# Why is Aragorn in exile?



## Orcrist

*Aragorn*

I have read the LOTR before but can't remember an important point. I'm rereading right now and am in book five. I can't stand it anymore and need to know the answer to this question: WHY IS ARAGORN IN EXILE?
any help will be greatly appreciated. if the answer is a spoiler please don't tell me.


----------



## aragil

*Don't let Elrond's line from the movie fool you...*

Aragorn wasn't in exile. Through his male ancestors he is the rightful king of Arthedain (part of the former kingdom of Arnor). His kingdom was effectively wiped out ~1300 years prior to LOTR by the witch king of Angmar (lord of the ringwraiths). The surviving nobility from Arthedain (including Aragorn) makes up the Rangers. So when Frodo meets Aragorn in Bree, he is actually in the heart of Aragorn's kingdom.
Aragorn's claim to Gondor comes from ~1300 years ago (right before the fall of Arthedain). One of the daughters of the King of Gondor married the heir to the throne of Arthedain. All of the sons of the King of Gondor were later killed, and Arthedain asserted that it could claim the throne of Gondor. This was refuted by Gondor, who instated the King's nephew (or cousin, I can't remember) in his place. Later on the newphew and all of his sons died as well, but by this time Arthedain had effectively been destroyed, so Aragorn's ancestors weren't able to press their claim.


----------



## Orcrist

Thanks for the info,
By the way, where does this information come from? appendix A?
I just want to make sure that i'm not missing something.


----------



## pgt

Actually I think the better claim is that he is of Isildur and Elendils line as his claim to the throne. I thought this was the same logic made in the Arthedain claim that was rejected at that time by Gondor.

My theory as to why the long wait before (again) claiming the throne was historical 'timing'. Elrond among others probably counselled this. Some dude from the wild can't very well just walk up to the most powerful city in ME and claim to be king especially with another dude (like Denethor) already calling the shots. I bet that claim would have been rejected real quick just like the one 1300 years before!

But when war and doom are looming...
Denethor loses it...
Boromir is dead...
You've got the shards of Narsil and a few other prophet gizmos...
Faramir is dying...
Mithrandir is supporting you...
You ride with 2 rarely seen elvish lords courtesy of Imladris...
The Periannath halflings appear from legend...
You ride with northern Dunedain 'captains'
You call on the host of the dead...
You've already convinced Gondors most powerfull ally you're the king...
You arrive with a fleet...
You save Faramir with "Kings foil" proving the healing hand legend...
...and basically talk the talk and walk the walk... not to mention leading the final military blow that saves everyone temporarily and there is no one else left to lead (Oh and you find another tree though that happened a tad late)...

... well it took 1300 years to get the timing right after the 1st failed claim. Darn lucky too because during the time of the 1st claim they still had a kingdom, power, were established members of the nobility etc. 1300 years later they were largely reduced to wanders shouldering a hefty burden of proof.

Bree 'was' in the kingdom Aragorn would have inherited. There was no kingdom for Aragorn at the time of Bree. In a way he was in exile. Even after he becomes crowned, the North continues to be a dramatically reduced and symbolic kingdom up through the end of the writings I recall.


----------



## Snaga

Good post pgt - nothing to add to that.

The other question is why there was no attempt to re-establish the North Kingdom?

My guess is that the Dunedain were no longer strong enough and the Witch King would have come back again and the reason was to spare Eriador from war???


----------



## Kris Rhodes

*The North Kingdom*

I don't know that it was merely a symbolic kingdom in the end. Aragorn seems to have made some pretty strong and binding decrees about, for example, the shire and contact with it from outside. And Aragorn himself travelled in the north as King - which is hard for me to imagine unless the north were safely and certainly *his* kingdom.

-Kris


----------



## aragil

*Good points about Aragorns' claim to Gondor, but ...*

I still don't think that Aragorn was claiming the throne of Gondor through the line of Isildur. When Arvedui of Arthedain pressed his claim to the throne he was married to a woman of the line of Anarion, not descended from it. Gondor responded that following the Last Alliance, Isildur had forsaken the kingship of Gondor in order to govern the North, which at that time was perceived as being the higher calling. Therefore the line of Isildur could not claim the throne of Gondor, but the line of Anarion (which Aragorn was also descended from) could. That being said, I think that the reasons that none of the other descendants of Arvedui pressed their claim are exactly those posted by pgt.
Variag, were you referring to why no effort was made before the Lord of the Rings, or after? If before, then I agree with you- between the Great Plague and the constant warfare with Rhudaur (where's Aerin?) & Angmar, the Numenorean population of Arthedain (and Cardolan) was decimated beyond raising again. The natives of Eriador (Rivermen, Breelanders) were still around, along with the relatively few rangers, so I guess they were what comprised the fourth age Kingdom of Arnor (which was resurrected as per Kris' post).


----------



## Telcontar

*Are we forgetting the Kin-Strife?*

Also, if you remember from the RoTK, are large reason why Arvedui's claim was denied was due to the blood spilled during the Kin-Strife and the desire of the Steward of Gondor at the time (don't remember the name) wishing to prevent any such infighting from recurring. The Crown was given to the the King's cousin, descended from the brother (I think) of a previous King, instead of the King's daughter (Arvedui's wife).


----------



## aragil

Doh! This same thread has been argued here before, and last time I brought up the Kin-strife. My mind is beginning to slip at a rather precipitous rate. Oh well, good call Telcontar.

ps 1st Ruling Steward- Mardil, beginning his reign in 2050, 75 years after the fall of Arthedain and 642 years after the beginning of the Kin-strife. (War of the ring was fought in TA 3018-3019)
Pelendur- steward of Ondoher (of Gondor) who played a large role in denying Arvedui the crown.
Firiel- daughter of Ondoher and wife of Arvedui.
Earnil II- King of Gondor subsequent to Ondoher. He was the Great-grandson of Arciryas, who was brother to King Narmacil II of Gondor (everybody got that?).
Earnur- Son of Earnil II, last king of Gondor before Aragorn. Perished in 2050.


----------



## pgt

To further my position that Aragorn's cliam was not based on Arvedui be the direct Isiludur/Elendil claim how many time sin the book are we treated to quotes like "Isildur's heir" or 'of the line of Elendil'? Answer: many many times... Not once in the text of the 3 books are we treated to the name "ARvedui" to the best of my memory. That name is only found by digging through obscure appendices AFAIK. That claim was no part of Aragorn's claim. In fact it's best convienently forgotten as it doesn't help his case. It was officially rejected which set an uncomfortable legal precedent for Aragorn to overcome. It was overcome by conveniently forgetting it and going straight to the original Isildur/Elendil claim (along w/ all the timing I mentioned earlier).

It DUPLICATES the merits of the Arvedui claim. It is NOT BASED UPON the Arvedui claim.

The Arvedui claim is a FAILED claim. How and why would you base a claim on a non-claim or rejected claim.

That's like telling the judge you were speeding because the guy in front of me was speeding even though the guy in front of you got busted for it. Better to say what the guy in front of you was saying - that his speedo was broke. Only your car is about a 1000 years older than the guy in front and maybe this time the judge will buy it!

---

I agree, the Arnorians or Arnorites or whatever were essentially treated to genocide from what the books say. But my problem with that is why was Bree (in the heart of the kingdom) spared as well as the Shire that we KNOW was spared). The Shire was explicitly involved in the defense of Arnor by sending a company of archers that never returned. I suppose the actual physical conflict proper never quite reached the Shire per se. And Bree's history is sufficiently vague that anything can be invented. But all in all that's pretty dang precise and specific genocide much too close to other potential targets like Bree and Shire.


----------



## aragil

*Aragorn didn't claim kingship through Arvedui...*

He claimed it through descent from Anarion via Firiel. Arvedui tried the ol' descent from Elendil/Isildur, and Gondor specifically rejected that claim because Isildur himself had given up lordship over the southern kingdom. From that point on, only a descendant of Anarion could rule Gondor. Aragorn was descended from Anarion, therefore he had a claim. Arvedui was not, therefore he didn't.

The Shire, Bree, and the rest of Eriador was spared because Earnur (son of the king of Gondor at the time of the fall of Arthedain) arrived with a huge expeditionary fleet from Gondor. He wiped out the realm of Angmar, thus making the North safe for a while. Unfortunately there just weren't enough Dunedain left in the North to take advantage of that fact.


----------



## pgt

Firiel? Huh?

"'At Pelargir the HEIR OF ISILDUR will have need of you" - Aragorn addressing Angbor.

"'Hear now the words of the HEIR OF ISULDUR'" - Aragorn addressing host of the dead

There are others I'm sure...

But the definitive quote I believe is:

"Here is Aragorn, ... ... ... ... Elessar [Aragorn] of the line of Valandil, ISILDUR's SON, Elendil's son of Numenor. Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?'" - Steward Faramir officially addressing the powers that be. 

You of course know the answer to Faramir's retorical question. Faramir is the decider in this matter and Faramir doesn't justify his decision thorugh Anarion or Firiel. Read the full account for yourself in RotK.

It all had to do with timing (as I posted above) as the most important part of the claim and the oficial Isildur lineage claim had almost become a minor detail at the point in most Gondorian's mines IMHO.

Oh, EXCELLENT Eriador/SHire/Bree explanation - I completely forgot about the interceding that occured - makes perfect sense! Thanks!


----------



## Halasían

> I have read the LOTR before but can't remember an important point. I'm rereading right now and am in book five. I can't stand it anymore and need to know the answer to this question: WHY IS ARAGORN IN EXILE?


 I guess this is the type of questions that come up when people read the books after the movie? I was asked this a few times now...


----------



## Gigantor

Orcrist said:


> *Aragorn*
> 
> I have read the LOTR before but can't remember an important point. I'm rereading right now and am in book five. I can't stand it anymore and need to know the answer to this question: WHY IS ARAGORN IN EXILE?
> any help will be greatly appreciated. if the answer is a spoiler please don't tell me.


Aragorn's in exile so Sauron doesn't find out and rek his dreams of being King of Gondor (which would have Sauron gettin' rek'd along the way).


----------



## Might_of_arnor

He is not, rather Elrond made it appear so that sauron would not find a member of isildurs bloodline was still alive. 

Remember aragorns blood stems back to the numenorians in which aragorn holds many of the ancient traits his ancestors had (dark hair, grey eyes, he was said to be 6'6 as was the average height of a numenorian, had a long lasting life which if I clearly remember aragorn lived to at least 210 years and just had a better resistance to the elements than most men would have)

Not to mention he comes from the people who eru let live and thus that good will in aragorn still resides within him. However I believe he puts himself in exile more than Elrond has done so, more for because he does not want to become isildur himself (who failed to cast the one ring and end the greatest evil middle earth had seen). This fear of failing his bloodline is what stops aragorn from wanting to take his rightful place as King of men and his faith in men also lacks (in the movies, in the extended scene where they land on amon hen, Boromir pulls aragorn aside and says somewhere along the lines "you cannot forever escape your fate as King, come and let us go to gondor where we will fight mordor together" aragorn does not respond but you can tell he is reluctant, Boromir proceedes with "you put more faith in elves and dwarves more than your own kin" this is goes back to isildur.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Might_of_arnor said:


> He is not, rather Elrond made it appear so that sauron would not find a member of isildurs bloodline was still alive.
> 
> Remember aragorns blood stems back to the numenorians in which aragorn holds many of the ancient traits his ancestors had (dark hair, grey eyes, he was said to be 6'6 as was the average height of a numenorian, had a long lasting life which if I clearly remember aragorn lived to at least 210 years and just had a better resistance to the elements than most men would have)
> 
> Not to mention he comes from the people who eru let live and thus that good will in aragorn still resides within him. However I believe he puts himself in exile more than Elrond has done so, more for because he does not want to become isildur himself (who failed to cast the one ring and end the greatest evil middle earth had seen). This fear of failing his bloodline is what stops aragorn from wanting to take his rightful place as King of men and his faith in men also lacks (in the movies, in the extended scene where they land on amon hen, Boromir pulls aragorn aside and says somewhere along the lines "you cannot forever escape your fate as King, come and let us go to gondor where we will fight mordor together" aragorn does not respond but you can tell he is reluctant, Boromir proceedes with "you put more faith in elves and dwarves more than your own kin" this is goes back to isildur.



Good post. However,

The whole "Reluctant King" side of Aragorn is entirely Peter Jackson's meddling. Aragorn always desired to be King, he _knew_ he'd be King, it was his sole right. He was just waiting for the right time, this sort of thing is actually quite common in Medieval literature. As a post above us puts it: "Historical Timing". I don't mean to attack your post, I just don't want anyone getting confused by the movies. 

Aragorn wasn't some emasculated exile, he was the Future King of the Reunited Kingdom. Him having Narsil reforged into Andúril at the start of the journey is proof of that. 

Other than that, good post! 

CL


----------



## Hador

Might_of_arnor said:


> I believe he puts himself in exile more than Elrond has done so, more for because he does not want to become isildur himself (who failed to cast the one ring and end the greatest evil middle earth had seen). This fear of failing his bloodline is what stops aragorn from wanting to take his rightful place as King of men and his faith in men also lacks



I'd say that Aragorn and the 14 Chieftans before him were not kings because "_their power departed_" (The North-kingdom and the Dunedain) after the fall of Arthedain to Angmar. Aragorn's ancestor, the last king of Arthedain (Arvedui) attempted to get the crown of Gondor, but he failed in this because he was not of the line of Meneldil and the Northern kings were seen as weak.



> To most men in Gondor, the realm in Arthedain seemed a small thing, for all the lineage of its lords. (Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion)



That is why *Eärnil*, a great captain of Gondor, who was the 3rd cousin of King Ondoher (who died with his sons) was chosen. Although *Pelendur* may have also been persuaded by the promise of a hereditary stewardship. Eärnil was a proven and victorious captain, strong, worthy through his might of arms and bloodline.

Aragorn was working his way to reclaim the kingship throughout his life. His uncle Elrond said to him;



> She shall not be the bride of any Man less than the King of Gondor and Arnor. (Of Aragorn and Arwen)



There was no reluctance on Aragorn's part to attain his rightful inheritance. In Rivendell Boromir is hopeful that Aragorn is more than a name:



> Mayhap the Sword-that-was-Broken may still stem the tide - if the hand that wields it has inherited not an heirloom only, but the sinews of the Kings of Men. (The Council of Elrond)



And then Aragorn tells him, "_we will put it to the test one day_."

He was going to head to Gondor with Boromir. When Elendil's sword was reforged in Rivendell it is said why this was done.



> For Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the Marches of Mordor. (The Ring Goes South)



Aragorn in his life proved himself over and over again (The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen). He became renowned in Gondor as *Thorongil*, "_He came to Ecthelion from Rohan, where he had served the King Thengel_." (The Stewards)



> 2957-80 Aragorn undertakes his great journies and errantries. He serves in disguise both Thengel of Rohan and Ecthelion ll of Gondor. (The Tale of Years, The Third Age)



Later during the War of the Ring he proved himself again. These acts of valour and success by Aragorn were the means for his reclamation of the throne. Perhaps if an earlier ancestor proved himself in like manner it would have been done earlier. As we saw with Arvedui the Northern Dúnedain were not held in high regard. Denethor, over a thousand years after Arvedui, still saw the line of Isildur as a "_a ragged house long bereft of dignity_" (The Pyre of Denethor).

There is a gradual coming into his own that appears in the books. It begins in the tavern where he did not glitter, to the healing hands being the hands of a King as declared by the Dúnadan woman *Ioreth* in Minas Tirith.



> Aragorn took the stone and pinned the brooch upon his breast, and those who saw him wondered; for they had not marked before how tall and kingly he stood. (The Mirror of Galadriel)



There is an instance in Rohan where Aragorn asserts his authority in a kingly manner. He declares to the Rohirrim:



> It is not clear to me that the will of Théoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil’s heir of Gondor… I command you not to touch it, nor to permit any other to lay hand on it. In this elvish sheath dwells the Blade that was Broken and has been made again. Telchar first wrought it in the deeps of time. Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil’s sword save Elendil’s heir.(The King of the Golden Hall)



This is a clear indication of his station and bloodline.

There is Éowyn's perception of Aragorn;



> she now was suddenly aware of him: tall heir of kings, wise with many winters, greycloaked, hiding a power that yet she felt. (The King of the Golden Hall)



There is also this bit of lore from Gondor from Ioreth (mentioned earlier) about the kings and their healing prowess:



> would that there were kings in Gondor, as there were once upon a time, they say! For it is said in old lore: The hands of the king are the hands of a healer. And so the rightful king could ever be known. (The Houses of Healing)



This is an ability shown by Aragorn very early on in the story. When he and the hobbits encountered the Nazgûl Aragorn demonstrates this when he breathes some life back into Frodo after he had received a Morgul-wound in Flight to the Ford. However, no one could really cure Frodo of the wound which remained with him even as he left Middle-earth. Aragorn, Glorfindel, and Elrond had taken a look at it and did what they could. He healed Gimli (The Road to Isengard). Then in Gondor he took care of Faramir, Merry, and Éowyn, doing which, word spread like wildfire about the king and how "_after war he brought healing_" (The Houses of Healing). Aragorn says, "_I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her from the dark valley_." (The Houses of Healing) when dealing with Éowyn.

The one other thing is his taking up of the seeing-stone and revealing himself to Sauron. The palantír were in the power of the kings and as king he battled against Sauron, "_I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough, barely_" (The Passing of the Grey Company). This is another act of Aragorn being kingly by using the Stone which is his by law and right. Below is the scene in which he made use of it.



> "'Where is Aragorn?'
> 'In a high chamber of the Burg,' said Legolas. 'He has neither rested nor slept, I think. He went thither some hours ago, saying he must take thought, and only his kinsman, Halbarad, went with him;'
> <...>
> Merry had eyes only for Aragorn, so startling was the change that he saw in him, as if in one night many years had fallen on his head. Grim was his face, grey-hued and weary.
> 'I am troubled in mind, lord,' he said, standing by the king's horse.
> 'I have heard strange words, and I see new perils far off. I have laboured long in thought, and now I fear that I must change my purpose.'
> <...>
> 'A struggle grimmer for my part than the battle of the Hornburg,' answered Aragorn. 'I have looked in the Stone of Orthanc, my friends.'" (The Passing of the Grey Company)



There is also the instance of Aragorn unfurling the banner of his house (Elendil) just before he and his men engaged in the battle of the Pelennor Fields.



> There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count.(Battle of the Pelennor Fields)



Aragorn is seen revealing himself to his enemies, while he does also hide from him. He told the Hobbits how the Enemy is setting traps for him. Yet at Helm's Deep he showed himself and the Enemy did a double take and were taken aback.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Hador said:


> I'd say that Aragorn and the 14 Chieftans before him were not kings because "_their power departed_" (The North-kingdom and the Dunedain) after the fall of Arthedain to Angmar. Aragorn's ancestor, the last king of Arthedain (Arvedui) attempted to get the crown of Gondor, but he failed in this because he was not of the line of Meneldil and the Northern kings were seen as weak.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why *Eärnil*, a great captain of Gondor, who was the 3rd cousin of King Ondoher (who died with his sons) was chosen. Although *Pelendur* may have also been persuaded by the promise of a hereditary stewardship. Eärnil was a proven and victorious captain, strong, worthy through his might of arms and bloodline.
> 
> Aragorn was working his way to reclaim the kingship throughout his life. His uncle Elrond said to him;
> 
> 
> 
> There was no reluctance on Aragorn's part to attain his rightful inheritance. In Rivendell Boromir is hopeful that Aragorn is more than a name:
> 
> 
> 
> And then Aragorn tells him, "_we will put it to the test one day_."
> 
> He was going to head to Gondor with Boromir. When Elendil's sword was reforged in Rivendell it is said why this was done.
> 
> 
> 
> Aragorn in his life proved himself over and over again (The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen). He became renowned in Gondor as *Thorongil*, "_He came to Ecthelion from Rohan, where he had served the King Thengel_." (The Stewards)
> 
> 
> 
> Later during the War of the Ring he proved himself again. These acts of valour and success by Aragorn were the means for his reclamation of the throne. Perhaps if an earlier ancestor proved himself in like manner it would have been done earlier. As we saw with Arvedui the Northern Dúnedain were not held in high regard. Denethor, over a thousand years after Arvedui, still saw the line of Isildur as a "_a ragged house long bereft of dignity_" (The Pyre of Denethor).
> 
> There is a gradual coming into his own that appears in the books. It begins in the tavern where he did not glitter, to the healing hands being the hands of a King as declared by the Dúnadan woman *Ioreth* in Minas Tirith.
> 
> 
> 
> There is an instance in Rohan where Aragorn asserts his authority in a kingly manner. He declares to the Rohirrim:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a clear indication of his station and bloodline.
> 
> There is Éowyn's perception of Aragorn;
> 
> 
> 
> There is also this bit of lore from Gondor from Ioreth (mentioned earlier) about the kings and their healing prowess:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an ability shown by Aragorn very early on in the story. When he and the hobbits encountered the Nazgûl Aragorn demonstrates this when he breathes some life back into Frodo after he had received a Morgul-wound in Flight to the Ford. However, no one could really cure Frodo of the wound which remained with him even as he left Middle-earth. Aragorn, Glorfindel, and Elrond had taken a look at it and did what they could. He healed Gimli (The Road to Isengard). Then in Gondor he took care of Faramir, Merry, and Éowyn, doing which, word spread like wildfire about the king and how "_after war he brought healing_" (The Houses of Healing). Aragorn says, "_I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her from the dark valley_." (The Houses of Healing) when dealing with Éowyn.
> 
> The one other thing is his taking up of the seeing-stone and revealing himself to Sauron. The palantír were in the power of the kings and as king he battled against Sauron, "_I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough, barely_" (The Passing of the Grey Company). This is another act of Aragorn being kingly by using the Stone which is his by law and right. Below is the scene in which he made use of it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is also the instance of Aragorn unfurling the banner of his house (Elendil) just before he and his men engaged in the battle of the Pelennor Fields.
> 
> 
> 
> Aragorn is seen revealing himself to his enemies, while he does also hide from him. He told the Hobbits how the Enemy is setting traps for him. Yet at Helm's Deep he showed himself and the Enemy did a double take and were taken aback.



Bravo! Excellent post _mellon!
_
CL


----------



## Halasían

Hador said:


> I'd say that Aragorn and the 14 Chieftans before him were not kings because "_their power departed_" (The North-kingdom and the Dunedain) after the fall of Arthedain to Angmar. Aragorn's ancestor, the last king of Arthedain (Arvedui) attempted to get the crown of Gondor, but he failed in this because he was not of the line of Meneldil and the Northern kings were seen as weak.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why *Eärnil*, a great captain of Gondor, who was the 3rd cousin of King Ondoher (who died with his sons) was chosen. Although *Pelendur* may have also been persuaded by the promise of a hereditary stewardship. Eärnil was a proven and victorious captain, strong, worthy through his might of arms and bloodline.
> 
> Aragorn was working his way to reclaim the kingship throughout his life. His uncle Elrond said to him;
> 
> 
> 
> There was no reluctance on Aragorn's part to attain his rightful inheritance. In Rivendell Boromir is hopeful that Aragorn is more than a name:
> 
> 
> 
> And then Aragorn tells him, "_we will put it to the test one day_."
> 
> He was going to head to Gondor with Boromir. When Elendil's sword was reforged in Rivendell it is said why this was done.
> 
> 
> 
> Aragorn in his life proved himself over and over again (The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen). He became renowned in Gondor as *Thorongil*, "_He came to Ecthelion from Rohan, where he had served the King Thengel_." (The Stewards)
> 
> 
> 
> Later during the War of the Ring he proved himself again. These acts of valour and success by Aragorn were the means for his reclamation of the throne. Perhaps if an earlier ancestor proved himself in like manner it would have been done earlier. As we saw with Arvedui the Northern Dúnedain were not held in high regard. Denethor, over a thousand years after Arvedui, still saw the line of Isildur as a "_a ragged house long bereft of dignity_" (The Pyre of Denethor).
> 
> There is a gradual coming into his own that appears in the books. It begins in the tavern where he did not glitter, to the healing hands being the hands of a King as declared by the Dúnadan woman *Ioreth* in Minas Tirith.
> 
> 
> 
> There is an instance in Rohan where Aragorn asserts his authority in a kingly manner. He declares to the Rohirrim:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a clear indication of his station and bloodline.
> 
> There is Éowyn's perception of Aragorn;
> 
> 
> 
> There is also this bit of lore from Gondor from Ioreth (mentioned earlier) about the kings and their healing prowess:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an ability shown by Aragorn very early on in the story. When he and the hobbits encountered the Nazgûl Aragorn demonstrates this when he breathes some life back into Frodo after he had received a Morgul-wound in Flight to the Ford. However, no one could really cure Frodo of the wound which remained with him even as he left Middle-earth. Aragorn, Glorfindel, and Elrond had taken a look at it and did what they could. He healed Gimli (The Road to Isengard). Then in Gondor he took care of Faramir, Merry, and Éowyn, doing which, word spread like wildfire about the king and how "_after war he brought healing_" (The Houses of Healing). Aragorn says, "_I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her from the dark valley_." (The Houses of Healing) when dealing with Éowyn.
> 
> The one other thing is his taking up of the seeing-stone and revealing himself to Sauron. The palantír were in the power of the kings and as king he battled against Sauron, "_I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough, barely_" (The Passing of the Grey Company). This is another act of Aragorn being kingly by using the Stone which is his by law and right. Below is the scene in which he made use of it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is also the instance of Aragorn unfurling the banner of his house (Elendil) just before he and his men engaged in the battle of the Pelennor Fields.
> 
> 
> 
> Aragorn is seen revealing himself to his enemies, while he does also hide from him. He told the Hobbits how the Enemy is setting traps for him. Yet at Helm's Deep he showed himself and the Enemy did a double take and were taken aback.




Yes! It's good to see some book knowledge! Thanks for your excellent post Hador!

The whole stripping of the northern kingdom of Arnor from the PJ screenplay really shtz me to tears. It was all done in both laziness and the desire to co-opt the true story by PJ Boyens & co. For those who say they _had_ to make changes to make it fit into a theatrical release and make sense to those who didn't read the books, there is a simple way to write in the north. You introduce the Dunedain Rangers in a scene of them opposing the ringwraiths at Sarn Ford, and maybe have a short scene of Halbarad talking to Strider at the Prancing Pony before the hobbits show up. Later, have the Rangers with the Sons of Elrond... and maybe even include Arwen who personally brings the standard she made to him, and have Aragorn be pronounced the heir of Isildur when he wrestles with Sauron via the Palantir (another aspect that was totally missed in the movies). Small changes in the screenplay could have had the story more-or-less right and not introduced the whole 'weak Aragorn' who "chose exile" over rule (never really explained in the movies). It is why I hope this PJ mob has nothing to do with this Amazon Middle Earth series in development.


----------



## Olorgando

Aragorn was (and I’ve counted this!) the 64th ruling descendant from his something-or-other great-uncle Elrond’s (twin) brother Elros. The “only” male-descent break occurred when Elros’s great-great-granddaughter Silmarien, (oldest child of Tar-Elendil, fourth king of Númenor) had to cede the throne to her younger brother (and youngest sibling), who took the name of Tar-Meneldur (a line of succession which was soon to be changed, as Tar-Meneldur’s son was Tar-Aldarion, father of the first Ruling Queen Tar-Ancalimë (the latter’s only child for well-known reasons)). After that, the lineage was unbroken male succession for almost 3000 years of the Second Age, and, more to the point, the entire Third Age. Yes, Arnor had fallen apart into three (warring) “kingdoms” after 861 Third Age, and the line of kings had come to an end in 1975 Third Age with the death of Arvedui. But the direct male line of succession of Gondor had been broken several times by then (and Gondor seemed to take a different line on the succession issue that Númenor had after Aldarion), and actually came to a definitive end with the death (presumed) of Eärnur (arriving in the north with a fleet too late to save Arvedui, but at least putting an end to the kingdom of Angmar) in 2050 Third Age, Ruling Stewards taking over after him. By Gondorian juridical standards, Aragorn had an irrefutable claim (but then Stewards can be stubborn about stepping aside …)


----------



## Alcuin

Arvedui’s claim to Gondor’s throne _was_ based in part upon his descent from Isildur. This is excerpted from Appendix A, “(iv) Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion”.


> On the death of Ondoher and his sons, Arvedui of the North-kingdom claimed the crown of Gondor, as the direct descendant of Isildur, and as the husband of Fíriel, only surviving child of Ondoher. The claim was rejected. …
> 
> The Council of Gondor answered: “The crown and royalty of Gondor belongs solely to the heirs of Meneldil, son of Anárion, to whom Isildur relinquished this realm. In Gondor this heritage is reckoned through the sons only; and we have not heard that the law is otherwise in Arnor.”
> 
> To this Arvedui replied: “Elendil had two sons, of whom Isildur was the elder and the heir of his father. We have heard that the name of Elendil stands to this day at the head of the line of the Kings of Gondor, since he was accounted the high king of all the lands of the Dúnedain. While Elendil still lived, the conjoint rule in the South was committed to his sons; but when Elendil fell, Isildur departed to take up the high kingship of his father, and committed the rule in the South in like manner to the son of his brother. He did not relinquish his royalty in Gondor, nor intend that the realm of Elendil should be divided for ever.
> 
> “Moreover, in Númenor of old the sceptre descended to the eldest child of the king, whether man or woman. It is true that the law has not been observed in the lands of exile ever troubled by war; but such was the law of our people, to which we now refer, seeing that the sons of Ondoher died childless.”
> 
> To this Gondor made no answer. The crown was claimed by Eärnil, the victorious captain; and it was granted to him with the approval of all the Dúnedain in Gondor, since he was of the royal house. ... Arvedui did not press his claim; for he had neither the power nor the will to oppose the choice of the Dúnedain of Gondor; yet the claim was never forgotten by his descendants even when their kingship had passed away. ...


This is a most remarkable passage.

First, there are two bases of Arvedui’s claim:
He is the Heir of Isildur, the senior king – the High King (designated by the prefix _Tar-_ in Quenya, as in _Tar-_Minyatur, and by _Ar-_ in Sindarin, as in _Ar-_vedui and _Ar-_agorn) – and as High King was, as Tolkien wrote of Aragorn in _Unfinished Tales_, “The Palantíri”, “_de jure_ … rightful King of both Gondor and Arnor, and could, if he willed, for just cause withdraw all previous grants to himself.”
Arvedui’s marriage to Fíriel, last surviving child of Ondoher, as a claim both on his wife’s behalf as Ruling Queen of Gondor and on his own as her spouse of royal lineage. And in this regard, Arvedui and the Council of Arnor reminded the Council of Gondor that in Númenor, there had been three Ruling Queens, and that law was never rescinded.
(Note that the Council of Gondor’s claim that the kingship “is reckoned through the sons only” is the Salic Law the French kings of the House of Valois used as a legal defense against the claims of the English kings of the House of Plantagenet in the Hundred Years War when England claimed France as its own.)
He implicitly claimed the throne of Gondor as Heir of Elendil and so as High King of all the Númenóreans.
*Gondor did not respond.* They had no legitimate refutation to Arvedui’s and Fíriel’s claims, so they chose to say nothing and do as they preferred. This is reflected in the prophecy at his birth by Malbeth the Seer:


> Arvedui you shall call him, for he will be the last in Arthedain. Though a choice will come to the Dúnedain, and if they take the one that seems less hopeful, then your son will change his name and become king of a great realm. If not, then much sorrow and many lives of men shall pass, until the Dúnedain arise and are united again.



_Arvedui did not press his claim; for he had neither the power nor the will to oppose the choice of the Dúnedain of Gondor; yet the claim was never forgotten by his descendants even when their kingship had passed away._ This is most remarkable! The Chieftains of the Dúnedain in the North were in fact the Kings of Arnor, but Arnor was lost; and elsewhere I have read (by Michael Martinez, I believe) that the Rangers of Arnor were in fact a military force, driving out, as Aragorn said in his (somewhat gentle) rebuke of Boromir, “dark things … from the houseless hills, or creep[ing] from sunless woods… What … safety would there be in … the homes of simple men at night, if the Dúnedain were … all gone into the grave?” The Rangers were what remained of the Army of Arnor.

To follow onto this, Tolkien suggests that Gondor was, in essence, ignoring the original intent of Isildur in establishing Meneldil’s reign in Osgiliath: In _Unfinished Tales_, “The Third Age”, in the essay “I. The Disaster of the Gladden Fields”, footnote 10 says that


> Meneldil was the ... son of Isildur's younger brother Anárion... Isildur ... established Meneldil as King of Gondor. ... He was in fact well-pleased by the departure of Isildur..., and hoped that affairs in the North would keep them long occupied.


to which Christopher Tolkien adds,


> Meneldil was the fourth child of Anárion, ... and ... was the last man to be born in Númenor. [This] is the only reference to his character.


When Valandil, Isildur’s only surviving son, came of age, he was in no position to challenge any of Meneldur’s decisions or his cousin’s authority; and so the rule of Gondor became, as Meneldur hoped, independent of that of Arnor.

Besides Arvedui’s latent claim to the throne of Gondor, three claims are placed by Aragorn and Elrond, who is essentially chief steward (both as keeper of the remaining royal regalia and in providing a home in which to nurture the young Chieftains) and senior advisor to Arnor.

The first is put politely but firmly by Elrond to Boromir. In diplomatic terms, there is no shade or misunderstanding in Elrond’s claim put forward on Aragorn’s behalf:


> He is Aragorn son of Arathorn, … and he is descended through many fathers from Isildur Elendil’s son of Minas Ithil. He is the Chief of the Dúnedain in the North…


After which Aragorn, as he and Elrond together unravel the dream-riddle for Boromir, asks of Boromir, “Do you wish for the House of Elendil to return to the Land of Gondor?” Boromir’s response is immediate and in sharp contrast, starkly undiplomatic; then he steps back a bit, and adds, “Yet we are hard pressed, and the Sword of Elendil would be a help beyond our hope,” which instigates Bilbo’s recitation of _All that is gold does not glitter._ Remember, Bilbo knows who Aragorn is, and sees himself as Aragorn’s subject.
The second is put forward by Aragorn himself when he first enters Old Gondor, when Éomer and his éored confront the Three Hunters in Rohan, formerly the Gondorian province of Calenardhon, still legally part of Gondor until Aragorn as King confirms the gift to Éomer after the War:


> I am Aragorn son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil’s son of Gondor.


And Legolas sees “a white flame flicker[ing] on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.” Éomer accepts this claim! Aragorn repeats this at the Stone of Erech after entering Gondor proper and Halbarad unfurls Arwen’s standard (which I suppose the Dead can see):


> I am Elessar, Isildur’s heir of Gondor.



And yet all of these claims are slightly flawed, or at least incomplete. *pgt* gets it right when he cites Faramir’s recitation of the full, and proper claim:


> [O]ne has come to claim the kingship again at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dúnedain of Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of the line of Valandil, Isildur’s son, Elendil’s son of Númenor.


The people of Gondor did not want just another Dúnadan of Middle-earth: they wanted one who claimed his Númenórean heritage, who reminded them of who they really were, even though _they_ were all in exile from Númenor.
Add to that Ioreth’s statement that, “_The hands of the king are the hands of a healer._ And so the rightful king could ever be known,” and Aragorn’s claim to Gondor is complete.

Aragorn is not alone in exile. _All of Númenor is in exile._ Gondor welcomed him as their _Númenórean_ king.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Alcuin said:


> Arvedui’s claim to Gondor’s throne _was_ based in part upon his descent from Isildur. This is excerpted from Appendix A, “(iv) Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion”.This is a most remarkable passage.
> 
> First, there are two bases of Arvedui’s claim:
> He is the Heir of Isildur, the senior king – the High King (designated by the prefix _Tar-_ in Quenya, as in _Tar-_Minyatur, and by _Ar-_ in Sindarin, as in _Ar-_vedui and _Ar-_agorn) – and as High King was, as Tolkien wrote of Aragorn in _Unfinished Tales_, “The Palantíri”, “_de jure_ … rightful King of both Gondor and Arnor, and could, if he willed, for just cause withdraw all previous grants to himself.”
> Arvedui’s marriage to Fíriel, last surviving child of Ondoher, as a claim both on his wife’s behalf as Ruling Queen of Gondor and on his own as her spouse of royal lineage. And in this regard, Arvedui and the Council of Arnor reminded the Council of Gondor that in Númenor, there had been three Ruling Queens, and that law was never rescinded.
> 
> He implicitly claimed the throne of Gondor as Heir of Elendil and so as High King of all the Númenóreans.
> *Gondor did not respond.* They had no legitimate refutation to Arvedui’s and Fíriel’s claims, so they chose to say nothing and do as they preferred. This is reflected in the prophecy at his birth by Malbeth the Seer:
> _Arvedui did not press his claim; for he had neither the power nor the will to oppose the choice of the Dúnedain of Gondor; yet the claim was never forgotten by his descendants even when their kingship had passed away._ This is most remarkable! The Chieftains of the Dúnedain in the North were in fact the Kings of Arnor, but Arnor was lost; and elsewhere I have read (by Michael Martinez, I believe) that the Rangers of Arnor were in fact a military force, driving out, as Aragorn said in his (somewhat gentle) rebuke of Boromir, “dark things … from the houseless hills, or creep[ing] from sunless woods… What … safety would there be in … the homes of simple men at night, if the Dúnedain were … all gone into the grave?” The Rangers were what remained of the Army of Arnor.
> 
> To follow onto this, Tolkien suggests that Gondor was, in essence, ignoring the original intent of Isildur in establishing Meneldil’s reign in Osgiliath: In _Unfinished Tales_, “The Third Age”, in the essay “I. The Disaster of the Gladden Fields”, footnote 10 says that to which Christopher Tolkien adds, When Valandil, Isildur’s only surviving son, came of age, he was in no position to challenge any of Meneldur’s decisions or his cousin’s authority; and so the rule of Gondor became, as Meneldur hoped, independent of that of Arnor.
> 
> Besides Arvedui’s latent claim to the throne of Gondor, three claims are placed by Aragorn and Elrond, who is essentially chief steward (both as keeper of the remaining royal regalia and in providing a home in which to nurture the young Chieftains) and senior advisor to Arnor.
> 
> The first is put politely but firmly by Elrond to Boromir. In diplomatic terms, there is no shade or misunderstanding in Elrond’s claim put forward on Aragorn’s behalf:After which Aragorn, as he and Elrond together unravel the dream-riddle, asks of Boromir, “Do you wish for the House of Elendil to return to the Land of Gondor?” Boromir’s response is immediate and, in contrast, undiplomatic; then he steps back a bit, and adds, “Yet we are hard pressed, and the Sword of Elendil would be a help beyond our hope,” which instigates Bilbo’s recitation of _All that is gold does not glitter._ Remember, Bilbo knows who Aragorn is, and sees himself as Aragorn’s subject.
> The second is put forward by Aragorn himself when he first enters Old Gondor, when Éomer and his éored confront the Three Hunters in Rohan, formerly the Gondorian province of Calenardhon, still legally part of Gondor until Aragorn confirms the gift to Éomer after the War:And Legolas sees “a white flame flicker[ing] on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.” Éomer accepts this claim! Aragorn repeats this at the Stone of Erech after entering Gondor proper and Halbarad unfurls Arwen’s standard (which I suppose the Dead can see):
> And yet all of these claims are slightly flawed, or at least incomplete. *pgt* gets it right when he cites Faramir’s recitation of the full, and proper claim:The people of Gondor did not want just another Dúnadan of Middle-earth: they wanted one who claimed his Númenórean heritage, who reminded them of who they really were, even though _they_ were all in exile from Númenor.
> Add to that Ioreth’s statement that, “_The hands of the king are the hands of a healer._ And so the rightful king could ever be known,” and Aragorn’s claim to Gondor is complete.
> 
> Aragorn is not alone in exile. _All of Númenor is in exile;_ and Gondor welcomed him as their Númenórean king.


Well explained!!!!! 


Funnily enough this whole discussion helps my own Heir to the Throne in my own High Fantasy.


Thanks everyone!


CL


----------



## Grond

What Hador said!!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Oh, well. . .



So I may as well add to the pile. 

As CL said -- a couple of years ago -- the "exile" is a common trope in Medieval Romance, but of course, is not limited to it; Aragorn is an exemplar of what the Encyclopedia of Fantasy calls a "Hidden Monarch". See the article here:








SF Encyclopedia Editorial Home


Welcome to the third edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.




sf-encyclopedia.uk




True to the type, though he is not exactly "lowly", he is unaware of his heritage until it is revealed to him by Elrond.

The "exile", if we want to call it that, is due to another structural element in the story of the hero I've mentioned elsewhere: he must be hidden from the false father who seeks his destruction. I'll say in passing that there's a parallel -- or at least an echo -- of this, in Frodo's story, as he embarks on his quest under an assumed name.

Interesting that Hador brings up the banner, as it does indeed signal Aragorn's transition from Romance to High Mimetic hero, to use Northop Frye's terminology. In his study on the symbols of fictional modes, he says that the Tree of Life of pure Myth becomes the Wizard's staff of Romance, which is then transmuted into the "fluttering royal banner" of the High Mimetic mode.

I hadn't considered the idea that the emblems on the banner would have been visible to the Dead at Erech, but it makes sense. That they would be "invisible" to the remaining members of the Fellowship present is appropriate, as they are following Aragorn through his "Night Journey" (to use another term from the Encyclopedia*), and though Erech marks the point at which his authority over the Dead is acknowledged, it's not quite over.

In fact, the transition is achieved by stages; Hador mentioned the Palantir, and I see Gandalf's handing over of it -- and his manner in doing so -- as presaging this. It certainly impressed the others present as something unusual and extraordinary.

* You can read the relevant article here:








SF Encyclopedia Editorial Home


Welcome to the third edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.




sf-encyclopedia.uk


----------



## Olorgando

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> ... Aragorn's transition from Romance to High Mimetic hero, to use Northrop Frye's terminology. ...


Tom Shippey mentions Frye's 1957 book "An Anatomy of Criticism" in his "Author of the Century" from 2000. Frye defines five very general literary modes:

Myth (heroes are divine beings)
Romance (a term that seem clearly derived from French, with some older meaning compared to which our modern usage must be a very degraded version)
High Mimesis (tragedy or epic)
Low Mimesis (classical novel)
Irony (anti-heroes)

Shippey's main point is that one reason some critics may be antsy about LoTR is because it simply refuses to stay put in any of those above pigeon-holes.
He mentions Isengard and the meeting of Gandalf, Aragorn, Théoden, Merry and Pippin, where a character from each level is basically present - and they interact with one another.
Same can be said for single characters, with Aragorn ranging from Romance (his "natural" level) at least down to Low Mimesis, or from the point of view of Barliman Butterbur that obscure, ruffianly-looking "Strider" could very well fit an anti-hero cliché. Everything below his "natural level" would be disguise, and a function of his exile.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Yup -- "Anatomy of Criticism" is what I was referring to. Done it before; will no doubt do it again -- like it or not! 

Seriously though, I found "Anatomy" the single best book for understanding Tolkien. Highly recommended.


----------



## Olorgando

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Seriously though, I found "Anatomy" the single best book for understandingTolkien. Highly recommended.


Um, yes, ... but looking at its (original) publication year, 1957 … probably seriously out of print? 😞


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Actually, it was reprinted a number of times -- in the US, at least -- most recently in 2000, and is available from Amazon, for instance, although used copies are readily available from many sources.

My own original paperback copy from, I guess, the 80's is falling apart from many rereadings, and is covered with underlining and notes, some so small and smeared that I can no longer make them out. I was fortunate to find a hardback first printing a few years ago, but can't bring myself to mark it up.
I might mention that the 2000 printing is a "2nd, revised edition", though from looking through it in a bookstore, the only "revision" I could see was the inclusion of an introduction by the critic Harold Bloom, which struck me as conveying quite a bit of the tone of damning with faint praise; not surprising, given that Frye failed to gush sufficiently over Bloom's pet theory of literary Darwinism: "When I started talking about the Anxiety of Influence, he stopped listening". I'd recommend finding one of the earlier reprints-- IIRC, they were larger in size, too, so easier on the eyes.

I suppose Bloom was chosen because of his critical prestige; that seems to have been a factor in using him as editor for the "Modern Critical Interpretations" series of books -- although I don't know all the ins and outs of that project. In any event, his introduction to the volume of essays on LOTR (2008)shows him to be deeply unsympathetic to Tolkien, as well as uninterested in finding any sort of recent work on him; I was dissapointed to discover "modern" meant nothing later than the early 80's, and in fact go back to the 60's, reprinting essays first collected in "Tolkien and the Critics". Still, it's useful to have some of those old studies in print again.

One final thing: though I called "Anatomy" the "best single book for understanding Tolkien" above, I don't want to lead anyone astray, so I'll add a cautionary note: the book, being from 1957, _ doesn't mention him; _in fact, I doubt Frye had even heard of him at that point (I'm quite sure that, as a professor of literature in the 60's, he heard plenty later, from students thrusting LOTR at him and shouting "this is just what you've been talking about!").

Here's the cover or the paperback edition I commonly see in US secondhand bookstores:


And here's the original hardback edition, should you be lucky enough to find one:


$500 at Abe Books -- yikes!


----------



## Alcuin

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> ..."Anatomy" [is] the "best single book for understanding Tolkien"... I don't want to lead anyone astray, so I'll add a cautionary note: the book, being from 1957, _ doesn't mention him; _in fact, I doubt Frye had even heard of him at that point (I'm quite sure that, as a professor of literature in the 60's, he heard plenty later, from students thrusting LOTR at him and shouting "this is just what you've been talking about!").
> 
> Here's the cover or the paperback edition I commonly see in US secondhand bookstores:
> View attachment 6005


I used this edition as a freshman English text over 40 years ago. It is a magnificent piece of work: Derrida and Foucault are raw sewage in comparison. But if you consider matters, that is no great accomplishment, regardless of Frye’s exquisite scholarship: Derrida and Foucault are just raw sewage.


----------



## Gothmog

I will have to look for that book and check it out. As for "Critics" I am always reminded of a Robert Heinlein quote:


> A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. The is logic in this; he is unbiased - he hates all creative people equally.
> 
> from Time Enough for Love: More from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long


I take little note of critics as too often they claim that "The Author" put This or That into a book despite the statements of said author while at the very same time ignoring what they as readers bring to the book themselves.


----------



## Alcuin

Gothmog said:


> I will have to look for that book and check it out. As for "Critics" I am always reminded of a Robert Heinlein quote:
> 
> 
> 
> A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. The is logic in this; he is unbiased - he hates all creative people equally.
> 
> from Time Enough for Love: More from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long
> 
> 
> 
> I take little note of critics as too often they claim that "The Author" put This or That into a book despite the statements of said author while at the very same time ignoring what they as readers bring to the book themselves.
Click to expand...

Northrup Frye is well worth the price of a second-hand college textbook, and since there are usually a lot of them in circulation, that should be fairly cheap. Frye’s work, however, is rich in insight and depth, opening a work of literature to see its deeper meanings and the themes that connect it to other works over the centuries. It is marvelous, enjoyable, profoundly useful material you will never regret learning. Squint-eyed Southerner refers to it often! 

Derrida and Foucault are infested carbuncles on the rump of Western intellectualism, directly responsible for much of the institutional septicemia and Gramscian damage that is killing academia. Their method of Critical Analysis is just that: Criticism without constructive purpose, without intellectual foundations, based upon raw emotion and scatological infantilism; distortions, perversions, even absence of logic; and twisted reason worthy of a madhouse, which is what it has produced on university campuses. Using the pestilent practices of these two escapes of the infernal Abyss, their followers empty a sound text of all its meaning and insert into it instead the vile regurgitations of their febrile imaginings. 

As Treebeard so eloquently put it, “*There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of Men bad enough for such treachery.*” Derrida and Foucault are the twin Sarumans of the academic world, and all their followers little Orcs wantonly hewing and burning the structure of Western civilization with the deliberate and stated intention of bringing it down. They are termites of the mind, causing more damage than would the return of the Black Death.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Alcuin, you simply have to stop mincing words, and tell us what you really think! 

Gothmog, on the subject of critics and criticism, there's a difference between criticism as value-judgement, which Heinlein, among thousands of other authors, rail against, and criticism as a study of literature. Frye argues against the former being the goal of "criticism", and in fact begins his book with what he calls a "Polemical Introduction", in which he makes his case for the latter.

He expresses his attitude, in part, this way (I'm paraphrasing): "just as there is an order of nature, which is the task of the scientist to discover, so there may be an order of words, which is the job of the critic to work out".

As to the commonly raised objection that critics find things in a writer's work that he never "intended", Frye addresses that too; you can read it for yourself, so I'll just say here that the creation of a literary work, as opposed, say, to a piece of scientific or assertive writing, is in part -- often in large part -- an unconscious process, and elements emerge from the author's unconscious mind that his "conscious" mind is unaware of. To give a very minor example, Dickens was horrified when it was pointed out to him that he had given many of his characters names with initials that were variations on his own. That was something he certainly never "intended", but is nevertheless there -- as is much else that escaped from his unconscious mind. The same can be found in Shakespeare, and in many other writers. And I think we can find the process at work in Tolkien too -- especially as we now have so many of his precious drafts available for study.

Boy -- I seem to have really run this thread off the rails!

Oh, BTW, Alcuin -- I see Anatomy on ebay and elsewhere for as little four or five bucks. I can well believe it's been 40 years since you bought a college textbook -- new or secondhand!


----------



## Olorgando

Ah, we’ve gone OT, in astronomical terms, beyond the orbit of Neptune _(that chunk of material discovered in 1930, later discovered two be actually two (and now more) chunks, the smaller “moon” being given the name “Charon”, was downgraded to minor planet designation in 2006; Earth has a huge moon compared to the biggies Jupiter and Saturn, whose largest moons exceed Mercury in diameter if not in mass, but for our moon to be equivalent it would need to be almost the diameter of Mars!)_

What was the original OT question?

Oh right, Northrop Frye's 1957 book "An Anatomy of Criticism".

The Wikipedia article on him mentions “the … deconstructivist criticism and other expressions of postmodernism [that] came to prominence in American academia circa 1980s.”

Just off the top of my head, the critics that lambasted JRRT were all considered to be “modernists” (the term “Bloomsbury Group” pops into mind unbidden – though it included John Maynard Keynes, not the worst of economists, whose tenets have only been applied by the parasite set of any western country extremely selectively). Felt themselves to be oh so avant-garde. Problem is, for these people (or any people, probably), that they age, and become “conservative” about their cherished beliefs – once considered “radical”. Problem for them (and I do not exclude myself from this recurring phenomenon of human history), (some of) the next generation take this “radical” position as a starting-point to “progress” further. So, the “postmodernists” consider the “modernists” to be stuffy old codgers.

But in my “library” (definitely exceeding 1000 books, perhaps again half as many as per definition) I have a fairly complete collection of the writings of Richard Dawkins. And what I remember most clearly (evolution and natural selection are not much, if at all, less complicated than astrophysics and related fields – possibly more so, as they can’t do without statistics and probability) is one statement of his:

“Any “cultural relativist" (by definition "postmodernist") sitting in a jet at 33000 feet moving at well above 600 mph is a flaming hypocrite.”

Eom.

_(P.S. I may now have made it about to Proxima Centauri in my OT deviations, as per my above astronomical babblings.)_


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Frye gave a response to criticisms of his method in a talk in the 80's. I found it hilarious. I'm away from my library, but I'll insert it later, if this thread is still creeping around out of its grave.


----------



## Alcuin

> Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.
> 
> _JRR Tolkien, Fellowship of the Ring, “Foreword to the Second Edition”_


But in this case I am not complaining about people who don’t like the book: my granddaughter doesn’t like it. That’s their prerogative, and there is no accounting for taste. Nor am I berating “modernists” who prefer noir fiction, or brutalist literature (e.g., _Clockwork Orange_ or _Fight Club_). I am speaking of people who have no purpose but destruction: intellectual vandals whose sole purpose is to pull apart the thin veneer of civilization, in the deluded belief (one hopes) that what replaces it will be some utopian dreamworld rather than an incredibly violent, miserable, tyrannical society (or lack thereof) more akin to what replaced the Western Roman Empire, “the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

*“And [men] as miserable slaves would please [them] far more than [men] happy and free. There is such a thing as malice…”*


Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Alcuin, you simply have to stop mincing words, and tell us what you really think!


Lest there be any doubt, I seek to remove it. Plain speaking is best: “speaking Truth to Power,” is that not the phrase they like to use? But only their “truth,” and Heaven help you if you dare question their abuse of power.


Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I can well believe it's been 40 years since you bought a college textbook -- new or secondhand!


I’ve a house full of them. Bibliophilia. We had about 6500 in our old house; only about 1800 now.


Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Frye gave a response to criticisms of his method in a talk in the 80's. I found it hilarious. I'm away from my library, but I'll insert it later, if this thread is still creeping around out of its grave.


Please do.


Olorgando said:


> Problem is, for these people (or any people, probably), that they age, and become “conservative” about their cherished beliefs – once considered “radical”. Problem for them (and I do not exclude myself from this recurring phenomenon of human history), (some of) the next generation take this “radical” position as a starting-point to “progress” further. So, the “postmodernists” consider the “modernists” to be stuffy old codgers.
> ...
> “Any “cultural relativist" (by definition "postmodernist") sitting in a jet at 33000 feet moving at well above 600 mph is a flaming hypocrite.”


But these are not new ideas! They are old ideas that have been tried – and failed! – over and over. Was Soviet Russia a success? The Holodomor? Everyone knows Hitler was a murderous maniacal monster, but Stalin killed more Russians than the Germans. What of Mao? Was the Cultural Revolution a success? Mao killed between 60 and 100 million Chinese. Pol Pot, Mao’s student and protégé, slaughtered one in three Cambodians. These post-modernists are just another stripe of Marxists.

I’ll stop now. This is a Tolkien board.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Well, that's a lot of them, all right -- but have you priced new or (current) secondhand ones recently?

I recall one of my professors, back in the 80's, cringing when informed by me that a paperback he'd ordered for the class went for $11. The horror! I wonder what he'd think of the $150-$200 charged by the gougers these days?

And this is not to mention that university libraries are forced to cut back on book purchases because those other gougers, the publishers of academic journals, are now charging $20,000-$40,000 for an annual subscription.


----------



## Alcuin

In Massachusetts, I frequented several used bookstores. There are fewer in Tennessee, and those more widely scattered. Yes, I have priced them recently. My collection is slowly growing again.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Well, that's good.

I must confess necessity forces me to limit my book buying to the 1 to 2 dollar range.


----------



## Gothmog

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> As to the commonly raised objection that critics find things in a writer's work that he never "intended", Frye addresses that too; you can read it for yourself, so I'll just say here that the creation of a literary work, as opposed, say, to a piece of scientific or assertive writing, is in part -- often in large part -- an unconscious process, and elements emerge from the author's unconscious mind that his "conscious" mind is unaware of.


This is very true and most authors would agree without complaint (though sometimes with surprise). It is when a critic finds something and claims that it was the intention of the author to say This in spite of what the author has said on the matter that I have a problem with. It is the difference between, as Tolkien stated, Allegory and applicability.


> ‘I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse “applicability! With “allegory”; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in purposed domination of the author.’
> 
> from Humphrey Carpenter's JRR Tolkien, a Biography.


----------



## Olorgando

_*sound of screeching, skidding tires* _
Um, I guess we'd agree that Aragorn was neither "modernist" nor "postmodernist".
But the power that caused him to be in exile, would that be either?
I'd think "postmodernism" might be out of the question, as it seems to have raised its (mostly) ugly head about a decade after JRRT's death.
Modernism would fit quite well, perhaps, as per a definition I've read that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were basically modernism run totally amok.
Lots of Sauron / Saruman there.


----------



## Grond

How about a simple answer? Aragorn was in exile because his ancestor's claim to the throne was rejected.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Fair enough; and I can give an even simpler answer, if you like: Aragorn was in exile because it was meant to be part of the story.

Just like Perseus. Or Moses.


----------



## Olorgando

Grond said:


> How about a simple answer? Aragorn was in exile because his ancestor's claim to the throne was rejected.


That would be the claim to the throne of Gondor, I take it, made by Arvedui in 1944 TA (himself at that time not yet King of Arthedain!) in the name of his wife Fíriel, last surviving child of King Ondoher, but also as heir of Elendil and Isildur (nominally last High King of the realms in exile). (I wonder what Arvedui’s dad, who reigned Arthedain for 20 more years, thought about this whole business!)

But I just can’t get my head around Aragorn being in exile from Gondor. He was exiled from his throne of Arthedain (at deserted Fornost – at least there was no pretender squatting on it that needed to be ousted) since 1974 TA when the W-k of Angmar captured it, and Arvedui’s demise at sea a year later. Also, from his higher throne at Annúminas since the death of Eärendur, the tenth King of Arnor, in 861 TA, when Eärendur’s sons quarreled about the succession (bad sign of the decay hastened by being in Middle-earth, there would have been no argument in Númenor) and split Arnor into Arthedain (ruled by the eldest son), Cardolan, and Rhudaur.

One might construe an exile from the High Kingship and thus indirectly from Gondor due to the fact that only Elendil and Isildur were recognized as High Kings, while Isildur’s fourth, youngest and only surviving son Valandil (being a child, he was left in Elrond’s care at Rivendell during the war of the Last Alliance, which Isildur and his three elder sons did survive, only to be killed at the Gladden Fields), was not. At least this is Tyler’s take on it in his “Companion”.


----------



## Grond

Olorgando said:


> That would be the claim to the throne of Gondor, I take it, made by Arvedui in 1944 TA (himself at that time not yet King of Arthedain!) in the name of his wife Fíriel, last surviving child of King Ondoher, but also as heir of Elendil and Isildur (nominally last High King of the realms in exile). (I wonder what Arvedui’s dad, who reigned Arthedain for 20 more years, thought about this whole business!)
> 
> But I just can’t get my head around Aragorn being in exile from Gondor. He was exiled from his throne of Arthedain (at deserted Fornost – at least there was no pretender squatting on it that needed to be ousted) since 1974 TA when the W-k of Angmar captured it, and Arvedui’s demise at sea a year later. Also, from his higher throne at Annúminas since the death of Eärendur, the tenth King of Arnor, in 861 TA, when Eärendur’s sons quarreled about the succession (bad sign of the decay hastened by being in Middle-earth, there would have been no argument in Númenor) and split Arnor into Arthedain (ruled by the eldest son), Cardolan, and Rhudaur.
> 
> One might construe an exile from the High Kingship and thus indirectly from Gondor due to the fact that only Elendil and Isildur were recognized as High Kings, while Isildur’s fourth, youngest and only surviving son Valandil (being a child, he was left in Elrond’s care at Rivendell during the war of the Last Alliance, which Isildur and his three elder sons did survive, only to be killed at the Gladden Fields), was not. At least this is Tyler’s take on it in his “Companion”.


How about Aragorn's direct claim of High-Kingship. He is, after all, the heir to Isildur. From Unfinished Tales, The Disaster of the Gladden Fields:
"After the fall of Sauron, Isildur, the son and heir of Elendil, returned to Gondor. There he assumed the Elendilmir as King of Arnor, and proclaimed his sovereign lordship over all the Dunedain in the North and in the South; for he was a man of great pride and vigour. He remained for a year in Gondor, restoring its order and defining its bounds; but the greater part of the army of Arnor returned to Eriador by the Numenorean road from the Fords of Isen to Fornost."

It seems to me that JRRT is clearly laying out the claim of Aragorn in this passage. The confusing thing is why Isildur didn't leave one of his sons there as his Steward. If he meant to assert an unconditional claim to the throne of Gondor, that would have been the proper action. He was creating a "recipe for disaster" by appointing his nephew, Meneldil, as his representative. There would likely have been strife over the kingship of Gondor had Isildur survived. I need to research more of the writings as to when and how Meneldil asserted his kingship of Gondor. If he did so, he would have been usurping the kingship since Isildur was Elendil's heir and Isildur's surviving son, Valandil, would, by right, be the High-King of both Gondor and Arnor.


----------



## Olorgando

Grond said:


> … It seems to me that JRRT is clearly laying out the claim of Aragorn in this passage. The confusing thing is why Isildur didn't leave one of his sons there as his Steward. If he meant to assert an unconditional claim to the throne of Gondor, that would have been the proper action. He was creating a "recipe for disaster" by appointing his nephew, Meneldil, as his representative. There would likely have been strife over the kingship of Gondor had Isildur survived. I need to research more of the writings as to when and how Meneldil asserted his kingship of Gondor. If he did so, he would have been usurping the kingship since Isildur was Elendil's heir and Isildur's surviving son, Valandil, would, by right, be the High-King of both Gondor and Arnor.


I cross-checked Tyler’s “Guide” (my source for the above statement that Isildur’s fourth, and only surviving, son, was not accepted as High King) with Foster’s “Companion”. Foster even goes so far as to state that only Elendil was ever recognized as “High King”, meaning Isildur was not. Meh! 

Several kings of Arthedain claimed overlordship over the other two fragment kingdoms of Arnor, without success. But then there’s Arvedui, about whom Malbeth the Seer had something to say. He might have become the King of a reunited – um, well, Gondor and Arthedain (leaving Angmar and the other fragments of Arnor which had fallen under its thrall by then, Cardolan and Rhudaur, to deal with). We know that the Gondorians replied with “ah, no”, which settled that. Only for their kingly line (already marred by some breaks in direct father-to-son descents – back-tracking on customs established in Númenor in the first of three millennia of its existence) go effectively extinct 106 years later. In part because the direct-line descents had “diluted royalty” _(as was never the case in the North “Kingdom” – the question “why not?” might be fruitful for a new thread!),_ in part because they did not want to risk a new civil war as had happened in the 15th century Third Age.

Your query as to why Isildur didn’t leave one of his sons (I’d guess the second-oldest, certainly not his heir) as steward in Gondor. Under Elendil’s High Kingship, his sons Isildur and Anárion ruled Gondor as joint kings until Anárion’s death in 3430 Second Age. Now with the common capital of Osgiliath, still each of Elendil’s sons had a fief and a personal High City – Anárion the fief of Anórien and the fortress Minas Anor (the later TA Minas Tirith), Isildur the fief of Ithilien and the fortress Minas Ithil (the later Minas Morgûl). (In both cases I get a sort of “duh” feeling about the naming!). I would think that at least a joint kingship of Gondor might have been sensible – but not Isildur suppressing the (rightful) aspirations of his brother’s heirs to such an arrangement. So, Meneldil in Minas Arnor (and I would see no warrant to talk about “usurping a – joint – kingship”), and one of his sons (the second or third) in Minas Ithil. How much good this would have done, “knowing” human nature, is an entirely different question.

_(BTW, has there ever been a thread here discussing why on Arda Elendil chose that smaller, much more northerly, by all accounts far less productive – in terms of agriculture and livestock breeding, serious considerations at those times – and massively less populated region of Arnor to settle in, leaving the much more promising Gondor to his sons? I have very vague memories about Elendil having lived - for this period of Númenor – to an exceptional age of well over 300 years, but have not been able to dig it out of my HoMe books; but I haven’t leafed through all of them …) 😳_


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

The closest thing to what you're asking that I could find is this:









Differences between Arnor and Gondor


Do you suppose there is any reason (beyond story-telling reasons, of course) for the difference in the history of Arnor and Gondor? They both began as free realms under Numenorean rule, and their territory was not so different in size at the beginning; Gondor had more Palantíri, but on the other...




www.thetolkienforum.com





I haven't read all the way through it, though.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Alcuin said:


> Northrup Frye is well worth the price of a second-hand college textbook, and since there are usually a lot of them in circulation, that should be fairly cheap. Frye’s work, however, is rich in insight and depth, opening a work of literature to see its deeper meanings and the themes that connect it to other works over the centuries. It is marvelous, enjoyable, profoundly useful material you will never regret learning. Squint-eyed Southerner refers to it often!
> 
> Derrida and Foucault are infested carbuncles on the rump of Western intellectualism, directly responsible for much of the institutional septicemia and Gramscian damage that is killing academia. Their method of Critical Analysis is just that: Criticism without constructive purpose, without intellectual foundations, based upon raw emotion and scatological infantilism; distortions, perversions, even absence of logic; and twisted reason worthy of a madhouse, which is what it has produced on university campuses. Using the pestilent practices of these two escapes of the infernal Abyss, their followers empty a sound text of all its meaning and insert into it instead the vile regurgitations of their febrile imaginings.
> 
> As Treebeard so eloquently put it, “*There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of Men bad enough for such treachery.*” Derrida and Foucault are the twin Sarumans of the academic world, and all their followers little Orcs wantonly hewing and burning the structure of Western civilization with the deliberate and stated intention of bringing it down. They are termites of the mind, causing more damage than would the return of the Black Death.


Dang, that was well said! Wow!


CL



Alcuin said:


> But in this case I am not complaining about people who don’t like the book: my granddaughter doesn’t like it. That’s their prerogative, and there is no accounting for taste. Nor am I berating “modernists” who prefer noir fiction, or brutalist literature (e.g., _Clockwork Orange_ or _Fight Club_). I am speaking of people who have no purpose but destruction: intellectual vandals whose sole purpose is to pull apart the thin veneer of civilization, in the deluded belief (one hopes) that what replaces it will be some utopian dreamworld rather than an incredibly violent, miserable, tyrannical society (or lack thereof) more akin to what replaced the Western Roman Empire, “the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”
> 
> *“And [men] as miserable slaves would please [them] far more than [men] happy and free. There is such a thing as malice…”*
> Lest there be any doubt, I seek to remove it. Plain speaking is best: “speaking Truth to Power,” is that not the phrase they like to use? But only their “truth,” and Heaven help you if you dare question their abuse of power.I’ve a house full of them. Bibliophilia. We had about 6500 in our old house; only about 1800 now.Please do.
> But these are not new ideas! They are old ideas that have been tried – and failed! – over and over. Was Soviet Russia a success? The Holodomor? Everyone knows Hitler was a murderous maniacal monster, but Stalin killed more Russians than the Germans. What of Mao? Was the Cultural Revolution a success? Mao killed between 60 and 100 million Chinese. Pol Pot, Mao’s student and protégé, slaughtered one in three Cambodians. These post-modernists are just another stripe of Marxists.
> 
> I’ll stop now. This is a Tolkien board.


_**applause* *_


CL


----------

