MERP essay: Pedo barbarians a minno

[Michael Martinez]

What is a barbarian? There seem to be several functional definitions for the term. A barbarian might be someone who acts without any sort of "civilized" restraint -- someone who lives outside the law. A barbarian may be someone who is brutal, savage, cruel (but otherwise civilized). A barbarian may simply be an unsophisticated foreigner, a stranger to civilization in general.

In today's usage, we tend to restrict our application of the word to imaginary uncivilized peoples or to historical peoples who invaded sedentary, civilized cultures: e.g., the Germans, the Mongols, and the Turks were all barbarians in that sense. They did not build cities of their own until they had invaded the rich civilizations with whom they were neighbors. We no longer use the word "barbarian" to refer to outsiders or foreigners (particularly those who do not live in cities).

It is a curious fact that Tolkien never created an Elvish word with the meaning of "barbarian" in the sense of "foreigner", "outsider", "non-city dweller". The closest he came was an early etymology for the word "glam" (translated in The Hobbit as "foe", from Glamdring, the foe-hammer). Originally, a "glam" was a "barbarous host" (referring to the Orcs).

Our word, "barbarian", comes ultimately from the Greek language and originally meant something like "strange, foreign". Quenya offers a word, ettelëa, meaning "foreign". We could combine it with nêr, "man", to produce a word (ettelëanêr) meaning, literally, "foreign man".

But I think it is doubtful Tolkien envisioned his Elves ever using such a word -- not in the way we use "barbarian" today. For one thing, Quenya quickly became a language of Aman, where there were no real foreigners. The Eldar were divided into three kindreds (Vanyar, Noldor, and Teleri) but they did not regard each other as foreigners. They shared a common history and cultural base.

When the Noldor returned in exile to Middle-earth, they might have seemed like foreigners to the Sindar, but the Sindar welcomed the Noldor as long-lost kin and newfound allies in the war against Morgoth. The Noldor and Sindar did not express toward each other that sense of estrangement one conveys in labeling a neighbor as a foreigner or barbarian. One of the chief reasons, undoubtedly, must have been the rapid assimilation the two peoples made into an almost unified culture. While some regions of Beleriand and neighboring lands remained free of the Noldor, the Noldor became very Sindarinized, just as they tended to Noldorinize those Sindar who dwelt close to or among them.

When the Edain entered Beleriand, they would have seemed (in comparison to the Eldar) every bit as barbaric from our point of view as the ancient Germans, Scythians, and Huns seem today. The most organized group of Edain, the Marachians (better known as the Third House, or the House of Hador), maintained ordered companies, but they appear to not have built large cities. It is possible that Estolad became the first Edainic city. It is doubtful that they possessed a sophisticated culture at all.

Read the full essay here (http://www.merp.com/essays/MichaelMartinez/)

[Michael Martinez]

No one had anything to say about this essay? Are these essays going in the wrong direction for you folks?

[Valandil]

Wrong direction? I don't know. I expect each one will appeal to some and not to others, based on particular interests.

I myself started it as soon as I saw you had it up, but didn't have time to finish it and haven't gotten back to it yet. I THOUGHT I may have seen where you were going with it, in the amount I read. Still... I plan to go back and read the rest of it.

Hang in there though... and keep them coming.

What do you normally do for inspiration?

[Michael Martinez]

Wrong direction? I don't know. I expect each one will appeal to some and not to others, based on particular interests.

I myself started it as soon as I saw you had it up, but didn't have time to finish it and haven't gotten back to it yet. I THOUGHT I may have seen where you were going with it, in the amount I read. Still... I plan to go back and read the rest of it.[/b]

I'm curious. Where do you think I am going with it?

[b]Hang in there though... and keep them coming.

What do you normally do for inspiration?

I don't normally do anything. But I am four weeks late with a couple of book proposals. I decided to write that essay rather than work on one of the proposals.

How is that for inspiration?

[Valandil]

I'm curious. Where do you think I am going with it?


Well... it could be embarrassing to guess - since you have it up there, but here goes:

"A barbarian by any other name is still a barbarian?"


Ba-ba-ba, Bar-barian!
Ba-ba-ba, Bar-barian!
Bar-bar-i-an!
You got me rockin' and a rollin'
Rockin' and a reelin' Barbarian!

(Beach Boys, right? :D :p )

[Michael Martinez]

Well... it could be embarrassing to guess - since you have it up there, but here goes:

"A barbarian by any other name is still a barbarian?"

Nope.

[Valandil]

Nope.

Then I better go read it. :p

I'll try to get to it within a week. :)

[BeardofPants]

Michael, I read a lot of your stuff, file it away, and spring it out for future arguments. Did you want me to make small comments such as, "me like", or summit? ::shrug::

[Michael Martinez]

Michael, I read a lot of your stuff, file it away, and spring it out for future arguments. Did you want me to make small comments such as, "me like", or summit? ::shrug::

I think you could say something more interesting than "me like". Maybe offer some alternative extrapolations. It's always helpful when someone points out a citation I have overlooked.

[Valandil]

OK - finally got to it. I THINK I see now more what you're saying, so I'll give it a second guess: Tolkien didn't want to use "barbarian" partly because of the associations all of us would attach to that word - which really were either not applicable or would make us too quick to stereotype peoples described with that word, based on these implicit associations we have. Uh... you don't explicitly state all of that, but it's sort of what I gather.

Another nice thing: when you started writing essays for MERP, I put the link in my 'favorites' - but it hasn't worked for the past several months (takes me to a page in MERP that just gives me the message that the item I requested does not exist - although I read your first couple articles there). So there were at least 2-3 others I had not yet read, and I went ahead and read the one about the Corsairs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Maybe this should be a different thread, but I found that latter more interesting (not to knock the first, but this one is right along my interests). Particularly much about how Elendil and his sons may have integrated themselves with existing Numenorean populaces. On your way to the Corsairs, you touch on Tarannon Falastur - and that's where my mind started taking a few tangents. Perhaps some of my interest in him springs from some ideas you laid out before in your 'Razing Arnor:...' article from Suite 101 (link below for anyone who wants to see it).

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/46708

1. Tarannon actually took the crown in the name 'Falastur' - 'Lord of Coasts' to commemorate his victories as Captain of Hosts. As you suggested previously, this implies that he won those victories before he became King, rather than while he was king. And why not? In most historical lines, a man might have become king somewhere between the ages of 20 and 40... and in talking about his accomplishments later - we're mostly talking about what he did while he was king. However, if we take the dates from 'The Peoples of Middle Earth', Tarannon was 176 when he came to the throne. Plenty old enough to have accomplished some things of significance. Besides, it would be wise for a King to have his son and heir actively directing national policies in those years of his prime - while he had the strength of a young man, plus the wisdom of someone who had lived over 100 years already... it would be great training for whenever they would become king themselves. This also seems to have been the pattern for some of Gondor's other kings - taking a title which reflected their achievements to date, on receiving the crown.

2. Tolkien's use of 'Captain of Hosts' is interesting, because IIRC, he also uses the term 'Captain of Ships' elsewhere. My initial reaction is to take the first as the title of a commander of land forces, and the second as a commander of naval forces. So... was Tarannon acting largely as a commander of land forces while TAKING those lands, and then became the first 'Ship King' because while king, he shifted the focus toward naval power? OR - was 'Captain of Ships' subject to the 'Captain of Hosts' anyway? The Numenorean - and I'll assume early Third Age Gondorian - navies would have had no rivals at sea. So their military ships were largely used for conveyance of land forces (as demonstrated perhaps even by a much later 'sending' of Gondor's forces to aid Arthedain, albeit a bit late, in 1975 TA).

3. You mention the apparent unhappiness of Tarannon's marriage with Beruthiel - as evidenced by his sending her away on a ship. There are other indications as well. For one, there seem to have been bad feelings toward her from the general populace... did her cats really do as Aragorn suggests, or was that merely a matter of legend? Nonetheless, if respected for her position as Queen, she also seems to have been held in some measure of disdain... evoking fear, not love, from her 'new' people. Perhaps it was because she was of the Black Numenoreans. Perhaps she was unpleasant in person. Anyway - another POSSIBLE indication of an unhappy marriage was that Tarannon was childless. Many people can be happily married and have no children, but for a royal family, in ancient times... the great purpose of marriage was to bring forth a proper heir. Did Tarannon marry late? How early in his career might he have married Beruthiel? Was he 'just' 100? - quite a young age for a Numenorean. Or was he more like 150? Or did he marry her after taking the crown... was he 180 or so? Had his inclinations been more like those of the much later Earnur? - who was said to be more like a champion than a captain or king? OR... did he send Beruthiel away because she could not (or WOULD not) bear children?

4. In marrying a Black Numenorean, Tarannon makes me think of the Biblical King Solomon, who despite his God-given wisdom, disobeyed God and married foreign women, who worshipped and served other gods.

Have you done an essay yet devoted to the Four Ship Kings? If not, is there even enough information available to warrant it?

[Nurvingiel]

This doesn't have anything to do with Middle-earth (directly), but I thought the term "barbarian" originally reffered to the nomadic group the Barbars.

I looked for a reference for this but found none, so maybe I'm wrong.

I did find two other interesting references: Barbarian Timeline (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/barbars.html) and one definition (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Barbarian).

I have not noticed Tolkien using the term 'barbarian' very much. I'm afraid I do not see where you're going yet; I'll just have to read the essay more thouroughlly. :)

[Michael Martinez]

OK - finally got to it. I THINK I see now more what you're saying, so I'll give it a second guess: Tolkien didn't want to use "barbarian" partly because of the associations all of us would attach to that word - which really were either not applicable or would make us too quick to stereotype peoples described with that word, based on these implicit associations we have. Uh... you don't explicitly state all of that, but it's sort of what I gather.[/b]

Explicit statements need to be provable. Remember that these essays are speculative, and though they draw upon many facts and citations from Tolkien's own writings, they do advocate some extrapolations which may not be provable. Inferring what Tolkien intended -- where he left no comments on his intentions -- is dangerous ground, thin ice, and sticky pudding to wade through (to mix my metaphors).

Another nice thing: when you started writing essays for MERP, I put the link in my 'favorites' - but it hasn't worked for the past several months (takes me to a page in MERP that just gives me the message that the item I requested does not exist - although I read your first couple articles there). So there were at least 2-3 others I had not yet read, and I went ahead and read the one about the Corsairs.

I think they reorganized the site some time after I started writing for them. I wish I could be more consistent about contributing, but this has been a particularly up-and-down year for me.

1. Tarannon actually took the crown in the name 'Falastur' - 'Lord of Coasts' to commemorate his victories as Captain of Hosts. As you suggested previously, this implies that he won those victories before he became King, rather than while he was king. And why not? In most historical lines, a man might have become king somewhere between the ages of 20 and 40... and in talking about his accomplishments later - we're mostly talking about what he did while he was king. However, if we take the dates from 'The Peoples of Middle Earth', Tarannon was 176 when he came to the throne. Plenty old enough to have accomplished some things of significance. Besides, it would be wise for a King to have his son and heir actively directing national policies in those years of his prime - while he had the strength of a young man, plus the wisdom of someone who had lived over 100 years already... it would be great training for whenever they would become king themselves. This also seems to have been the pattern for some of Gondor's other kings - taking a title which reflected their achievements to date, on receiving the crown.

Tolkien had the Gondorian kings follow a Roman custom, in which emperors took names commerorating their deeds or their youth ("Caligula" means "little boot", for example, and is the nickname he was given by Roman soldiers when he wandered their camps as a boy).

2. Tolkien's use of 'Captain of Hosts' is interesting, because IIRC, he also uses the term 'Captain of Ships' elsewhere. My initial reaction is to take the first as the title of a commander of land forces, and the second as a commander of naval forces. So... was Tarannon acting largely as a commander of land forces while TAKING those lands, and then became the first 'Ship King' because while king, he shifted the focus toward naval power? OR - was 'Captain of Ships' subject to the 'Captain of Hosts' anyway? The Numenorean - and I'll assume early Third Age Gondorian - navies would have had no rivals at sea. So their military ships were largely used for conveyance of land forces (as demonstrated perhaps even by a much later 'sending' of Gondor's forces to aid Arthedain, albeit a bit late, in 1975 TA).

He was probably acting simply in the capacity of chief commander of the expeditionary force. Think about how Roman generals (such as Caesar, Pompey, and Marc Antony) commanded forces on both land and sea.

3. You mention the apparent unhappiness of Tarannon's marriage with Beruthiel - as evidenced by his sending her away on a ship. There are other indications as well. For one, there seem to have been bad feelings toward her from the general populace... did her cats really do as Aragorn suggests, or was that merely a matter of legend?...

I believe that Unfinished Tales (which I probably quoted somewhere) indicates the cats were very good about stalking people throughout Gondor -- so Aragorn's comment was probably based on some sort of historical fact which had become legendary.

...Nonetheless, if respected for her position as Queen, she also seems to have been held in some measure of disdain... evoking fear, not love, from her 'new' people. Perhaps it was because she was of the Black Numenoreans. Perhaps she was unpleasant in person. Anyway - another POSSIBLE indication of an unhappy marriage was that Tarannon was childless. Many people can be happily married and have no children, but for a royal family, in ancient times... the great purpose of marriage was to bring forth a proper heir. Did Tarannon marry late? How early in his career might he have married Beruthiel? Was he 'just' 100? - quite a young age for a Numenorean. Or was he more like 150? Or did he marry her after taking the crown... was he 180 or so? Had his inclinations been more like those of the much later Earnur? - who was said to be more like a champion than a captain or king? OR... did he send Beruthiel away because she could not (or WOULD not) bear children?

I think Tolkien mentioned in one of his letters (which I probably also quoted somewhere) that the reason Tarannon was childless was the failure of his marriage. But he didn't write a full story about Tarannon and Beruthiel, and so we have to guess at the details with no hope of knowing how Tolkien would have woven the pieces together.

4. In marrying a Black Numenorean, Tarannon makes me think of the Biblical King Solomon, who despite his God-given wisdom, disobeyed God and married foreign women, who worshipped and served other gods.

I don't believe I ever made that comparison, but you have a point. I have simply viewed the marriage as a probable political arrangement (and there I am influenced by Chris Seeman, who introduced me to the esoteric details of the story in the first place).

[b]Have you done an essay yet devoted to the Four Ship Kings? If not, is there even enough information available to warrant it?

No, I haven't really written much about them. I could probably put something together, but it would most likely be a rehash of the details provided in Appendix A.

The essays at Suite101 and MERP are intended to show people the bigger picture that Tolkien was drawing by pulling together obscure details from various sources. It is impossible to guarantee any accuracy, and I occasionally (or perhaps regularly) infuriate people who seem determined to perpetuate the myth that Tolkien was a medievalist who wanted Middle-earth to be a rehash of medieval Europe (which is complete and utter nonsense, but "medieval" is probably the most abused word in Tolkien discussions).

Continued in next message.

[Michael Martinez]

Continued from previous message.

A few years ago, Robert Marks asked Tom Shippey (who knew Tolkien, and who subsequently held the same position at Oxford as Tolkien had) if Tolkien would have regarded himself as a medievalist. Marks shared Shippey's reply (hopefully with Shippey's permission) on the Internet:

Yes, I'm sure Prof T, if pressed, would have admitted to being a medievalist. He might not have meant what some people mean by the term nowadays (ie someone who studies "medievalism", the creation and reflection of ideas of the Middle Ages in the modern day). He would have meant someone on the right side of the split structurally built in to most UK English departments, medieval vs. modern, language vs. literature, or in the case of Leeds University (Tolkien tried to introduce the terminology to Oxford, but failed), A vs B (us being B). However, if you'd asked him what he was without suggesting a term, he'd have said he was a philologist - he often did. Of course he meant something different from most people by that, but it was a clear enough description to me, at any rate.

Throughout his letters, Tolkien proclaimed himself to be a classicist and a philologist. In his view, a classicist looked at the larger expanse of history prior to the modern period -- it included both what we call medieval history and classical history. He also studied classical literature (and languages -- his first non-modern Germanic language being Gothic, which was first recorded in the 4th century through Bishop Ulfilas' translation of the Bible into Gothic).

Because so many people dwell on Tolkien's medieval influences (and there were many), I choose to emphasize his pre-medieval/classical influences (of which there were also many -- perhaps more so than the medieval stuff). I could have focused on his modern influences, but others have taken on that task.

I like Tolkien's Greek, Latin, Hebraic sources -- not better than his medieval and modern sources, but equally with them -- and people should see how he wove those grand traditions into Middle-earth.

The Ship-Kings may or may not lend themselves to that kind of an essay (I do occasionally write about medieval stuff, such as my essay on "Errantry" and the popular essay "Of thegns and kings and rangers and things"). It's hard to say. The less Tolkien said about a subject, the more assumptions one must make, and I don't like making assumptions. Extrapolations are fun and curious things, but when you have to resort to assuming things, then you venture beyond the realm of extrapolation and into the muddy, distorted fields of rewriting.

I'll leave it to others to do the rewriting.

[Forkbeard]

Continued from previous message.

Throughout his letters, Tolkien proclaimed himself to be a classicist and a philologist. In his view, a classicist looked at the larger expanse of history prior to the modern period -- it included both what we call medieval history and classical history. He also studied classical literature (and languages -- his first non-modern Germanic language being Gothic, which was first recorded in the 4th century through Bishop Ulfilas' translation of the Bible into Gothic).

I'd like to ask for some primary evidence. This is only a request for further information, nothing more.

1. Where in the letters does Tolkien proclaim himself a classicist? I can easily find statements about philology, but not about being a classicist. Would you kindly offer letters (all?) where he says this?

2. Where do you derive the idea that TOlkien thought that a classicist dealt with history, all history, prior to the modern period?

3. Why do you apparently list Gothic as a "classical language"? How are you defining "classical language" and how is that the definition of the early 20th century British academy?

[Michael Martinez]

I'd like to ask for some primary evidence. This is only a request for further information, nothing more.

Really? Of course, Forkbeard, YOU know why I don't trust you -- I don't expect anyone here at Entmoot to understand what is going on.

However, I am curious about how you feel regarding Tolkien's attention to the classics in his letters. Surely you have found the references to Greek, Latin, the Bible, Alexander, etc. Are they irrelevant to his studies, to his comments about having been "raised on the Classics" (surely you can find THOSE passages)? What do you feel his comments about democracy and the ancient Greeks say about his knowledge of Greek philosophy and history?

Honestly, before I start dumping citations to support anything I have said in this latest discussion, I'd appreciate a little clarification from you on a few things you've said about me since you started posting here in January. You know, the various comments about how my books are misleading, etc.

For example: What, exactly, is misleading or misinformed in my essays? Having scanned the archives, I don't see that you've ever bothered to back up any of your anti-MM comments with citations or relevant facts. You just sort of barge into discussions with vague assertions about my errors of fact, misunderstandings, and terrible scholarship.

Let's take your first [EDIT] attack on me posted here on Entmoot in January (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=819&page=2) [EDITED by Eärniel- please deal with such accusations in PM]

When other people were making disapproving remarks about David Day while comment on Visualizing Middle-earth, you wrote:

My problems stem from the fact that Michael gets some things blatantly and patently WRONG. For example, his claim that Tolkien was not a medievalist or an Anglo-Saxonist is so off base that it is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry. His understanding and claims regarding Tolkien as a philologist are also off base, even when practioners of philology attempt to enlarge his understanding of the field and what it entails, he turns a deaf ear and prints the errors anyway. His further claims about the Rohirrim and the Scythians and other issues don't really stand scrutiny.

That's a pretty damning (not to mention false and misleading) catalogue of my supposed sins. For example, when I search the text of Visualizing Middle-earth, I don't find the word "philologist". So, what claims did I make in the book regarding Tolkien as a philologist and Anglo-Saxonist (without my having used the words in the book)?

The word "Saxonist" (as in "Anglo-Saxonist") isn't to be found in the text, either. So, what would you know about my understanding "and claims" regarding Tolkien as a philologist, if you are basing your comments on my published works?

The Scythians aren't mentioned in Visualizing Middle-earth, either.

[EDITED by Eärniel]

I am sure you'll understand that, based on your past remarks about me here (and there are many more examples I can draw from the Entmoot archives but I have to get some sleep), I am reasonably more inclined to examine Olmer's theories than to be concerned about your requests for "information".

ACCURATE information doesn't seem to be on your agenda. But I only have what you have posted to base that assessment on. I say, let's straighten this all out and go forward in a more amicable fashion.

[EDITED by Eärniel]

After all, if you cannot agree to a reasonable exchange of words (that is, an exchange which doesn't rely upon false information and negative innuendo), then why should I attempt to engage in any reasonable discourse with you? What would be in it for me, except more unwarranted attacks on both my character and my research?

[EDITED by Eärniel- Please discuss the theories at hand, not the persons behind them. We'd prefer you to use PM for the rest.]

[Forkbeard]

Really? Of course, Forkbeard, YOU know why I don't trust you -- I don't expect anyone here at Entmoot to understand what is going on.

Michael, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You seem to think that a lot more is going on than is going on, but whatever.

However, I am curious about how you feel regarding Tolkien's attention to the classics in his letters. Surely you have found the references to Greek, Latin, the Bible, Alexander, etc. Are they irrelevant to his studies, to his comments about having been "raised on the Classics" (surely you can find THOSE passages)? What do you feel his comments about democracy and the ancient Greeks say about his knowledge of Greek philosophy and history?

So I take it then that you are taking these comments by Tolkien as equivalent to "proclaimed himself a classicist?" Does that accurately portray the basis of your statement? Or is there a more explicit proclamation about being a classicist?


Let's take your first [EDIT] attack on me posted here on Entmoot in January (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=819&page=2) [EDITED by Eärniel- please deal with such accusations in PM]

When other people were making disapproving remarks about David Day while comment on Visualizing Middle-earth, you wrote:

Yep, I did, and if anyone goes to the thread they'll see this remark from me after it was pointed out that Day was intended:

"Falagar, you're quite right. I didn't read carefully enough that Twista was responding to a quote about Day, not about Michael Martinez. Now I feel badly. Ah well, there ya go. I would so recommend Martinez over Day."

And they'd also see this:
"That's not to say its all bad. Michael is extremely knowledgeable and is able to draw on a vast array of material and often hits Tolkien interpretation on the nose."

Would you say this is a mischaracterization Michael? I'll be happy to withdraw it if you like.


And this: ", but they'll then know enough to discern what things Michael claims need further consideration before being taken as gospel and which things he says are so very on target."

So, seems to me while I have some issues where I think you're wrong, I have some where I think you're right on target. I guess if that means I attacked you, I guess it does. But from my POV, I gave a review of your works and gave my opinion.

Now you attack me for not quoting your works and all that, but I find it interesting that you attack me for this when in the same thread no one quoted you, and those who were attacking Day didn't quote him either. Something of a double standard, Michael? And you don't quote Tolkien to back yourself up in this thread even though there was a nice, passionless, request for information inviting you to do just that.

But are you denying that you've written the things I've characterized you as writing?


I am sure you'll understand that, based on your past remarks about me here (and there are many more examples I can draw from the Entmoot archives but I have to get some sleep),

Oh, please do. As far as I know there was only the one thread in which your works are explicitly the subject.


I am reasonably more inclined to examine Olmer's theories than to be concerned about your requests for "information".
So don't answer. Its not my reputation as "Tolkien' expert that is on the line after all.

ACCURATE information doesn't seem to be on your agenda. But I only have what you have posted to base that assessment on. I say, let's straighten this all out and go forward in a more amicable fashion.

More than willing to straighten it all out Michael, have made that offer to you on more than one occasion in more than one forum. We both (that's both, Michael, I'm willing to admit and confess to my sins too) have tossed enough grenades in each other's directions over the years, and I'll once again offer the olive branch.

If you disagree with what I said in that thread, go bump it and say so. I hope that since you want to go forward in an amicable fashion that you'll do so in an amicable fashion. And I'll respond in like fashion.

After all, if you cannot agree to a reasonable exchange of words (that is, an exchange which doesn't rely upon false information and negative innuendo), then why should I attempt to engage in any reasonable discourse with you? What would be in it for me, except more unwarranted attacks on both my character and my research?
I'm always agreeable to an exchange of ideas Michael. So if you're willing to submit to the admins here and not try to pull strings and get threads shutdown where an idea or two of yours might be proven incorrect or in need of adjustment, that's great as far as I'm concerned. If you think I've mischaracterized your work (and I'll note that in the above quoted passage and thread I said nothing about YOU, but rather about some of your positions) then by all means point it out in an amicable fashion.

But as for the statements in this thread:

I'd like to ask for some primary evidence. This is only a request for further information, nothing more.

1. Where in the letters does Tolkien proclaim himself a classicist? I can easily find statements about philology, but not about being a classicist. Would you kindly offer letters (all?) where he says this?

2. Where do you derive the idea that TOlkien thought that a classicist dealt with history, all history, prior to the modern period?

3. Why do you apparently list Gothic as a "classical language"? How are you defining "classical language" and how is that the definition of the early 20th century British academy?

[Valandil]

C'mon - you guys are BOTH just SO wrong!!!

Tolkien was neither a 'classicist' nor a 'medievalist'... he was a 'Middle-earthist'!!! :p :D





;)

[Forkbeard]

C'mon - you guys are BOTH just SO wrong!!!

Tolkien was neither a 'classicist' nor a 'medievalist'... he was a 'Middle-earthist'!!! :p :D





;)


Ardanist?