of it comes from thinking, that there is a justified leader, who is pure at heart, and wise etc., eg. could take the position that is given to him at right (acknowledge the pronoun, him - it surely would not have been "her" for Tolkien!).

So, why is Aragorn the right & real heir to the throne? Because of his lineage, and because of his deeds. So we have taken one step forwards from a primitive (?) heritage-ruler -system. We combine the birth and the actions, the virtues, to a mix. So we combine the old-world heriditiary system with greek / roman virtue-ethics. As the famous sociologist, Max Weber, would have said, we combine the traditional power with charismatic power. What we come up with? The romantic hero of the 19th. century, the one that Wagner was calling for? The pure, the brave, the hero of a nation (nation itself being an idea deliberately formed by the 16th. century warlords to fight over the church, and to be called kings after that: compare to Afghan warlords of today!)?

Tolkien surely was conservative enough, not to have liked very much of democracy.

= Lalwendë
Tolkien always seems somewhat politically confused to me. I always explain it away to myself by comparing his views to those of a lot of the traditionally middle-class English people, as opposed to liberal, Guardian reading middle class people. They like tradition, and approve of monarchy, just so long as they can have 'their say'. Structures such as the police are important, but the state is not always looked upon that fondly, usually where it interferes in freedom of choice and taxes!

You seem to be at the roots of the so called basic "political-conservatism"! I don't think there is anything confusing about that. Political conservatism is propably best described in that famous phrase (at least in Finland): "home, country & religion". Now liberalism (f.ex. economical liberalism with its global markets) do not fit very well with that one. It's a new reality with money without a "fatherland", and leading to traditions needing to meet other traditions, with equal claims to be the "original ones" (bye-bye for the conservative dream of being "the only one that counts"). That sure would be a nightmare for Tolkien, and his world.

Could Tolkien stand a democratic society? Propably he wouldn't like it. (and who would like a society where Beck's & Posh are the most noteworthy people around?)

PS. Sorry, if this went too political. It was not my meaning - undestanding this is a non-political site. But this thread really calls for some "taking sides". If any-one of you find this aggressive, I'll promise to be easier with this kind of topics after this one....

[littlemanpoet]

Maybe I'm being merely naive here, but aren't Lewis's and Tolkien's writings, er, stories of mythic scope? Don't mythic stories usually contain such archetypes as kings and queens? Can we really garner anything at all regarding their personal politics from stories they've written that necessarily reward (most of) their heroes with rulership? Just thought I'd ask.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Elempí

Maybe I'm being merely naive here, but aren't Lewis's and Tolkien's writings, er, stories of mythic scope? Don't mythic stories usually contain such archetypes as kings and queens? Can we really garner anything at all regarding their personal politics from stories they've written that necessarily reward (most of) their heroes with rulership? Just thought I'd ask.

When you write, you write what you feel. It's notable that all of Tolkien's absolute leaders - Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman - fell on the side of evil.

Tolkien's positive monarchies and leaderships - From Elessar down to the Thain of the Tooks - assumed the form of benevolent dictators respecting individualism. This is evident in the Mayorship of the Shire - a leader with no actual duties. Likewise, the Thain of the Tooks and the Master of Buckland exerted no real authority. Elessar, at the top of the ladder, felt no desire to force his rule onto others nor for domination; one sees the Shire given autonomy, peace with Harad, etc.

So, while there may be archetypical monarchs, they aren't typical in any other way.


As for Narnia's monarchs, I contest the view that they were any more absolutist than Tolkien's Thain Peregrin or Master Meriadoc. Both worlds offer benevolent dictatorships.


Now to answer the question of hereditary rule. I don't think Tolkien at all endorses it. Over and again, we see hereditary rule fail, from King Earnur to Gondor to Denethor to the warring kingdoms of Arnor. Tolkien did not make a blanket statement: Hereditary monarchy is good.

On the contrary, we can see Tolkien's view that monarchy or leadership has to be proved. Elessar had to prove himself to the world before he could both become King and marry Arwen. The earlier claim of his answer to Kingship of Gondor was rejected because he had done nothing to deserve it. Merry, Pippin and Sam proved themselves worthy of the limited rulership that existed in Middle-Earth.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

When you write, you write what you feel. It's notable that all of Tolkien's absolute leaders - Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman - fell on the side of evil.

Fair enough; we can obviously discuss political rule as LotR bears applicability to our own experience. We really can say no more regarding Tolkien's personal views than that.

Tolkien's positive monarchies and leaderships - From Elessar down to the Thain of the Tooks - assumed the form of benevolent dictators respecting individualism.

I realize that you're using an umbrella term by calling all of them benevolent dictators, but it's a mis-construction, my dear guy who no longer be so short. You lead into the differences later in your post. There are two types in the Shire: Sam as Mayor, and Pippin and Merry as hereditary earls. But hereditary earls are not dictators; they were answerable to their overlords, and also answerable to their Councils or Things (Nordic word for council).

This is evident in the Mayorship of the Shire - a leader with no actual duties.

It should be understood that there are two types of leadership responsibilities: those of Head of State, and those of Policy Decision-maker. As with the current British royalty, the Mayorship of the Shire is head of state; that is, figure-head, responsibility lying exclusively in the realm of ceremony.

Likewise, the Thain of the Tooks and the Master of Buckland exerted no real authority.

Not so. They exerted the authority of head of their respective families. Whereas this authority did not carry beyond their extended families per sé, the respect for them held by those not directly related, translated into the authority of reputation, a powerful thing in itself in more loosely governed communities such as the Shire.

[Aiwendil]

This is evident in the Mayorship of the Shire - a leader with no actual duties.

Where do you find it stated that the mayor of the shire has no actual duties?

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Friend of the birds

Where do you find it stated that the mayor of the shire has no actual duties?

In the prologue.

Originally Posted by Tollers

The only real official in the Shire at this date was the Mayor of Michel Delving (or of the Shire), who was elected every seven years at the Free Fair on the White Downs at the Lithe, that is at Midsummer. As mayor almost his only duty was to preside at banquets, given on the Shire-holidays, which occurred at frequent intervals. But the offices of Postmaster and First Shirriff were attached to the mayoralty, so that he managed both the Messenger Service and the Watch. These were the only Shire-services, and the Messengers were the most numerous, and much the busier of the two. By no means all Hobbits were lettered, but those who were wrote constantly to all their friends (and a selection of their relations) who lived further off than an afternoon's walk.

His administritive duties came down to "General Supervisor."

Originally Posted by LMP

It should be understood that there are two types of leadership responsibilities: those of Head of State, and those of Policy Decision-maker. As with the current British royalty, the Mayorship of the Shire is head of state; that is, figure-head, responsibility lying exclusively in the realm of ceremony.

But if we are to accept this as true, then who is the Policy Decision-maker? I hold that the Shire has none, not having a central government or any real governmental structure. So that the Mayor does indeed become the Decision-maker as well as the Figurehead. Except he has no real decisions to make, unless there are two conflicting banquets...

Originally Posted by LMP

Not so. They exerted the authority of head of their respective families. Whereas this authority did not carry beyond their extended families per sé, the respect for them held by those not directly related, translated into the authority of reputation, a powerful thing in itself in more loosely governed communities such as the Shire.

Hmm. You have a point there - they had respect. But I wouldn't muddle that with authority. Save for being the head of a rather large household, neither of them could really be comparable to a governmental position such as Prime Minister, could they? To be succinct, they didn't do anything.

[Lalwendë]

The only real official in the Shire at this date was the Mayor of Michel Delving (or of the Shire), who was elected every seven years at the Free Fair on the White Downs at the Lithe, that is at Midsummer. As mayor almost his only duty was to preside at banquets, given on the Shire-holidays, which occurred at frequent intervals. But the offices of Postmaster and First Shirriff were attached to the mayoralty, so that he managed both the Messenger Service and the Watch. These were the only Shire-services, and the Messengers were the most numerous, and much the busier of the two. By no means all Hobbits were lettered, but those who were wrote constantly to all their friends (and a selection of their relations) who lived further off than an afternoon's walk.

This is interesting, as there is clearly a system of sorts in The Shire, and there are clearly some services to be paid for, i.e. post and policing. But how are these paid for? There is clearly no taxation system, as there are no tax collectors as far as we know (or there would also be a civil service for the mayor to oversee). So those who work for the Postmaster and First Shirriff must do so voluntarily.

In a state where anarchy is the political system used, then people would have to collectively share responsibilities to do the things they wanted to see done. This seems to be what is happening in The Shire.

Even so, it is clearly not a perfect system as there are 'unlettered' Hobbits.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Can we say the same of Lewis' work? I recently saw an article which made the claim that Narnia is a horrible movie because "the reward for heroic behaviour is getting to have political power over others." Now, is this sour grapes? A fair statement to make of Lewis' work?

Good thing the article particularly said movie, because otherwise all I need to say is "Eustace Scrubb and Jill Pole" and the whole thing crumbles down.

[Bêthberry]

(I had a good laugh over Sono's "Che" R R Tolkien!)

Well, I think I finally have some time to catch up on the very interesting ideas people are putting forth here. Very interesting to see all these posts here! Who says we've already talked about everything there is in Tolkien?

It is intriguing to see the term 'theocracy' brought out here, as at least in the US there is a very strong tradition of separation of church and state. This is a very different idea from that in England, where the monarch is 'defender of the faith', meaning Church of England Anglican. (I think I read somewhere that HRH the Next In Line wants that changed to 'defender of faith' to make it somewhat more inclusive.) Now, LotR does not include direct mention of religion nor of Eru. So how does Aragorn become a divine right king--if he does.

It is possible that the differences between Narnia and LotR do arise from the author's different sense of their audience. I don't think we've ever seen a discussion on who Tolkien thought his audience might be--even if it was simply himself or fellow Inklings.

lmp, I think it is possible to consider politics and power in myth. I remember reading the Greek pantheon as a preteen and being amazed at how much squabbling and fighting the Greek deities engaged in and how control and authority were such an issue. And then reading the Norse myths and having the sense that everything up there was so much more, how to put it, anarchic? Well, maybe that is the wrong word. They just had a different feel to me about authority. And I don't know if I would have this same sense now. Isn't it possible for different cultures to produce different mythologies?

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

Much of the cause of
strife in Middle-earth, indeed, seems to come from
human restlessness and interest in change
(often just for the sake of change, even Numenor
not being exempt).

Now this point about change I think is fascinating! Thanks for bringing it up, Tuor. Isn't it true that a belief in the absolute value of things produces a sense that there is an ideal, finished or final state of perfection? This seems to me to be the image of Narnia--one answer, one authority, one way. (I'm talking only about LWW and the movie now, my dear Lhuna.) Yet here is Tolkien, with his profound Catholic faith, producing a world full of change and even insisting upon the recognition of that change. Flux rather than finality. How does he do that?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

And a brief note here about "change",
specifically a comment about Tolkien concerning his
abortive Fourth Age story, which may have
subconsciously effected my comment, I believe
he opines that the very fact of Elessar's peace
caused restlessness among Gondor's youth,
leading them to play games featuring orcs
and the cult that he was going to use as
the chief problem and cause of strife in
his story set in the early Fourth Age.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

But if we are to accept this as true, then who is the Policy Decision-maker? I hold that the Shire has none, not having a central government or any real governmental structure. So that the Mayor does indeed become the Decision-maker as well as the Figurehead. Except he has no real decisions to make, unless there are two conflicting banquets...

In the Shire, it was tradition. .... "the way things were done". We may not like it, but it was - er - the way things were done.

Hmm. You have a point there - they had respect. But I wouldn't muddle that with authority. Save for being the head of a rather large household, neither of them could really be comparable to a governmental position such as Prime Minister, could they? To be succinct, they didn't do anything.

But respect turns into authority when there are crises. Tolkien outlines one such in Appendix B:

2747 Bandobras Took defeats an Orc-band in the North-farthing

All by himself?!? Of course not. We are menat to understand that he led the Tooks and others willing to follow; but Tolkien names BT alone; why? ... because he's their leader.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But how are these paid for?

Free room and board?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

how does Aragorn become a divine right king--if he does?

You know, I think "divine right" is too strong for LotR and Third Age Middle Earth. He had right of ancient lineage. Did that Kingship in Numenor not come from the Valar? Is that divine enough? Yes, but.... does that apply to Gondor come the beginning of the Fourth Age?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

lmp, I think it is possible to consider politics and power in myth.

Indubitably! But to attempt to say what Tolkien's and Lewis's politics were by reading LotR and the Narnia Chronicles is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Bb

Tolkien, with his profound Catholic faith, producing a world full of change and even insisting upon the recognition of that change. Flux rather than finality. How does he do that?

By mirroring reality well, as opposed to writing more of a fairy tale (LWW)? I'm brought back to the 'truism' that Tolkien is writing about death whereas Lewis is writing about a chosen nation, as it were.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It is intriguing to see the term 'theocracy' brought out here, as at least in the US there is a very strong tradition of separation of church and state. This is a very different idea from that in England, where the monarch is 'defender of the faith', meaning Church of England Anglican. (I think I read somewhere that HRH the Next In Line wants that changed to 'defender of faith' to make it somewhat more inclusive.) Now, LotR does not include direct mention of religion nor of Eru. So how does Aragorn become a divine right king--if he does.

That's interesting as I'd say Middle-earth is anything but a theocracy. Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

I wouldn't go so far as to call the UK a theocracy! That's a term I'd associate more with Iran, and as I've heard before, possibly with the Republic and the authority of the Jedi in Star Wars!

I saw an interesting item on TV this morning looking at religion in US and in UK politics. In the UK we have not had a vocally 'Christian' leader since Gladstone whereas in the US such leaders are the 'norm' at the moment. Politicians tend to play down their religious beliefs over here, possibly as it is more secular a society than anything else.

With Tolkien being a Catholic, he would have known that in terms of being one of the 'establishment', he would still have been something of an outsider; when he went to Oxford it was not all that long after the requirement that students be CofE was abolished - 1871. I wonder how he felt about the link between church and state, and if he experienced any sense of being an 'outsider'? I cannot imagine that he would have approved of a theocracy?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

Hear hear!

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

With Tolkien being a Catholic, he would have known that in terms of being one of the 'establishment', he would still have been something of an outsider; when he went to Oxford it was not all that long after the requirement that students be CofE was abolished - 1871. I wonder how he felt about the link between church and state, and if he experienced any sense of being an 'outsider'? I cannot imagine that he would have approved of a theocracy?

I can't either. And I believe that there is an undercurrent of 'outsiderness' as described in Carpenter's biography. If everybody else is CofE, and you're Catholic, both sides of the difference are bound to be aware of it. This does seem to come through in terms of Tolkien's protagonists, too! Bilbo and Frodo were both considered to be 'eccentric', which means of course "outside the circle". So was Aragorn, for that matter! You write what you know.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

There is no religion, but there are divinities. Aragorn's right to the kingship is ultimately derived from the right of kingship given to Elros by the Valar. And it is noteworthy that this right is renewed by the presence of Gandalf - an emissary of the Valar - at Aragorn's coronation; indeed it is Gandalf who literally crowns him.

So, while I agree that one can hardly have a theocracy without an established
(organized) religion, I would say that Aragorn's right is properly called a divine right.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

while I agree that one can hardly have a theocracy without an established (organized) religion, I would say that Aragorn's right is properly called a divine right.

Good point.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by lmp

Indubitably! But to attempt to say what Tolkien's and Lewis's politics were by reading LotR and the Narnia Chronicles is not the same thing.

Erm, I do apologise if my first post was unclear--and I suppose my final question can be construed personally--but I had thought I had framed the question in terms of Tolkien's and Lewis' works--a word I used several times. And I provided examples from the texts, rather than from the Letters. And the original comment about Lewis was directed to the story itself. And, and, well, the texts do present a political stance. It was that stance I was interested in exploring.

Originally Posted by Lal

I wouldn't go so far as to call the UK a theocracy! That's a term I'd associate more with Iran, and as I've heard before, possibly with the Republic and the authority of the Jedi in Star Wars!

Israel also comes to mind, but I suppose that is a contested issue. However, as I suggested to lmp, my interest lies in the attitude towards power and authority which the texts portray, rather than the author's personal beliefs, which are more speculative fodder for discussion.

I wonder if the difference perceived between the texts of Tolkien and Lewis might pertain to the different stances which the texts display towards allegory and not just audience, as tgwbs suggests.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...my interest lies in the attitude towards power and authority which the texts portray, rather than the author's personal beliefs, which are more speculative fodder for discussion.

Thanks much for the clarification. I guess I needed it.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder if the difference perceived between the texts of Tolkien and Lewis might pertain to the different stances which the texts display towards allegory and not just audience, as tgwbs suggests.

That's what I was getting at with this in answer to

Originally Posted by you

Tolkien, with his profound Catholic faith, producing a world full of change and even insisting upon the recognition of that change. Flux rather than finality. How does he do that?

...

Originally Posted by me

By mirroring reality well, as opposed to writing more of a fairy tale (LWW)? I'm brought back to the 'truism' that Tolkien is writing about death whereas Lewis is writing about a chosen nation, as it were.

I suppose I meant "allegory" instead of 'fairy tale'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by lmp

...

Well, I have to say that I think there is an interesting difference between Catholic aesthetics and protestant aesthetics. And I wonder if this difference is borne out in the art of the two men. Which, I quickly state, to me is not the same thing as sussing out their personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by lmp

By mirroring reality well, as opposed to writing more of a fairy tale (LWW)? I'm brought back to the 'truism' that Tolkien is writing about death whereas Lewis is writing about a chosen nation, as it were.

You know, one of these days I am going to accidentally call you imp.

The whole issue of applying "divine kingship" to feudal or renaissance Europe is, to me, a fascinating story of the appropriation of cultural values to very different social contexts. Nomadic desert tribes versus English barons. It seems to me that death is a much more of hobbits, elves, dwarves and men. Aslan might give "sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve" dominion over the other races, but Tolkien, I think, might have allowed Mr. Tumnus a greater power over his own fate. Therein I think lies what to me might be the ultimate issue here. Is the difference between Tolkien's work and Lewis' work one of artistic hierarchy or competence?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...but Tolkien, I think, might have allowed Mr. Tumnus a greater power over his own fate. Therein I think lies what to me might be the ultimate issue here. Is the difference between Tolkien's work and Lewis' work one of artistic hierarchy or competence?

Allow me to distract (or, perhaps, move forward) from the main discussion, since this little quote from your last post, Bêthberry, seems very interesting to me, in the light of the currently active thread regarding "That Which is Fate to All Things Else".

Here is another place where things differ. Although we have prophecies in Narnia, we never have FATE, and even these prophecies are not, apparently, infalliable, since there is a very grave fear in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that the White Witch will be able to prevent the prophecies from becoming true.

In Middle-Earth, on the other hand, we have very clear statements regarding the presence of Fate. Now, it is true that there is very great debate as to the interaction of this Fate with Free Will (for that, I direct you to the aforementioned and other various threads), but that Fate exists in Middle-Earth is taken as a given by pretty much everyone here.

As I've noted, though, there is no such Fate in Narnia. For which reason I find your statement that Tolkien would have allowed Mr. Tumnus greater control over his own destiny to be highly interesting. If I may imagine Gandalf talking to Lucy, I can imagine him saying something like this:

Gandalf: "You were meant to come into Narnia, and Mr. Tumnus was meant to meet you."

But, as presented in the Chronicles, Mr. Tumnus isn't so much MEANT to meet Lucy as he is simply the first Narnian to do so.

Now, I'm not sure if I know where I'm going with all this. One could easily make a case that Narnia is very much a world where Fate figures in, I do not deny that. But the contrast between Tolkien's outright declaration of Fate as contrasted by Lewis' avoidance of any such statement is interesting...

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

My interest lies in the attitude towards power and authority which the texts portray, rather than the author's personal beliefs

Then let us return to them.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

There is no religion, but there are divinities. Aragorn's right to the kingship is ultimately derived from the right of kingship given to Elros by the Valar. And it is noteworthy that this right is renewed by the presence of Gandalf - an emissary of the Valar - at Aragorn's coronation; indeed it is Gandalf who literally crowns him.

This is very interesting. As well as the Kingdom of Gondor, there are others to consider. Rohan's king was acknowledged by the King of Gondor (and land given to them) and thus indirectly from the Valar. The same applies to the Hobbits; they too were originally granted land by Kings of the Realms in Exile. We seem to see a theme of Kingship being handed down, in grades, from Eru himself.

What about the Kings of the Eldar? Were their leaders leaders before they awoke? Were they preplanned to be kings of their Houses? The Dwarven kings were appointed by Aule, and thus indirectly by Eru. Does this hold for the Elven race too?

Now, I know I'm digging myself into a hole here. Dale was not lead by a divinely appointed ruler, nor Mirkwood, to give some few examples. But these seem to be more minor and distant kingdoms.

Finally, I am too pressed for time to check, but I believe King Bard of Dale had some sort of right to the throne in the Hobbit. To what extent was this, or does it seem to be, divine?

There we go. Many questions, and no answers.

[Aiwendil]

What about the Kings of the Eldar? Were their leaders leaders before they awoke?

Well, the first three Kings of the Eldar (Ingwe, Finwe, and Elwe) were the ambassadors that visited Aman; it seems likely, to me at least, that their rule was thus based on a Valarin right. It is perhaps notable that these three became the kings rather than 'Imin', 'Tata', and 'Enel' (though we know nothing about the fates of those first Elves).

In any case, once the kingships of the Vanyar, Noldor, and Teleri were set up in Aman, the Valar clearly 'recognized' these rulers as legitimate.

Note also (though it may be obvious) that Men - or at least the Edain - had no kings in the first age; their rulers were first 'chieftains' and then, when taken on as subjects by the Elves, 'lords'. So Elros is the first rightful king among Men.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As I've noted, though, there is no such Fate in Narnia. For which reason I find your statement that Tolkien would have allowed Mr. Tumnus greater control over his own destiny to be highly interesting. If I may imagine Gandalf talking to Lucy, I can imagine him saying something like this:

Gandalf: "You were meant to come into Narnia, and Mr. Tumnus was meant to meet you."

But, as presented in the Chronicles, Mr. Tumnus isn't so much MEANT to meet Lucy as he is simply the first Narnian to do so.

Now, I'm not sure if I know where I'm going with all this. One could easily make a case that Narnia is very much a world where Fate figures in, I do not deny that. But the contrast between Tolkien's outright declaration of Fate as contrasted by Lewis' avoidance of any such statement is interesting...

Let me play the narratologist that some here--looks over her shoulder in case Fordim is around--claim me to be. What kind of creature could Lucy have first met Narnia? I mean, what kind of creature that would have enabled the story to develop, would have given the reader the necessary bits of plot expectation, etc. etc? Doesn't the story require, on some level, a meeting between Lucy and a Narnian who can explain some of the land and context to her and to readers? We we have a creature who at first contemplates a terrible act of kidnap and who then repents of the thought, never actually fulfilling the deed. I think Mr. Tunmus' role is pretty much set by those parameters. Now, this might be narrative fate or Authorial omnipotence, but it does suggest that Mr. Tumnus had a certain role to play. Maybe not bearing a ring, but certainly bearing some plot. And after this supply of plot development is accomplished, there is little moral development allowed to Mr. Tumnus, despite his moral decision to release Lucy rather than deliver her up to the White Witch. Although I suppose that he does get his comeuppance for the thoughts he had. I simply think Tolkien would have done more with that kind of characterisation and not used it merely as a plot device.

This probably isn't the Fate you meant though

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Doesn't the story require, on some level, a meeting between Lucy and a Narnian who can explain some of the land and context to her and to readers? We we have a creature who at first contemplates a terrible act of kidnap and who then repents of the thought, never actually fulfilling the deed. I think Mr. Tunmus' role is pretty much set by those parameters. Now, this might be narrative fate or Authorial omnipotence, but it does suggest that Mr. Tumnus had a certain role to play. Maybe not bearing a ring, but certainly bearing some plot.

*Fordim looms over Bethberry's shoulder and nods in complete agreement*

Interesting conversation here about the role of Fate in M-E and Narnia. First, I don't see Fate as operative in either but Providence (the difference being that Fate is the world directed toward a determined end, with Providence being the world directed toward a determined GOOD end). Second, I see really little difference between them in this regard. To my view, Aslan is very much a Gandalf-figure: one who knows more than everyone else, but who is still capable of being surprised. Just as Eru is guiding things in M-E, so too is the Emperor across the Sea guiding things in Narnia.

In fact, I would suggest that it's a lot more clear that the Emperor is in charge of things in Narnia than Eru in M-E (at least LotR M-E) insofar as it is explicitly the fulfillment of the Emperor's Law that allows Aslan to come back to life and save the day!

[davem]

In fact, I would suggest that it's a lot more clear that the Emperor is in charge of things in Narnia than Eru in M-E (at least LotR M-E) insofar as it is explicitly the fulfillment of the Emperor's Law that allows Aslan to come back to life and save the day!

I always felt that Aslan cheated the White Witch. He knew that he would be resurrected (& says as much to Lucy & Susan). If we compare that to Gandalf's sacrifice of himself in Moria, its clear he had no idea that he would be 'sent back'. Clearly this is 'against the rules', in that the decision to send him back takes place 'beyond thought & time' (ie beyond the Circles of the World).

This is another intervention by Eru in the story, & is the most direct reference to an 'external' power (the Valar are, rather, an 'internal' power, as they are bound within the Circles of the World by their choice to enter into it). So, we don't have 'fate' as such in either world. Its rather that Aslan is in control of events as he knows the rules by which Narnia operates (the 'Deep Magic'). In M-e terminology he is a 'Master' of the Secret Fire, while Gandalf is a 'Servant' of it. Aslan is, effectively the 'Emperor' incarnate & uses the Rules. Gandalf has no idea he will be 'sent back', so in that sense his sacrifice is 'purer'. All he knows is that he will 'die'.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I always felt that Aslan cheated the White Witch.

Of course he didn't. He allowed her to believe that by killing him she would win. It was her own imperfect knowledge of the Emperor's law that led her into this error. In fact Aslan fulfils to the letter the terms of their agreement, and dies in Edmund's place: it is only Jadis's expectations that are cheated, which is, of course, Lewis's point.

It was a fairly common theme in early-medieval Christian literature to see Christ's sacrifice and resurrection in just such a light: in The Dream of the Rood he is portrayed as a much more active figure than we are used to seeing, actively mounting the cross apparently unaided. The purpose of this heroic act is unambiguously the defeat of Satan, since in the medieval reckoning of events, the crucifixion was immediately followed by the harrowing of Hell. Given Aslan's role as an allegory of Christ and Lewis's own knowledge of medieval literature, it seems hardly surprising that he should portray this as he did. Good does not, of course, cheat evil; rather evil is deceived by its own ignorance and reliance on temporal power.

To compare Aslan with Gandalf is dangerous, given that the latter is definitely not an allegory of Christ. Gandalf's knowledge is explicitly and intentionally restricted; he is not privy to the thoughts of the Creator, and must take a leap of faith (with some help from a fiery whip). Aslan, like Christ, knowingly sacrifices himself to fulfil a bargain and to save those deserving of punishment, which is an entirely different order of sacrifice. I would argue that since these two characters have entirely different roles, both in the narrative and in their respective cosmologies, their sacrifices cannot really be compared.

Personally my gravest reservation about C.S. Lewis is his insistence on using rather blunt allegories to force a certain point of view on his audience. I gather from some of Tolkien's correspondance that he was concerned with the theological orthodoxy of his friend's writing, but he was also deeply troubled by his own, despite his careful avoidance of allegorical correspondance between his characters and his own religion. I agree that it is more like Tolkien to show a martyrdom than the Passion, but I think that we're on extremely dangerous ground if we try to suggest that the former is superior to the latter.

[davem]

Well, it was a personal opinion. She may have been ignorant of the Rules, but its still a bit like me accepting a challenge to a fight which my opponent intends to be limited to fists & on equal terms – winner takes all - when I have a gun in my belt which I haven't mentioned & which I fully intend to pull & use. My opponent might not have known I had the gun, so technically I may be in the right (& certainly it would be his fault for issuing such a hasty challenge) but I think most people would think I was cheating if I shot him as he stood there in his boxing gloves on the other side of the ring.

On the other hand, I accept that Aslan only agreed to be killed, & the question of whether resurrection was allowed seems never to have been discussed.

Mind you, I always felt Superman was a cheat in the same way too.

And I wasn't really comparing Gandalf with Aslan, just the differences in their deaths.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Funny, I'd always had the impression that Aslan was not entirely sure that things were going to come off so well. His attitude as he heads toward the sacrafice is certainly not upbeat nor confident! In fact, it's always reminded me of Frodo's state as he approaches Mount Doom: rather broken and sick at heart at the immensity of what he must perform, clinging to some indefinable hope that things will be better for everyone else but having little hope for himself.

I suppose the question is how far do you go down the Aslan-as-Christ road? If you see him as Christ I admit it would be hard to see him as I do (that is, like Frodo) -- but I don't see Aslan as Christ at all -- at least not as the Biblical (Primary World) Christ but as Narnia's Christ-figure. His knowledge is not certain, I don't think, insofar as he is not God-Made-Flesh. As we're told by the Beavers, he's a lion!

[JennyHallu]

See, I never got the impression from the Bible that Christ was altogether sure of his path. Always hopeful, and very confident. But when it came down to the hour of sacrifice he was mournful...he spent hours in private prayer in the Garden. Just think of his own words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The very fact that Christ's sacrifice was not easy is part of what gives it such power for Christians. If it was easy, then it would have been no sacrifice and shown no especial love for Men.

Pardon my brief journey into theology...

And the beavers also bade us understand that Aslan was not an ordinary lion. Just as Christ was a man, but not an ordinary man.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I suppose the question is how far do you go down the Aslan-as-Christ road? If you see him as Christ I admit it would be hard to see him as I do (that is, like Frodo) -- but I don't see Aslan as Christ at all -- at least not as the Biblical (Primary World) Christ but as Narnia's Christ-figure.

But I didn't say, Fordim, that Aslan is Christ, rather that he is an allegory of Christ. I suppose that I should have called him an allegorical representation of Christ. Certainly one of Lewis's narrative aims seems to have been to explain the meaning of the Crucifixion in Christian thought by giving it a new context. Aslan is a lion, but the obvious association between the great lion and the Agnus Dei of the primary universe seems to point in this direction.

However, I seem to recall that as the Chronicles of Narnia progress, there are several references to Aslan having other names in other worlds, and to his having allowed the children to encounter him in Narnia so that they may come to know him in their own world. The conclusion of The Last Battle, where all worlds become one and the afterlife of 'our' world (or Lewis's version of it) merges with that of Narnia, would suggest that Lewis intended all along for Aslan and Christ to be different aspects of the same being within his fiction, but this seemed too complicated a point to make in support of my basic argument that the White Witch isn't cheated by anyone but herself.

Of course this brings me back to Davem and his dislike of the victory. The White Witch does, of course, think that she is being very clever indeed by trapping the Lion using cosmic laws that he is bound to uphold. I would say that rather than a 'fair' fight in which one party is armed and the other not, rather Aslan has agreed to stand there in boxing gloves while the Witch shoots at him. He has not told her whether her pistol is loaded or what will happen after she has taken her shot, and, deluded by her own cunning, she has not thought to ask. The parallels with medieval concepts of the Crucifixion and its place in Satan's final defeat seem obvious to me.

[littlemanpoet]

As is my wont, I would take it one step further than Squatter (whose posts here I have found to be very eloquent): Aslan is the Maker of a very complex piece of functional artistry. The White Witch tries to wrest it from him by means of aspects within the FA itself, but she doesn't understand it completely. He does. It's not about a fair fight.