The White Council

Re: Aranarth and the Dunadan Social Revolution

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: Very interesting. You may have put your finger on an important difference between Middle Earth and our world (Later-Day Middle Earth, if you like). In our world, most royal-aristocratic societies used a religious based theory to provide the justification and/or purpose of their rule, whether you call it "Divine Right of Kings," "Mandate of Heaven." Rulers ruled because it was their place in the scheme of things to rule. Social contract theory is associated with the rise of middle class, "bourgeois" societies: not necessarily nice and democratic, the first social contract theorist, Thomas Hobbes, argued for a morally unrestricted "Leviathan" state (a king ruling by divine right had at least to amke a show of conforming to his sponsoring God's rules, if they happened to be written down or widely known in other ways, while Rousseau's mumbo-jumbo about "Popular Will" crept into both communist and fascist ideological blather. We in America and most modern democracies take our cue from John Locke.

: Back to Middle Earth. You seem to be saying that the Dunedain might have been an aristocracy ruling by a social contract, whether conscious or implied. This makes sense in a world where there is no instititutionalized religion and some sense of direct contact with God (at least with very few intermediaries.)

: Indeed, you posit a very radical and unheard of thing (unless we can interpret the events of 1989-93 in this fashion): the rulers saw that they could not uphold their end of the contract and thus disolved it, while then acting behind the scenes to redeem thenselves. Jefferson, argued that when rulers violate the contract, the people have the right to "disolve the bonds that tie one people to another," he never argued that the British should have voluntarily renounced such ties, though they might have been better off to do so. (As far as I can tell, the British system was, in 1776, somewhere pretty well along in the gradual evolution towards a social contract based system with divine rights window dressings which they have today. No other divine right aristocracy allowed itself to so evolve: the contract had to be renegotiated with blood in Paris and St. Petersburg.

I can think of one slight parallel, at the end of Roman rule in Britain the Emperor Honorius wrote to the leading magistrates of Britain telling them to govern themselves as he was unable to spare soldiery to militarily re-occupy Britain. As Honorius could have dispatched a governor (vicarius) a few officials and tax collectors with little trouble, his actions could be seen in the same light as the actions I have proposed for Aranarth. Strange, I never thought of Honorius as being an honourable character before.

As regards the British political system in the 18th century, the monarchy had been given a little helping hand by the people towards constitutionalism. The English were the first people in Europe to successfully revolt against absolute monarchy (though it was rarely as absolute as continental monarchies even at an earlier time). Indeed we had two revolutions one in the 1640's, known as the Civil War, and then again in 1689 (The Glorious Revolution)when James II had forgotten the lessons of the first and needed reminding. James' successors, William and Mary were under no illusions about where real power lay in Britain (England effectively)- in Parliament. Any residual power that the monarchy was left with was seldom ever exercised in practice.

: I mentioned parallels with 1989-93. Well, the Soviet system claimed to be a social contract based on an admittedly flawed theory horribly manipulated to justify a terrible regime. But, in a sense, during those years, everyone not only became aware that the theoretical justification was bankrupt, but were willing to say so, and so, with remarkably little bloodeshed (outside Romania) the system just fell apart. So, in a strange way Aranath and Mikhail Gorbachev may have a lot in common, and, in the sense that those apparatchiks who took positions of power in the post communist states were nto just trying to save their asses and hold onto (diminished) power, but were trying to play a role in the liberation and transformation of their countries, that is had a small measure of honest patriotism (even in a corrupt system) not all are corrupt. Thus Yeltsin is, in a very muddled sense, a ranger. Now that's a strange thought...

Indeed :)