Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
12-28-2006, 03:45 PM | #1 |
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
“I am da Law”
Middle-earth, fitting in as a part of history, is filled with peoples that are really extremely familiar to us, and we can draw countless anthropological parallels between the fantasy cultures and real cultures, past and present. One cultural aspect of those in Middle-earth that I’d like to explore is a system of law...
Specifically...could capital punishment be something used in, specifically, the Free Peoples’ justice system? Yes, capital punishment. The be all, end all judgment (at least in this life, if you believe in another, or many others, after “this one”). Could it be something used only in the very gravest of murder cases (cold-blooded and all that) as it is in the American legal system, or might it be used more often? Would it be as controversial as it is in the real world today? Obviously it couldn’t be used rampantly, particularly not to the extreme of a Judge Dredd (science fiction) judge, jury, and executioner, but Hammurabi’s Code and the Twelve Tables don’t exactly shy away from death and types of physical harm as punishment. Now, I know that even some of the “purest” seeming of the Free Peoples were all for killing the evil guys (though of course not all, and not always), but what about severe crime that has nothing to do with Sauron (how would they handle crime without any Dark Lord in the picture, as there wasn't for a time before The Lord of the Rings)? How could the laws of Elves and Men differ on such a matter? Kingdoms like Gondor and Rohan, I imagine, could have well-organized, written law. But could the laws of the Elves perhaps be less rigid, maybe even more assumed than dictated? Could peoples like the Haradrim or the Easterlings, portrayed in some ways as somehow more “savage” or “primitive” (primitive not necessarily being a negative word at all) than Gondorians and Rohirrim and the like, be more inclined to deal out capital punishment and other nasty things? (Again, their law completely separate of Sauron’s influence.) And we can’t forget Hobbits. Now them I can’t imagine using capital punishment at all. Though I simply can’t imagine a Hobbit actually murdering anyone, either...or do anything nastier to each other than steal each others’ mushrooms. But has Tolkien simply brainwashed me with Sam’s sweetness? I know that all I’m doing is asking a lot of questions, and that this really becomes a very broad topic, but I have difficulty narrowing it down. I actually started with it more narrowed down, but one question leads to more...and more...and more... So, two disclaimers other than that: First, is that I’m asking only for speculation, and that’s why I’m using “could” a lot. Whether or not Tolkien gave us such information elsewhere (i.e., Letters and such) is wonderful, and I’d love to know, too, but I personally enjoy speculating. Second, is that, of course, I do not want this to touch on our own personal feelings regarding capital punishment, and if it has to touch on how capital punishment is treated in real life now or in the past, I hope everyone will still keep themselves removed from it as a hot-button issue. If this is a topic worthy of discussion, and not just a bunch of questions from a bored mind. Well, that was longer than I meant it to be. |
12-28-2006, 04:44 PM | #2 | |||
Laconic Loreman
|
I'll get to all the lovely speculation in a bit. But, I think at first I'm going to have to use a few quotes here... I'd first like to note that there certainly does seem to be 'capital punishment' or a 'laws' within both Gondor and Rohan.
People tend to see treason as a very serious offense that back in the days (I don't know much about it's punishment today) but that certainly sent you to death row. Treason was a big no-no, and I think it was a big no-no in Middle-earth as well. In the instance with Beregond, Aragorn had every right 'by law' to take Beregond's life for betraying his service to his Lord Denethor (as well as actually killing people): Quote:
Quote:
Also, in Rohan remember Eomer had been jailed for treason and my guess was his punishment was still waiting to be decided: Quote:
Treason was a very serious offense way back into our early history to the last time I remember all during the Cold War. I wouldn't doubt it if it's still seen as a serious offense today that warrants death. The idea of 'betraying one's country' isn't taken to lightly, especially in war time.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
|||
12-28-2006, 05:00 PM | #3 |
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
Very, very, very interesting topic.
One reason for the capital punishment in the kingdoms of Men might be treason. I believe Theoden might have chosen to kill Grima if he wanted to, as it is suggested in the movie, however he decided to give him a chance to repent. Denethor, on the other side, seemed ready to use this punishment, as he says in his answer to Pippin's oath - "oathbreaking with vengeance" However it is not made clear if treason would be punished with the capital punishment, but it could well be so.
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
12-28-2006, 06:38 PM | #4 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, D. C., USA
Posts: 299
|
I don't have my books with me, so I can't quote, but I believe Theoden uses the word Gibbet when speaking to Saruman. ("To hang from a gibbet for the sport of your own crows!" --?) or something to that effect. In medieval and rennaissance Europe, hanging was usually relegated to the lower classes, while aristocracy was generally beheaded as punishment for capital crime. Obviously, Theoden would not have mentioned a gibbet if he was not aware of it's function, whether it was used in Rohan or not. I suspect it was an option, seldom, if ever, exercised. I imagine it was similar in Gondor.
I can't imagine the elves ever using capital punishment. For one thing, they knew their own people would simply go to the Halls of Mandos when they died, and wait to be re-made (or for the end of the world to come.) The punished could eventually be back among them. While the spirits of Man went beyond the circles of the world, the elves knew not where, I think their own love of Arda and all it contained could not allow themselves to deprive anyone of it's beauty. They might kill in battle, but not coldly as punishment. It just doesn't seem consistent with their view of the world.
__________________
But all the while I sit and think of times there were before, I listen for returning feet and voices at the door. |
12-28-2006, 06:52 PM | #5 |
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
radagastly, you make a very good point there as far as Elves are concerned, I must say I agree...
one folk that I would personally see using such a punishment are the Beornings and perhaps also the Woodmen. The description of Beorn made in Hobbit presents him as a very good friend, but also as a very dangerous foe. And considering the fate suffered by the warg and the orc he caught, interogated, and afterwards quite painfully killed, I personally believe that the Beornings would make use of capital punishment. Of course his reaction towards the warg and the orc is understandable due to his great hatred, however killing prisoners with so much cold blood hints that the laws in that area were quite strict and severe. The Woodmen might use such laws as well. They were related to the Beornings and had common ancestors so perhaps their law systems also related. And also because they were not so developed they would, just as Southrons or Easterlings, be more likely to use such methods.
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
12-28-2006, 07:12 PM | #6 |
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Thanks for the quotes, Boro! It's been forever since I've actually sat down and read the books, so I didn't recall any mention of such things.
I imagine oath-breaking, and particularly breaking the oath of fealty given to your lord, was of highest importance, as it also served as an oath to abide by his law. It's interesting: Aragorn actually shows Beregond mercy here, and yet by my 20th-21st century view it seems excessive for him to banish him. He saved Faramir's life, and only hastened the end of the Steward's life. And it's strange to assume that holding a post as a soldier, regardless of where it is, still entails looking out for the safety of your lord. And, if Aragorn was really to follow the law...shouldn't Pippin share the same penalty? And the same goes for Theoden's remarks regarding Eomer and Hama. I mean really! Obviously loyalty to your lord comes before everything in the society...and considering, it makes sense. It also obviously reflects our past culture, for sure. But that is another topic all together, I suppose. Yes, it seems likely that the Hobbits would simply banish a person. If that's all Smeagol got (yes, I know, in a similar society), that's all anyone's going to get. And I agree with you on the Elves, radagastly. There would be no point to it, though I still can see an Elf desiring revenge in some way...I'm just not sure what way. A gibbet? A lovely thing...I can't imagine any of the "good guys" using those, but perhaps there are some people who they would say deserve such a fate. And though beheading was reserved for royalty...well, when the French had their fun with their guillotine, royalty simply got the blade sharpened. A beheading can still be a lowly and excessively nasty death, if you're trying to cut through someone's neck with a blunt blade...or if the executioner isn't strong and swift enough...or if they want to watch you suffer. I can see beheadings and hangings used, though, by both Rohan and Gondor. I wonder if the laws of Men would allow for or even demand/encourage revenge, capital punishment taken into the hands of the family and/or friends of the victim. It seems likely to me that would be the case: that men would be allowed to take the law into their own hands because the King cannot always? Excellent points about the Beornings and Woodsmen, Might. I think both of those groups would also be fine with the idea of taking the law into your own hands. I also wonder about blood price. Would a price be put on someone's life, and if that family accepted that, the murderer be spared death? Sometimes those Middle-earthians seem too humanistic to put prices on peoples' lives, but then again, they are hardly without classes and hierarchies of different sorts. |
12-28-2006, 07:36 PM | #7 | |
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
I just remembered about one folk who would surely not use capital punishment, even though they were far less developed then others - the woses.
Quote:
The woses were far from the social and economical level reached by Gondor or Rohan, and still, their laws were much more simple and peaceful in the same time.
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
|
12-28-2006, 11:30 PM | #8 | ||||
Laconic Loreman
|
Oooh nice posts throughout the thread. I've enjoyed this discussion so far...
Durelin, Quote:
There seems to be a strong power over words (especially oaths) in Middle-earth...if not, then they would simply be words with no meaning behind them. When Eorl made the oath to Cirion to come to Gondor's aid anytime they were called upon and in return 'finding' Rohan he sealed the choices of all the kings to follow. I'm sure Theoden was a good man and played a part in him aiding Gondor; but I do not doubt also the oath he was bound to played a part (if not bigger). Had Theoden not answered to Gondor's call for aid, Theoden would be in trouble. And trouble that could arguably much worse than being executed. It would effect him spiritually and be a great torment on him...again just ask the Men of Dunharrow. I love the part in the Ring Goes South and Gimli wants an oath to bind the Fellowship together, but Elrond tells him no and warns him why: Quote:
Oath-breaking is arguably the worst 'crime' in LOTR; and your punishment isn't death, it's lifelong torture and misfortune...far worse than execution. The question is what makes Beregond and Hama not obeying orders and 'breaking their oaths' different from say the Men of Dunharrow. I think it all depends upon the situation. The Men of Dunharrow pledged to Isildur they would fight for Gondor; but they turned to worshipping Sauron and than fled. Doesn't sound very 'good' and they are slapped with a curse. Hama and Beregond's were different in the sense that arguably it was better to actually not obey. What I love about Hama and Beregond is that they are guards, yet they do not act like what we would expect guards to act like. They don't act like mindless robots of 'Yes, sir...I'll do whatever you say sir.' They are able to make their own judgements for themselves and reach their own decisions about what's 'right and wrong.' I can't put it any better than from the words of Hama: Quote:
Beregond felt like the best thing to do was save Faramir's life and he went through any costs to do it. Afterall Gandalf does say Denethor did not have the right to take Faramir's life, let a lone he didn't even have the 'right' to take his own. Denethor acted like he had the right of the Numenorean Kings to decide when their own death was and as Gandalf points this out to him, he does not have this right. Or even perhaps it depends upon the person who had the oath broken against them. There are two parties involved in oaths, if one party breaks it, then perhaps it's up to the other party to decide if they should be punished for breaking their oath or not. If we look at the Men of Dunharrow again, they broke their oath to Isildur and it is Isildur who comes and decides to curse them. He was the person the Men of Dunharrow swore to, so he is the one that makes the decision on whether they should be punished for going against their word. If we look at Beregond and Hama, they did break their oaths to their Lords, however you could argue that their Lords absolved them (at least partially) of their oath-breaking. Theoden called out Hama as an 'inept doorward' yet he realized what Hama did was try to make the best decision for his lord. Theoden had the oath broken against him, so it is Theoden who decides whether the oath-breaker be punished or not...and luckily he decided no...except to have him run as an 'errand boy' for a little while. Now technically Beregond broke his oath to Denethor...however Denethor is dead and his new lords (for a short time atleast) becomes Aragorn...until Aragorn expels him from the Tower Guard. Nevertheless for a short time it is Aragorn that is his new Lord and it is he that is faced with the decision of Beregond's punishment. And Aragorn absolves Beregond from all of his crimes. Aragorn does feel like he must do some justice and punish Beregond, however as seen he does absolve Beregond from his crimes. Would you know it's kind of like the Men of Dunharrow. In order to 'break the curse' they had to fulfill their oath to Gondor. Well, it's kind of hard now that Isildur's dead, so it would be Isildur's heirs that would be passed a long with the decision on whether to hold their oaths fulfilled. And it is Aragorn who does this as well. So, I think it's whether one is punished or not for breaking an oath comes down to the situation. Was it for the 'best' that the oath was broken? Or, perhaps even more important is it up to the 'other party' to decide whether you are punished for breaking the oath or not. Well technically Beregond and Hama did get punished for breaking their oaths, it just wasn't to the extent that the Men of Dunharrow were punished. And seeing as the 'victims' absolved the 'pertetrators' of their oath-breaking than the oath was essentially fulfilled and absolved as well. I'd also like to point out Tolkien also uses the concept of 'weregild.' The punishment isn't execution for the criminal, however it was a form of punishment for those who committed murder (or injury) against a person's family/property. Weregild is an Old English word that means 'man-price' and it was an idea originating in Germanic societies. The idea was to stop family feuds from happening and about keeping family honor without having to resort to 'capital punishment' or 'physical revenge'. If somebody killed one of your family members (or injury to any sort of property) in order to compensate for the crime, the perpetrator must give some sort of payment. In Germanic societies the payment was based upon rank. If someone killed a slave of yours the compensation payment wouldn't be all that much. However the murder of a King and his son the payment would be absolutely astronomical. Isildur lays the claim of 'weregild' on taking the ring for the death of his father and brother (caused by Sauron): Quote:
__________________
Fenris Penguin
Last edited by Boromir88; 12-28-2006 at 11:35 PM. |
||||
12-29-2006, 12:52 AM | #9 | |||||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Durelin,
Fascinating topic. I have some thoughts on this, though they are leading in a slightly different direction than a number of comments on the thread. First, Boromir88 has already cited one instance in Gondor where Beregond's treason might normally merit the death penalty, yet when the actual judgment came the decision was made to render a different punishment. This excellent example isn't the only case where an individual "deserved" death by the laws of Gondor and yet the penalty decreed was one that stopped short of death. There is another instance even more important to the story that involves Gollum and the Pool of Ithilien. Gollum comes within a hair's breadth of being executed here. First time readers could not know what would happen on Mount Doom if this penalty of death was actually carried out but those of us who've already read the book definitely understand that executing Gollum would change the entire outcome of the story. In my mind, this is one of the most critical scenes in LotR and bears close scrutiny. Excuse me if I quote chunks of it and then consider the wording. On March 8, 3019, Gollum found the Forbidden Pool and plunged into the water to catch fish. He was spotted by Anborn, a Ranger of Ithilien under Faramir's command. Faramir brought Frodo to a ledge overlooking the pool, and threatened to have the creature below shot, not knowing precisely who he is but suspecting his ties with Frodo. (The italics are mine, and I will explain in a minute why I've highlighted these words....) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In these same passages, there are also two references that allude back to earlier scenes in the Legendarium when the whole issue of pity and mercy was first raised in terms of Bilbo and Frodo. One of these is an indirect reference that I did not quote before where Frodo reveals to Faramir that Gollum once bore the Ring. Faramir responds in this way: Quote:
Quote:
As to hobbits, I agree with everyone on this thread. Nothing in Hobbit society suggests that the Shire had capital punishment--even in older, cruder times, exile and shunning were the rule for Hobbits. I know there is a statement somewhere (though I can't put my hands on the quote) that no hobbit had murdered another hobbit for many years. This raises an interesting question. Clearly, men did have the death penalty. Moreover, the quote above implies that even the Elves were capable of killing Gollum. Frodo states Gandalf "forebade the Elves" from killing him. Why would Gandalf issue such an order unless he thought the Elves were capable of slaying Gollum in some form or fashion, whether as punishment or simply as a way to stop him from fleeing? If both men and Elves were capable of slaying Gollum, we could even take this equation one step further. Perhaps Frodo's suitability as a Ringbearer not only rested on his general ability to resist evil, but specifically on the fact that he came from the one society that did not practice (or perhaps need?) capital punishment. In my opinion, Tolkien clearly regarded capital punishment as something that ideally should not be used. P.S. This is a dreadfully long post composed in spurts and chunks, which means I crossposted with Boromir88's latest comments....
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 12-29-2006 at 01:51 AM. |
|||||
12-29-2006, 10:14 AM | #10 | |||
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
Well my eternal fascination for small folk has helped me find another quote...
As I was reading The Ride of the Rohirrim I found another quote suggesting treason could be punished with death, and as already very well explained by Boromir88, oathbreaking: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
|||
12-29-2006, 11:00 AM | #11 | |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
A really interesting thread and very interesting thoughts, unfortunately I came a little bit late and now I can't think of anything I might add. Perhaps later Only one thing to that thing with Thranduil you mentioned:
Quote:
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
|
12-29-2006, 12:11 PM | #12 |
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
I remembered about a very clearly defined system of laws in Middle-earth: in the Shire, after Saruman gained control of it.
The rules were very clear, and Sharkey made sure everyone knew them and respected them. Those that had the courage to oppose him suffered severe punishments such as imprisonment or physical punishments. The ruffians were pretty dangerous men, so most of the Hobbits respected the rules, but we have some accounts of some who didn't and that paid the price. Shortly after the New Year of 3019, Lotho proclaimed himself Chief Shirriff. An ever-growing list of Rules were imposed on the Hobbits of the Shire, and those who disobeyed were sent to the Lockholes. Shirriff-houses were built in many villages and the number of Shiriffis was increased to enforce the Rules. Food and other goods were gathered for central distribution, but the Hobbits got short shrift. Beer and pipe-weed were reserved for the Chief's Men and inns were closed. Lotho might be the victim of a capital punishment, perhaps because he also opposed Saruman once he came to the Shire and his men started destroying and burning homes, trees, and farmland...this is however unclear.
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
12-29-2006, 01:18 PM | #13 | |||
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
One of ME's greatest conflicts: the misuse of law, or turning the law into tyranny
Good point, TM! In this, I believe, Tolkien showed explicitely the misuse (or: "overuse") of laws to ill. I think the Shire was also a nice example, in minor, of how Saruman turned from intentions "for greater good" using wrong ways, to total destruction. I think this is also one of the options how "law" (later turning to unjust rule) is taken in Middle-Earth, so I think it's quite good for the topic to remember that.
This is what Saruman told to Gandalf before imprisoning him in Orthanc: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So this is quite different taking of law. The Hobbits had no need of laws, and look what the laws did there - it ruined them. These laws were there where they were not needed, so that the freedom totally disappeared and the folks had nothing they could do - so instead of building, the destruction took place. So, we have the places where the law was needed and was not (the Orc, I think, are a nice example for this), but we can also see, how the nonlawful law turned out to be destructible - and in the end, the extreme is again Mordor.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
|||
12-30-2006, 02:59 AM | #14 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Elves did use capital punishment. Eol is thrown from the walls of Gondolin as punishment. Though its one I often think was mistaken - surely locking him up would have been more fitting? Humane? An elf driven mad by his wife running away? Anyway, the results of it are quite far reaching as Tolkien shows!
I like what Child says, she picks up on a major theme on Tolkien's work, that we may have the 'right' to do something, but is it always the 'right' thing to exercise that right? The words of Gandalf remind us that life is precious, but there are also several instances where someone who has committed terrible wrongs is given a chance of forgiveness or clemency. Grima is given this by Theoden, and Saruman by Gandalf. Had Tolkien's world really been the medieval world then there would have been no question in cases such as theirs, they would have been executed in the most gruesome manner. Traitors were routinely subject to being Hung, Drawn and Quartered (hung until not quite dead, then their skin flayed from them and their body eviscerated and cut into quarters, all while still alive). Oath breakers in Northern society may have had the Blood Eagle enacted on them - being cut open and then spread out, pinned to a wall or tree until they died. I don't think there's any question Tolkien will not have known about medieval 'justice' due to his reading and knowledge, but we don't see any of these punishments in his work, unless it is something done by the 'bad guys'. The possibility of capital punishment exists in the West, but we rarely see it used, instead we see leaders choosing not to use it, as though Tolkien makes a statement about their sense of fairplay and justice. Of course Theoden must dismiss Hama from his post, he has not carried out orders; this would be exactly the same in the modern world. But he has the sense of justice not to put the man to death. You could compare Beregond deserting his post with the deserters of WWI. These poor men were shot at dawn; some still remain unpardoned even though we live in more enlightened times. Tolkien will have known about these cases. Beregond deserts, and according to the ancient laws of Gondor, he could be put to death for this. But Aragorn chooses not to do that. He makes sure that Beregond is 'punished', albeit in a symbolic way, by dismissing him from his post; it's 'symbolic' because in reality all that happens is he is reposted.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
12-30-2006, 05:38 AM | #15 | ||||||
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
I'm going to now try make a post especially concerning Hobbits' laws as far as the time period before and after the War of the Ring is concerned.
Now as far as the Shiriffs are concerned: Quote:
It thus seems that the Mayor combined both the legislative and the executive power in the Shire, and probably because the Mayors of the Shire all seem to be very good of heart (Sam, Frodo or Will Whitfoot) this system worked very well for the Hobbits. Tolkien says elsewhere (Tolkien, 1965, p.30) about the Shirefolk's view of law: Quote:
Quote:
Now, I said I'd post mostly about Hobbits, but I have found some interesting quotes about other people as well - the Elves of Lorien. Quote:
I think that totalitary systems have a bad name especially because of the consequences of dictatorships in communism or fascism. But here in Lorien, the law seems to work very well. The Silvan Elves clearly trusted the far superior knowledge and wisdom of Galadriel and Celeborn and so did not oppose their judgements. Quote:
Ok, and lastly, something about diplomacy in ME, and also other unwritten laws. As shown in a quote from "The Black Gate opens": Quote:
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
||||||
01-02-2007, 05:12 AM | #16 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Shire (Staffordshire), United Kingdom
Posts: 273
|
I don't have my books to hand so I can't offer direct quotes but if I recall correctly (I don't always at my age) capital punishment was widely used for percived traitors, opponents of the State and prisoners of war during the last days of Numenor.
Is this another example of the misuse of once just laws? . |
01-04-2007, 08:19 AM | #17 | |
Shady She-Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
|
As to hobbits:
Quote:
I can't imagine breelanders using a capital punisment either. Gondor, Rohan, Dale, Esgaroth and the Beorningland were in varying degrees based on medieval western societies. Back then, capital punishment was widely accepted and in use in Europe, so I can't see it not being in ME. Maybe it was not used as strictly or often (not for a theft etc), but I think it was used at least in cases of treason and murders. In medieval times a prison sentence was not a very widely-used punishment (except for nobles waiting for their actual punishment, or being lovked away not to be in the way), because there simply weren't many prison or lots of prison space. Considering that I can imagine criminals with serious crimes hanged. (And no, I'm not forgetting about weregild.)
__________________
Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer Blood is running deep, some things never sleep Double Fenris
|
|
01-15-2007, 12:25 PM | #18 |
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Resurrecting this (I was quite neglectful) because I have time and another thought...
I agree with you on Tolkien's position, Child, though I do wonder if the man believed in "rehabilitation," so to speak (not that this is necessary in order to be against capital punishment in all forms). And regardless of whether or not he believed it, what seems to be the case in his presentation of Middle-earth and its peoples? (I know there's a good chance this has been discussed in a previous topic, and so I apologize ahead of time if it has been.) Obviously Gollum is the classic example...we want to believe he can "come back," but in the end, he does not. And even Frodo is changed forever by the experience of bearing the Ring, though not enough to push him over the deep end. Even years in the Shire cannot heal his troubles. This may not be the same as rehabilitation as we typically think of it, and it is certainly different from any rehabilitation that might be hoped for in Gollum, but it still acts as an example of how the effects of "evil" run deep. The recent thread on the "atrocities" of Akallebeth certainly makes me wonder. The populous was killed; it is as if the taint had seeped through all the citizenry, and would quite possibly be passed down generations. The "blackness" of the Numenoreans does not go away, at least in name. But does this mean that Tolkien believes that people who are "evil" or have evil in them cannot be changed, or simply that evil is/will always be present in more general terms? |
01-15-2007, 12:36 PM | #19 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
First off, I think that the depth of Gollum's 'addiction' to the Ring shows just how sinister an object it was, that it could totally ensnare someone. What happened to Gollum says more to me about The Ring than it does about Gollum and his personality or predisposition to evil or not. Especially when set against what happened to Frodo and how he failed to do the deed of throwing the Ring away and how broken he was.
But anyway. I agree that many (maybe even the majority) of Men would have believed on a most basic level that wrongdoers should get their 'deserts'. In the real world if you do polls on if people agree with things like capital punishment the majority always says 'yes' but it still remains firmly off the statute books; that's because we give over the making of serious decisions of that level to law makers and experts, who we expect to act in a level-headed way. You do not expect a lawyer's decisions to be swayed by things that have happened in his or her personal life - they are expected to be professional in making all decisions, to simply weigh up evidence dispassionately. That also holds for Middle-earth. An ordinary Gondorian might think a criminal who knicks his armour deserves a good kicking, but the rulers of Gondor would say otherwise - they are there to take a professional overview. I hope that makes sense.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
01-15-2007, 01:44 PM | #20 |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
It makes sense The responsible is what the leaders need to be, being honest, incorruptible, just, and so on - and as I think I have mentioned somewhere earlier, Gondor (and Arnor) are portrayed as places where the leaders more or less are up to this standard (no "Black Númenorean" trait here).
To that Gollum thing, I believe Tolkien actually did not know - maybe until the last part - what would become of Gollum. I don't know if he mentioned this in the letters, but even if he did, maybe he did know it "conciously", as a Writer, but not as someone who lived the story as it formed... as he himself is saying, "I didn't know what happened to Gandalf and who Strider was", so perhaps, even the fate of Gollum "just came" in the end; and if we consider the story "living", as the Professor himself definitely did, this is how Gollum acted - at that point. His choice, that's all.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
|
|