So, re-reading the Foreword to THE LORD OF THE RINGS last night I was struck by a familiar passage I realized I haven't fully thought through before. After pointing out that his book is not a roman-a-clef allegory of wartime politics of the World War II era, Tolkien gives an alternative summary of how things wd have gone in his book had that been the case:
The real war does not resemble the legendary war
in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or
directed the development of the legend, then certainly
the Ring would have been seized and used against
Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but
enslaved,* and Barad-dur would not have been
destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get
possession of the Ring, would in the confusion
and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor
the missing links in his own researches into
Ring-lore, and before long would have made
a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge
the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict
both sides would have held hobbits in hatred
and contempt: they would not long have survived
even as slaves.
(LotR.7)
Although Tolkien does not name this 'self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth', he offers some clues as to who he, or she, might be.
First, we know that it's not Sauron, who has been defeated and imprisoned.
Second, we know it's not Saruman, since he's acting in opposition to the Ruler as his or her rival.
To this I wd add that the Ruler wd have to have (1) an opportunity to seize the Ring and (2) the stature to be able to wield it**
I therefore come up with a list of seven candidates:***
Gandalf
Aragorn
Elrond
Galadriel
Boromir
Faramir
Denethor
--John R
*This of course wd have been repeating Ar-Pharazon's mistake
**or it wd just wind up (briefly) in the possession of another Gollum.
***I exclude Bombadil from this list, for reasons I assume will be obvious
16 comments:
That's an interesting speculation. I think we need to begin with the statement, " the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron." That's an interestingly passively-voiced remark. Who would have seized it? Since we're discussing an alternative version of the story, is it one in which characters would have behaved differently than they do in Tolkien's setting, or just one in which events come out differently?
If the latter, then yes, the self-styled Ruler would have to be Boromir or Denethor. And if Boromir had seized the Ring from Frodo at Amon Hen, which is the obvious place for the story to have turned, then it would have been him, not Denethor. Denethor is sure that Boromir "would have brought me a mighty gift," but Gandalf says, "He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son." That does sound like a recipe for a story in which "both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt."
For the story to be the former of the two options above, one would need to imagine Gandalf falling into the errors of Saruman, or Aragorn or one of the other Wise doing the same, and that's a much bigger change, hard to credit.
I think it is possible you have given this more thought then Tolkien did. He was focused on how the Allies were, in his opinion "losing the peace" as it were. He was writing with an incomplete knowledge of World War II - aspects which we consider 'common knowledge', like the full history of the Manhattan Project he would not know. But things which most people today barely register, like the debates over how to treat the Germans which waged even before the war ended loomed large in his mind (judging by the published letters). So I doubt he had a specific individual in mind as the "self-styled ruler of Middle-Earth' Though the wording is suspect - I wouldn't bet money that I am right here.
I concur with Paul W - this might be more in-depth of an analysis than Tolkien himself intended.
Still, if Tolkien indeed had a specific character in mind as the "self-styled ruler" of Middle-Earth, it would seem likely that he'd name that character if it were Boromir or Denethor - characters already known to be corrupted by the desire for the Ring.
On the other hand, if it were a morally virtuous character like Gandalf Galadriel or Aragorn, it seems plausible that Tolkien's circuitous language here might be dropping veiled hints in that direction. Especially if the "Ringwinner" were to have emerged after a bloody struggle, striking down those who were formerly allies against Sauron. That scenario (or something akin to it preceding a "victory" by Boromir or Denethor) is one of general moral failure, a hypothetical to which I'd guess Tolkien would be even more at pains to avoid attaching the names of his own characters.
Additionally, it is notable that Isildur's wielding of the Ring at his death consisted only of using its power of invisibility in a failed attempt at escaping the Orc-ambush. He didn't use it to try to daunt the Orcs or force them to obey him, which suggests that either he was of insufficient 'stature" or (more likely in my view) that he didn't know enough about the Ring's power to make that attempt.
Lastly, small correction: Elrond and Galadriel are not Maiar but Eldar.
- Andrew McCarthy (ATM)
Dear David:
I agree that Tolkien's use of the passive here is very deliberate. Also that the two categories of consequences you outline wd produce v. different results.
--John R.
Dear Paul W.
A lot of the time when Tolkien poses a what if it sounds like thinking on paper. The phrasing here seems to me more like he has a definite answer in mind.
Of course I cd be wrong about that.
--John R.
Dear ATM
Thanks for the correction: I shd have said 'Immortal' rather than Maiar.
Re. the Ruler, another interesting passage appears in The Last Debate (I think) where Gandalf and company conclude that Sauron thinks a group of heroes are trying to act jointly over using the Ring, and he shd strike now before a winner emerges. This projection on Sauron's part is rather like Saruman's pitch to Gandalf about joining forces. Gandalf is having none of it, pointing out that only one person at a time can wear the Ring. Given his tendency to act as a junior Sauron, I suspect Saruman is aping Sauron's words to him in his own attempted seduction of Gandalf.
But as you and Paul say, it's v. tenuous. Just an interesting poke at an obscure point to see how tightly woven the whole structure is.
--John R.
Galadriel is my candidate. Her speech in Lorien when tempted by Frodo is very powerful ... “Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!”
It's one of the most chilling passages (but often overlooked), and suppose Gladriel would have succumbed, she would have been a more stronger ruler than any humans. Humans can be unpredictable, and would probably immediately revert to infighting about who would deserve the Ring. They would be no match for Sauron, but Galadriel is.
I also read Tolkien as expecting a period of war between former allies. The first to claim the Ring would not remain uncontested.
Of the Men, we know that Aragorn faced down Sauron through the Palantir, whereas Denethor, though not defeated, was browbeaten and misled. Boromir, as I read him, was a lesser man than his father, and his actions on Amon Hen suggest that he was more likely to be controlled by the Ring than control it. Faramir was greater than Denethor, but lacks the will to dominate shown (beneficially) by Aragorn, such as when leading the Grey Company through the Paths of the Dead. Therefore Aragorn, of the Men, would triumph.
Of the Elves, both are ringbearers, but Galadriel was older and more experienced in both (civil) war and rebellion. She also spent longer facing off against Sauron over the Anduin in Dol Guldur. I would expect her to defeat both Elrond and Aragorn.
But Gandalf is a Maiar, of unknown power and potential. (He is also a ringbearer.) He was sent specifically to be the foe of Sauron (though not, of course, by direct conflict). He returned from death powerful enough to summon and dismiss Saruman (another Maiar) with a word. Unleashed, I would would expect him to dominate all of the others.
My problem with that theory is Tolkien's word "seized". Galadriel was not set to seize the Ring. Frodo offered it to her. A Galadriel who might have succumbed to this offer and took it, while already a profoundly different being than the wisewoman who renounces it, is not as different as one who would have snatched at it without the offer.
The restraint shown by not only Galadriel and Gandalf but Aragorn and Faramir, all of whom have obvious opportunities to take the Ring, is essential to who they are and how the Wise think. Had they thought in a different manner, they would have been different people. For a parallel, see Letter 171 to Hugh Brogan on how Theoden's language makes him who he is.
Dear Phil:
You're certainly right in one thing: Galadriel is the most powerful among any of the figures who made my short list.
--John R.
Dear Clive:
When you say "I also read Tolkien as expecting a period of war between former allies. The first to claim the Ring would not remain uncontested." it does bring up the point that a war between recent allies is v. much what Europe almost had in the years immediately following 1945. This also ties back to Paul's comment.
Plus I like your breakdown, character by character, of each potential claimants' chance.
--John R.
> Gandalf was a Maiar
And Galadriel was an Elves.
I read this Foreword as a counterfactual, explaining how LOTR would have been written if it were simply an allegory for WWII. In that context, I see Saruman as perhaps akin to the USSR, which sided with Sauron/Nazis for short-term gain, and then used espionage and kidnapped Germany scientists ("treacheries" and "found in Mordor the missing links") to build its own Ring/atomic bomb.
If I'm right about that, the other side of the allegorical "conflict" would be the USA, which used a Ring/bomb and occupied Baradur/Germany. In WWII, the US was a great power fighting the war nominally to help other countries in their territory. With the exception of Pearl Harbor, US territory wasn't bombed and the US wasn't ravaged by war. I think that makes it less likely the "self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth" was one of the men of Gondor because they were the realm most at risk from Mordor/Germany. If Rohan was the British ally coming from afar to help, Gondor was France bordering the great enemy. Ergo, Gondor wouldn't have been one of the two sides in the "conflict." This is taking an overly allegorical approach to the story, but I think that's the point of the Foreword.
Next, Tolkien says both sides "would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt". If one of those sides is Saruman/USSR, that would make sense. However, I think this line excludes Gandalf, whom I can't imagine would ever view hobbits this way (he was consistently the one to defend and champion them).
However, I think the Elves generally fit all of these conditions. Lothlorien and Rivendell were on the side of the "good guys," but were also distant from the fighting. Unlike humans, who don't seem to have had the technology to forge their own Ring, Elrond and Galadriel already had rings of power. And it's easy to imagine an Elvish ruler viewing hobbits with contempt.
Given the other textual evidence cited about Galadriel's moment of temptation, I'd conclude Galadriel is the "self-styled Ruler" Tolkien alludes to. This also fits with what we learn of her in the Silmarillion and her desire to rule a realm of her own. In fact, this would fit with Tolkien's later revisions to the Silmarillion that would have given her an even more prominent role in the legendarium.
I read this Foreword as a counterfactual, explaining how LOTR would have been written if it were simply an allegory for WWII. In that context, I see Saruman as perhaps akin to the USSR, which sided with Sauron/Nazis for short-term gain, and then used espionage and kidnapped Germany scientists ("treacheries" and "found in Mordor the missing links") to build its own Ring/atomic bomb.
If I'm right about that, the other side of the allegorical "conflict" would be the USA, which used a Ring/bomb and occupied Baradur/Germany. In WWII, the US was a great power fighting the war nominally to help other countries in their territory. With the exception of Pearl Harbor, US territory wasn't bombed and the US wasn't ravaged by war. I think that makes it less likely the "self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth" was one of the men of Gondor because they were the realm most at risk from Mordor/Germany. If Rohan was the British ally coming from afar to help, Gondor was France bordering the great enemy. Ergo, Gondor wouldn't have been one of the two sides in the "conflict." This is taking an overly allegorical approach to the story, but I think that's the point of the Foreword.
Next, Tolkien says both sides "would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt". If one of those sides is Saruman/USSR, that would make sense. However, I think this line excludes Gandalf, whom I can't imagine would ever view hobbits this way (he was consistently the one to defend and champion them).
However, I think the Elves generally fit all of these conditions. Lothlorien and Rivendell were on the side of the "good guys," but were also distant from the fighting. Unlike humans, who don't seem to have had the technology to forge their own Ring, Elrond and Galadriel already had rings of power. And it's easy to imagine an Elvish ruler viewing hobbits with contempt.
Given the other textual evidence cited about Galadriel's moment of temptation, I'd conclude Galadriel is the "self-styled Ruler" Tolkien alludes to. This also fits with what we learn of her in the Silmarillion and her desire to rule a realm of her own. In fact, this would fit with Tolkien's later revisions to the Silmarillion that would have given her an even more prominent role in the legendarium.
>> Gandalf was a Maiar
> And Galadriel was an Elves.
Please forgive this lowly and fallible Men.
More seriously, the extent of Tolkien's 'what if' (which was only a reaction to people claiming an allegory that was never there) is not defined. Where would the AU leave the canonical history? When and how would the characters deviate from their known personalities? There is space for so much ambiguity that reasoned argument has little to stand on. I even thought about including Gothmog and the Mouth of Sauron in my analysis, but any AU that allowed them to claim a stake seemed so far from canon that I wouldn't have any 'facts' to argue from.
Note: one practical reason for not destroying Sauron is that it would probably be impossible without destroying the Ring, which the Ruler would naturally avoid. In which case, I strongly suspect that history would repeat itself and Sauron would end up as the Ruler after all. The word 'Horcrux' occurs to me...
As I said, I wouldn't bet money that I am right here. If you think this was something he gave some thought, I bow to your superior expertise. :)
I do have some thoughts about the infighting over the ring Tolkien mentions. Most Americans when they consider WWII think in terms of the "Big 3", the U.K., the U.S. & the U.S.S.R. But Tolkien was English, and he saw the war through a very different prism. For Americans, the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, and their invasion of Finland in 1940 are minor blips on the historical radar. Even less so the British attack on the French fleet at Mers El Kébir, the British invasions of Iraq & Syria, and the unrest in India. The British violation of Norway's neutrality in the Altmarck affair, and similar events all painted a more complicated picture of the early days of WWII then Americans tend to credit. Even Americans who know better often subconsciously think of the war starting on 7 December 1941,ignoring Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, Japan's war on China, and the Japanese/Russia clash in Manchuria.
As I mentioned earlier, judging by the published letters he was very aware of some politicians' desire to make Germany a wasteland after the war, and he disapproved. I can't imagine he was happy about Mers El Kébir even if he thought it was necessary. But this history of English and French infighting at the start of the war certainly colored his thinking, IMO. It makes even more clear why he was adamant that the War of the Ring was not an analogy for WWII - simply put, he had a broader and more nuanced view of the war then many of his current readers.
Post a Comment