Options
lawful ownership
- lawful ownership
-
lawful ownership
gzhindra > February 28th, 2024, 03:19 PM
The heirs of Elendil were lawful owners of Narsil (Anduril) and the Palantirs.
This had actual effects in the story.
Anduril cannot be used by anyone else and Aragorn is helped when he used the Palantir,
because he is the lawful owner.
Did Tolkien elaborate on this concept?
Who made this decision and how?
I dont know of any other items in LOTR that have the same status.
I assume that it is either the Elves of Eressea or possibly the Valar, who made this decision when
they gifted the items to the faithful in Numenor. -
RE: lawful ownership
Michael > February 29th, 2024, 01:43 AM
I'm not sure Anduril was as restricted in practical use as you say. I know Aragorn threatened the whole of Rohan if anyone touched his sword, but he may have just been talking (expecting the Rohirrim to respect his rights). -
RE: lawful ownership
gzhindra > February 29th, 2024, 08:59 AM
(February 29th, 2024, 01:43 AM)Michael Wrote: I'm not sure Anduril was as restricted in practical use as you say. I know Aragorn threatened the whole of Rohan if anyone touched his sword, but he may have just been talking (expecting the Rohirrim to respect his rights).
I dont think that is how Aragorn is written.
He is a bit like Gandalf in that whatever he says it is true (voice of the author).
For example Aragorn claimed to know more about orcs than any other mortal.
I think Aragorn is correct and just stating the truth in the matter of orcs.
In the same manner I dont think Aragorn would be bluffing or lying about Anduril. -
RE: lawful ownership
RobRoy > February 29th, 2024, 02:38 PM
(February 29th, 2024, 08:59 AM)gzhindra Wrote: In the same manner I dont think Aragorn would be bluffing or lying about Anduril.
I don't think he's bluffing, but at the same time I find myself agreeing with Michael - there's no reason to believe that Anduril couldn't be handled by anyone else. The question was more one of will, as Aragorn is coming into his own power at this point, and Anduril was a sign of that power. Since Theoden would be his natural vassal, then he would have had the right to come into Theoden's presence how he liked:
Aragorn makes no mention of the dangers of Anduril before this, and never again. I can't recall any weapon in Tolkien's entire works - save the One Ring - that was inherently dangerous to touch, let alone immediate death. Aragorn's comments on the dangers of Anduril are not a bluff or a lie, but simply what he, himself, will do should anyone mess with the weapon, which is his most immediate and obvious sign of legitimacy to the throne of Gondor:
If it were literally death, Aragorn wouldn't have made it a matter of will first. He would have been cautious about leaving instant death without the warning. Further he wouldn't have had to give the command/warning about it's potential hazards. Hama, or anyone else who dared would simply have found themselves dead, and that would have been that. Instead, since this is a matter of will, as Aragorn opened the argument with, then his command is meant to show his legitimacy and inherent power. It works too:
-
RE: lawful ownership
gzhindra > March 1st, 2024, 02:13 PM
If nothing stops another user from wielding Anduril.
Then that means that Aragorn is threatening any others that use the sword.
He would have to make good on his promises.
Is he going to attack Rohan on his own?
Anyway we know that the Palantirs were lawfully owned by the heirs of Elendil,
so i think that the question still stands🤔 -
RE: lawful ownership
RobRoy > March 1st, 2024, 07:35 PM
(March 1st, 2024, 02:13 PM)gzhindra Wrote: If nothing stops another user from wielding Anduril.
Then that means that Aragorn is threatening any others that use the sword.
He would have to make good on his promises.
Is he going to attack Rohan on his own?
Naw. As I said in my response, and with emphasis:
(February 29th, 2024, 02:38 PM)RobRoy Wrote: Instead, since this is a matter of will, as Aragorn opened the argument with, then his command is meant to show his legitimacy and inherent power. It works too:
Quote:Anyway we know that the Palantirs were lawfully owned by the heirs of Elendil,
so i think that the question still stands🤔
Fair point. Aragorn literally says that he's the lawful owner of the palantir which is why he was willing to attempt to wrest it from Sauron.
As far as I know, Tolkien never expanded on this notion of "lawful ownership" but if I had to wager a guess, it would not have been the Elves. It would, similar to our discussion on curses and the Dead Men of Dunharrow, rise all the way to Eru. -
RE: lawful ownership
Michael > March 6th, 2024, 11:50 AM
Perhaps I'm reading a bit too much into the passage, but boasting and courage were supposedly highly valued among the ancient Germanic/Scandinavian tribes upon whom Tolkien modelled the Rohirrim. I'd say Aragorn was acting appropriately for their culture. He had lived among them and ridden with the Riders of Rohan. He knew how to talk to them.
He would not have made an empty boast. But he stated his terms of wardenship clearly to Hama, so that everyone who understand his sword wasn't simply a piece of metal in a scabbard. -
RE: lawful ownership
RobRoy > March 7th, 2024, 06:59 PM
(March 6th, 2024, 11:50 AM)Michael Wrote: Perhaps I'm reading a bit too much into the passage, but boasting and courage were supposedly highly valued among the ancient Germanic/Scandinavian tribes upon whom Tolkien modelled the Rohirrim. I'd say Aragorn was acting appropriately for their culture. He had lived among them and ridden with the Riders of Rohan. He knew how to talk to them.
He would not have made an empty boast. But he stated his terms of wardenship clearly to Hama, so that everyone who understand his sword wasn't simply a piece of metal in a scabbard.
I think you're reading it correctly . . . or at least the same way as I am. For me, at least, that amounts to the same thing.
I don't think it was Aragorn's intention to fight and kill everyone in Rohan. He was, however, stating his case and applying the power of his own will in the matter, and Hama's reaction was the desired outcome. -
RE: lawful ownership
Mordomin > March 10th, 2024, 08:52 AM
As long as we're talking about 'ownership'...by what right did Elrond withhold the Sceptre of Annúminas from Aragorn? Who died and left an Elf in charge of the bestowing or withholding of the relics of an ancient kingdom of Men upon their rightful heir?
As far as I can see, fan-fic Mordomim had a better claim to the Ring of Barahir than Elrond did to the Sceptre. Even if you dismiss his claim of right by lineage (which he does not declaim explicitly but Elrond seems to countenance), he did go out into the Wild and slay the creature who possessed it. Thus Gandalf became the 'owner' of Glamdring, which by lineage ought to belong to...guess who?...Elrond. By the same reasoning, Orcrist belonged to Thorin. -
RE: lawful ownership
Michael > March 10th, 2024, 11:34 PM
Tolkien seems to imply that Aranarth made that decision after Angmar was defeated. He decided not to revive the Kingdom of Arnor (nor any lesser realm) and gave the heirlooms of the realm to Elrond for safe-keeping.
On the basis of that (as well as elements in "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen") I argued in my essay Of Thegns and Kings and Rangers and Things that "Aranarth simply created a public trust to hold the kingdom in perpetual abeyance." -
RE: lawful ownership
Mordomin > March 18th, 2024, 05:19 AM
(March 10th, 2024, 11:34 PM)Michael Wrote: Tolkien seems to imply that Aranarth made that decision after Angmar was defeated. He decided not to revive the Kingdom of Arnor (nor any lesser realm) and gave the heirlooms of the realm to Elrond for safe-keeping.
I think that Aranarth knew well the words of Malbeth the Seer about his fate, and the fate of his father:
“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.”
Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Lord Of The Rings: One Volume (p. 1050). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
(March 10th, 2024, 11:34 PM)Michael Wrote: On the basis of that (as well as elements in "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen") I argued in my essay Of Thegns and Kings and Rangers and Things that "Aranarth simply created a public trust to hold the kingdom in perpetual abeyance."
I followed your link to your essay, and as usual learned so much and saw so many different views and takes that my head ached for days. LOL! Thank you for all of your essays, even the ones that I haven't discovered yet.
But I strongly object to your insertion of a modern world concept "public trust" into a discussion of a High Fantasy story.
The simpler, and I submit more 'in-universe', answer is simply that Aranath knew two things: that he was not fated to be King, and that he could not protect the Sceptre or the heirlooms himself. Therefore, he delivered the heirlooms to Elrond in Rivendell for safekeeping.
At some point, Elrond decided that his possession of the heirlooms of the North Kingdom made him the 'Gate Keeper' in deciding who was worthy to receive the relics and be thereby acknowledged as the King Returned. -
RE: lawful ownership
badlands > March 20th, 2024, 01:03 PM
Was private property a thing in Middle earth? Sauron was real estate agent. -
RE: lawful ownership
RobRoy > March 20th, 2024, 02:05 PM
(March 20th, 2024, 01:03 PM)badlands Wrote: Was private property a thing in Middle earth? Sauron was real estate agent.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Sauron was a real estate agent" but private property was absolutely a thing.
Land and property ownership is not only implied, but flat out stated, specifically through the Hobbits, who own their own homes and farms, and are shown to have a reasonably deep legal system to the possession, sale, purchase, and ownership of pretty much everything, similar to our own. For example, when Frodo and his friends steal mushrooms from Farmer Maggot, Maggot not only felt compelled, but justified in turning the dogs loose on the young Hobbits and running them off his property. Bilbo, at the end of The Hobbit rushes into Bag End finding that he was declared dead and his possessions placed up for auction. He was also certain that Lobelia Sackville-Baggins had taken some of his silverware, and so he left her the rest when he left the Shire. Frodo's adoption by Bilbo was also problematic for the Sackville-Baggins side of the family, as they'd always hoped to gain possession of Bag End.
Heirlooms and hereditary ownership is also a big part of the entire make-up of Middle Earth, and did, in part, cause conflicts. The Men of Dale and the Elves of Mirkwood all laid claim to a portion of Smaug's treasure in Eerebor, and seemed willing to use force to compel Thorin to part with it as compensation. This was also a part of the reason that Balin returned to Khazad-dum to colonize and rebuild the Dwarf kingdom there. -
RE: lawful ownership
Michael > March 21st, 2024, 12:47 AM
(March 18th, 2024, 05:19 AM)Mordomin Wrote:
(March 10th, 2024, 11:34 PM)Michael Wrote: [quote="Michael" pid='373593' dateline='1710124455']
I followed your link to your essay, and as usual learned so much and saw so many different views and takes that my head ached for days. LOL! Thank you for all of your essays, even the ones that I haven't discovered yet.
On the basis of that (as well as elements in "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen") I argued in my essay Of Thegns and Kings and Rangers and Things that "Aranarth simply created a public trust to hold the kingdom in perpetual abeyance."
But I strongly object to your insertion of a modern world concept "public trust" into a discussion of a High Fantasy story.
It does sound like a modern concept, does it not?
However, the idea of "public trust" originated with the ancient Romans.
The Public Trust Doctrine: A Cracked Foundation | Georgetown Environmental Law Review | Georgetown Law
That may not be quite ancient enough for the Kingdom of Arnor (in Tolkien's timeline), but I hesitate to call it "modern". -
RE: lawful ownership
badlands > March 21st, 2024, 10:30 PM
It was a joke. That he was selling land in Middle earth. -
RE: lawful ownership
Mordomin > March 22nd, 2024, 08:26 PM
(March 21st, 2024, 12:47 AM)Michael Wrote: It does sound like a modern concept, does it not?
And I hesitate to call it relevant to High Fantasy. Who are you positing that the Romans are/equivalent to in Middle-earth?
However, the idea of "public trust" originated with the ancient Romans.
The Public Trust Doctrine: A Cracked Foundation | Georgetown Environmental Law Review | Georgetown Law
That may not be quite ancient enough for the Kingdom of Arnor (in Tolkien's timeline), but I hesitate to call it "modern".
Aranath heeded the words of Malbeth the Seer, and did not seek to declare himself King. Knowing that he was unable to securely guard the Heirlooms of the North Kingdom, he gave them to Elrond in Rivendell for safekeeping.
[As a side note, why didn't Elrond send them on to Gondor?]
It was no "Public Trust". No one could walk into Rivendell and say "Hi! I'm from Arnor. Give me our stuff." The idea is absurd.
A better example of a "Public Trust" in High Fantasy might be the Sword in the Stone of Arthurian Legend. -
RE: lawful ownership
Alvin Eriol > March 25th, 2024, 02:27 PM
I'm surprised no one mentioned the Silmarils, whose legit ownership was the driving conflict of the Silmarillion.
Fëanor's claim to ownership from the get-go was shaky since he utilized the light of the Two Trees. One might say he "licensed" the "intellectual property" of the Valar in so doing, therefore making his ownership conditional, as was pointed out by Tulkas, of all people, after the Trees were slain. Varda's blessing on them after their making probably also gave the Valar a degree of claim to them. Fëanor and his sons were judged to have totally forfeited their claim due to their crimes, which manifested in practical effect when Maedhros and Maglor took them and were burned by them.
Did the Silmarils shine more brightly for one who had a legitimate claim? I can't find a text that said any such, but those who sought to possess one 'illegally' suffered for it, arguably even Thingol (who came to desire to possess one as his own, and so was slain) and even Beren (whose hand holding it was bitten off). Thingol, Lúthien, Dior, and Elwing were however suffered to touch one. Even the Dwarves of Nogrod who mounted it in the Nauglamír handled it, (though they may have used tongs?,) but they too came to desire it and paid a heavy price for their attempt to claim it. -
RE: lawful ownership
Michael > March 29th, 2024, 03:22 AM
(March 22nd, 2024, 08:26 PM)Mordomin Wrote: And I hesitate to call it relevant to High Fantasy. Who are you positing that the Romans are/equivalent to in Middle-earth?
Shall we go there, then? I'd say Rome had a great influence on Middle-earth.
Quote:Aranath heeded the words of Malbeth the Seer, and did not seek to declare himself King. Knowing that he was unable to securely guard the Heirlooms of the North Kingdom, he gave them to Elrond in Rivendell for safekeeping.
I shall quibble over a prefix: "1976 Aranarth takes the title of Chieftain of the Dúnedain. The heirlooms of Arnor are given into the keeping of Elrond." That is, btw, about 2 years after the end of the North-kingdom and the year following the defeat of Angmar.
Why did he wait so long to make this decision? Methinks there were councils and consultations.
Quote:[As a side note, why didn't Elrond send them on to Gondor?]
They weren't his to send to Gondor. They were Arnor's heirlooms.
Quote:It was no "Public Trust". No one could walk into Rivendell and say "Hi! I'm from Arnor. Give me our stuff." The idea is absurd.
A better example of a "Public Trust" in High Fantasy might be the Sword in the Stone of Arthurian Legend.
I used the phrase correctly but it is, after all, only my interpretation of an obliquely described situation. I think it suits the arrangement well. -
RE: lawful ownership
Mordomin > April 3rd, 2024, 06:28 AM
(March 29th, 2024, 03:22 AM)Michael Wrote: I shall quibble over a prefix: "1976 Aranarth takes the title of Chieftain of the Dúnedain. The heirlooms of Arnor are given into the keeping of Elrond." That is, btw, about 2 years after the end of the North-kingdom and the year following the defeat of Angmar.
I don't think it was "so long" for him to make this decision.
Why did he wait so long to make this decision? Methinks there were councils and consultations.
"1975 Arvedui drowned in the Bay of Forochel. The palantíri of Annúminas and Amon Sûl are lost."
Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Lord Of The Rings: One Volume (p. 1086). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
It seems likely to me that it took many months for the news of the drowning of Avedui to reach Lindon, where I believe Aranath was, awaiting the fleet of Gondor. That fleet arrived in due course and the forces of Angmar were defeated.
Then councils and consultations undoubtedly took place, which persuaded Aranath to take the title of Chieftain rather than King. In addition to the words of Malbeth the Seer, which I have mentioned before, I think a significant part of those 'consultations' were the statements by Cirdan and Earnur that 'we're taking our armies and going home. It's your land...if you can keep it."
And he knew, given the numbers lost during the wars, that he could not. -
RE: lawful ownership
Michael > April 3rd, 2024, 12:31 PM
You have a point, Mordomin. Several, actually. But I'm going to stick with the "public trust" concept.