Faramir and Hector

[Beren3000]

We've been doing excerpts of the Illiad for English class this week and I noticed some similarities between Hector and Faramir:

-Hector was called "the tamer of horses" and Faramir was known to be able to calm animals down with his gentleness (I don't have the exact quote for it, but it's there).

-All the people of Troy loved Hector, same with Gondor and Faramir.

-Neither Hector nor Faramir liked war, yet they both fought to keep their country and its honour safe.

-Faramir was the "good" brother and Boromir the "bad" one. Much like Hector and Paris.

-Minas Tirith, like Troy, was beset with a long siege.

-Also Hector was known in Troy for his "gentle" and "reasonable" speech. Much like the people of Gondor describe Faramir.

So what do you guys think, does the comparison hold water? Could the Illiad have been one of Tolkien's inspirations or is it just that such traits are so common that they are embedded subconciously into any heroic war story?

[Michael Martinez]

-Minas Tirith, like Troy, was beset with a long siege.

Wihle "The Iliad" was certainly one of Tolkien's sources, Minas Tirith did not undergo a ten-year siege.

You do make some interesting points about Faramir and Hector, though.

[Imric]

So what do you guys think, does the comparison hold water? Could the Illiad have been one of Tolkien's inspirations or is it just that such traits are so common that they are embedded subconciously into any heroic war story?

While Tolkien certainly drew on classical mythology (including the Homeric epics) as one of his many sources of inspiration for his legendarium, I believe that such influences are largely found in his earlier work. If I recall correctly, Mr. Martinez wrote an essay discussing parallels between the Iliad and the 'Fall of Gondolin' some years ago.

[Attalus]

Ah, Faramir had better fortune than Hector and found his Andromanche in Éowyn. He also didn't have his poor little son thrown off of the wall, but that is another, and much less pleasant, story. :eek:

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

-Faramir was the "good" brother and Boromir the "bad" one. Much like Hector and Paris.
I wouldn't say that Boromir was the bad brother, just that they were very different.

[Beren3000]

I wouldn't say that Boromir was the bad brother, just that they were very different.
One could also argue along the same lines that Paris wasn't exactly "bad". Come to think of it, he wasn't. Both him and Boromir succumbed to temptation and in that way were "sinful", if you will.

[Attalus]

Actually, I think Paris was quite evil. Very self-centered, never seemed to care that if it were not for his selfish desires, Troy would not have been in such a fix. At times, Hector seems quite exasperated with him. Boromir never caused such grief, though if he'd gotten the Ring, he might have!

[Haradrim]

I have never thought to compare the two but now that it has been brought up I do find that these similarities do seem to hold water. THough I do think the siege of GOndor and the siege of Troy do not have similarities. The wars were for different reasons and the wars were considerably different in length and the Gondor won while Troy lost.

[Michael Martinez]

While Tolkien certainly drew on classical mythology (including the Homeric epics) as one of his many sources of inspiration for his legendarium, I believe that such influences are largely found in his earlier work. If I recall correctly, Mr. Martinez wrote an essay discussing parallels between the Iliad and the 'Fall of Gondolin' some years ago.

Oh, he drew on classical influences across the whole kit and kaboodle. After all, the Numenor/Atlantis legend is a major theme in Middle-earth's history. People often point to his Roman Catholic influences in various ways. I don't know enough about Catholicism to distinguish between medieval themes, ancient themes, and/or modern themes, but I know people have argued there are elements from all periods of Roman Catholic theological development in Middle-earth.

Tolkien himself pointed out the Egyptian connections for Arnor and Gondor. He called the Rohirrim "Homeric horsemen". And so on. The classical influences are extensive.

[Beren3000]

Actually, I think Paris was quite evil. Very self-centered, never seemed to care that if it were not for his selfish desires, Troy would not have been in such a fix. At times, Hector seems quite exasperated with him.
I beg to differ. I agree with you of course that Paris was one who doomed all of Troy. But isn't he to be forgiven for giving in to temptation and to his lust for Helen? Isn't he to be forgiven because he couldn't have predicted that the Greeks would conduct a 10-year siege?
Plus, if you condemn Paris for his weakness for Helen, then you're also saying that BOROMIR IS EVIL which (IMHO) he was not.
I think that if anything can be blamed on Paris it's that he accepted to be a judge between Venus, Athena and Hera in the first place.

[Michael Martinez]

I beg to differ. I agree with you of course that Paris was one who doomed all of Troy. But isn't he to be forgiven for giving in to temptation and to his lust for Helen? Isn't he to be forgiven because he couldn't have predicted that the Greeks would conduct a 10-year siege?

I think a stronger argument in Paris' defence is that he was drawn into the conflict between three goddesses which Eris (Strife) had initiated. He is more tragic than evil, in my opinion, but is perhaps tragic like Turin: doomed to love a woman who truly couldn't be his.

[inked]

Then there is one crucial difference between Paris and Boromir in action, is there not?

Paris never repented his lust and law-breaking. Boromir did.

Both are tragic figures because they are caught up in struggles beyond their ken in one sense. The doom of the age in which they dwelt was with higher powers. But within that doom, they make choices and see consequences and then either continue in their choice or renounce it. The outcomes are quite different though both lose life.

Also the argument that great passion (eros in Greek and not limited to lust for woman or ring) justifies breaking the moral law is inadequate. There is no excusing Hitler the Holocaust because he had a passionate hatred of Jews is there? Nor Sadaam using nerve gas because he passionately hated Kurds? Or Lorena Bobbitt because she passionately hated adultery? In fact, the failure to resist the passion is the cause of the evil that follows in both cases of Paris and Boromir. For Boromir, the realization of the passion's effects and consequences results in correction, repentance, and -in a sense- a new start for the Quest. In Paris, refusal to abandon the passion and make repentance results in the destruction of Troy - even in the face of years of suffering and death.

If we justify every crime against the individual we victimize as due to a great passion, do we excuse it? I think both examples argue NOT.

Then again Paris has an inordinate amount of pride. He, mortal, accepts to be a judge among the goddesses! This is known as hubris in Greek thought (overweening pride or vaunting pride). It is this same hubris that refuses to admit his error in the matter of Helen. The same hubris that results in a siege of a decade and many deaths! Boromir has his hubris, too, but turns from it.

Hector bears his part too for not upbraiding his brother and getting him to do the right thing. Imagine Aragorn supporting Boromir had he obtained and kept the Ring successfully. So Paris' failure has contributing causes but not excuses.

[Beren3000]

If we justify every crime against the individual we victimize as due to a great passion, do we excuse it? I think both examples argue NOT.
You misunderstood me there! I'm not saying that Paris' actions were JUSTIFIED because he gave in to his passion. I'm just saying that it's a perfectly human defect to give in to certain temptations. So it's possible for us to SYMPATHIZE with Paris and not condemn him as evil, but rather as a weak-spirit. The same for Boromir. They both had a moral downfall which, even if condemnable, is still not to be called evil. See what I mean?

[inked]

Well, Beren3000, I might! but I doubt if Wayfarer would! ;)

[Beren3000]

Well, Beren3000, I might! but I doubt if Wayfarer would!
Are you talking about that "Evil in ME" discussion you guys have been having? I read a few snatches here and there, but it seems so daunting to read the whole thing. What have you reached so far? Established any common grounds yet? (Sorry, too lazy to check on the thread again :o)

[Valandil]

(Sorry, too lazy to check on the thread again :o)

Is laziness evil? ;) :p

[inked]

Laziness is evil under the right conditions!

Beren3000, the other thread is a little lighter now - but probably not for long! Wayfarer is defining by dictionaries and I am going by examples! ;)

[Wayfarer]

I see, Inked. I just don't care. Understanding just lets me be all the more emphatic when I find myself having to tell you you're wrong.

In any case, once again the distinction that is made is the wrong one. Paris clearly performs an act of evil. Boromir, likewise, clearly attempts to do evil by taking the ring. Attempting to redefine the words used to describe an event so as to claim it was something else is folly of the highest order.

Most assuredly, both Paris and Boromir did evil. An evil act should not be excused simply because you do not wish to believe that the individual perpetrating that act was evil.

Regardless, you are in error to equate Boromir's lust for the ring with Paris's lust for Helen. While there most certainly are similarities, you cannot overlook the incredible differences: Boromir wanted the ring in order to save his people from destruction, whereas Paris wanted Helen to satisfy his own desires. Furthermore, while Helen's great beauty may have been desirable, Boromir's desire for the ring was at least partially the result of a magical inflamation of the desires he already had. Not to mention that the results had Boromir successfully taken the ring would have been quite different from the results of Paris stealing away Helen.

On another subject: It is not really a concern whether Paris was Evil or merely Tragic. All evil is tragic.

[inked]

Wayfarer,

Passion is as passion does. You will not contend that the two passions are unalike successfully. Regardless of the mitigating causes in both cases the passionate desire to excess was the evil. The desires were wrongly acted upon in each case. As you so eloquently argued in our apposite thread on evil in middle earth, so you must argue here.

That's the problem with those pesky definitions! :eek:

And we agree that all evil is ultimately tragic, I think, as well.

[Turambar1982]

Coming back to the main topic of the thread, I have something for you mooters. I believe there exists a letter written by Tolkien himself (´don't remember the exact number, but I'll look it up asap) where he talks about the geographical setting of Middle-Earth. He compares (of course) Hobbingen to England and (if remember correctly) Minas Tirith with the site of ancient Troy. Coincidence? Not IMPOV.

[matthew]

There definitely is a parellel between the two... I hadn't thought of that. Although Boromir was obviously much more of a "fighter" than Paris, I think the more important side is Faramir/Hector as the rightous war-hating warrior.
Also, Priam/Denethor is a bit of a comparison, as in old guy-king-father... Although Denethor was corrupted in the end by palantir, they would have been very similar...
Anyway, good point.

[Michael Martinez]

Coming back to the main topic of the thread, I have something for you mooters. I believe there exists a letter written by Tolkien himself (´don't remember the exact number, but I'll look it up asap) where he talks about the geographical setting of Middle-Earth. He compares (of course) Hobbingen to England and (if remember correctly) Minas Tirith with the site of ancient Troy. Coincidence? Not IMPOV.

Not exactly.

From Letter 294:

Middle-earth...corresponds spiritually to Nordic Europe

Not Nordic, please! A word I personally dislike; it is associated, though of French origin, with racialist theories. Geographically Northern is usually better. But examination will show that even this is inapplicable (geographically or spiritually) to 'Middle-earth'. This is an old word, not invented by me, as reference to a dictionary such as the Shorter Oxford will show. It meant the habitable lands of our world, set amid the surrounding Ocean. The action of the story takes place in the North-west of 'Middle-earth', equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. But this is not a purely 'Nordic' area in any sense. If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles sout, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.

[Beren3000]

Regardless, you are in error to equate Boromir's lust for the ring with Paris's lust for Helen. While there most certainly are similarities, you cannot overlook the incredible differences: Boromir wanted the ring in order to save his people from destruction, whereas Paris wanted Helen to satisfy his own desires. Furthermore, while Helen's great beauty may have been desirable, Boromir's desire for the ring was at least partially the result of a magical inflamation of the desires he already had. Not to mention that the results had Boromir successfully taken the ring would have been quite different from the results of Paris stealing away Helen.
Good points! I stand corrected.
Minas Tirith with the site of ancient Troy.
Interesting point! I don't think the small difference cited in the letter that Mr. Martinez referred us to counts.
Also, Priam/Denethor is a bit of a comparison
I can't agree with this. Priam and Denethor have too much differences IMO for this to hold.

[Wayfarer]

[QUOTE=inked]Passion is as passion does. You will not contend that the two passions are unalike successfully. Regardless of the mitigating causes in both cases the passionate desire to excess was the evil. The desires were wrongly acted upon in each case.[QUOTE]

I agree that both characters performed, or attempted to perform, acts of great evil. Paris by kidnapping another man's wife, and Boromir by attempting to steal the ring.

However, I do contend that, while both did evil, the circumstances were such that I do not think Boromir can be said to have been evil. He was a noble man inflamed to perform an evil act by a power outside his control (the ring itself, which no man on earth could have resisted for long). Paris, on the other hand, was driven only by his own lusts.

To try and put it more clearly, I feel that:

Boromir was a noble man who was influenced by a power which he could not contend with, and through a selfless wish to help his people fell into the temptation to do an evil act.
Paris was a man who's selfish desires led him to do an evil act with no regard for the consequences to himself and others. In this, I consider him to have been an evil man (He willfully and knowingly did something which was morally wrong, and showed no regret afterwards)

I do not think that the desire to use the ring and help the Gondorians was equally evil to the desire to have sex with a hot chick at all costs. I really don't. Maybe I'm missing something here.

So, while both kidnapping Helen and stealing the ring were evil acts, that is, were both morally wrong and caused pain, I think it requires a look at the context of the act to determine whether the indivudal as a whole is morally bad.

Of course you can always go the route of saying that anyone who does evil is evil... there's certainly a case for that to be made.

[inked]

So, while both kidnapping Helen and stealing the ring were evil acts, that is, were both morally wrong and caused pain, I think it requires a look at the context of the act to determine whether the indivudal as a whole is morally bad.

Of course you can always go the route of saying that anyone who does evil is evil... there's certainly a case for that to be made.

O Insufferable One, I am quoting your argument! :o therefore, it must be correct! :D
Quote:
But I think as humans we have gradations of evil that are useful descriptors as we tend not to view lying on the same plane as murder - though both may result in the death of persons.

Humans tend to make artificial distinctions. Even if we agree that there are gradiations of evil, the fact remains that an act is evil regardless of the degree. Evil is a quality, not a quantity.


Pesky things, arguments; much like definitions, don't you agree? :confused:

[Beren3000]

Boromir was a noble man who was influenced by a power which he could not contend with
Paris also was influenced by "a power which he could not contend with" : the three godesses. Once he, a mortal, accepted to judge between the gods, he fell in way over his head.

[Beren3000]

Just realised, if Faramir is Hector, then the Witch King is Achilles :D :D

[Attalus]

Just realised, if Faramir is Hector, then the Witch King is Achilles :D :DThen that means that Éowyn is Paris? :eek:

[Beren3000]

Then that means that Éowyn is Paris?
So Faramir eventually got married to his own (brother/sister) :D :D :D :D

Seriously, though, do you think a discussion thread on the Iliad would be interesting?

[Valandil]

I'm fond of saying that every analogy breaks down at some point. I think we just found that point. :D

[Earniel]

Seriously, though, do you think a discussion thread on the Iliad would be interesting?
if you're considering a discussion on the Illiad itself, then I would gladly participate. I think there are one or two threads about it in the general literature forum.

I'm fond of saying that every analogy breaks down at some point. I think we just found that point. :D
:D

You may have been unable to establish a complete analogy between the Illiad and LoTR (let's face the thruth: J.R.R. Tolkien was just to clever and imaginative for that) but I think you've certainly established that the Illiad was a source of inspiration for the Professor.

[Turambar1982]

Not exactly.



Well almost. I remembered it wrong then. A well. Cest la vie. Or something like that.