Horn-call of Buckland and the Rangers' protection

B

Beech27

Active Member
Aragorn, in his response to Boromir, seems to imply that the Rangers must protect certain populations from both physical harm and the knowledge that such threats even exist.

However, we have seen an instance in which a group of people not known for martial prowess rise to the occasion when they believe they are being attacked by something out of what we might call sunless woods.

At last they got the idea that enemies were in Buckland, some strange invasion from the Old Forest. And then they lost no more time.​
​
Fear! Fire! Foes!​
​
The Brandybucks were blowing the Horn-call of Buckland, that had not been sounded for a hundred years, not since the white wolves came in the Fell Winter, when the Brandywine was frozen over.​

We might believe that they wouldn't have demonstrated such bravery if they truly knew what enemies were present; but then, they might have done, and the Rangers haven't been on ringwraith duty except relatively lately.

So my question is: Does Aragorn--and do the Rangers generally--perhaps underestimate the people they protect? If his commentary was indeed at least obliquely referencing the Shire, it has to be said that hobbits have performed and will perform bravely almost every time they get the chance.
 
Last edited:
I think that the vaguely hinted at and never named evils that the Rangers protect the folk of the North from aren't just wolves and maybe the odd goblin. These evils would be older and deadlier (and, again, never named or described). If it was just wolves and goblins, he'd probably say wolves and goblins.
 
amysrevenge said:
I think that the vaguely hinted at and never named evils that the Rangers protect the folk of the North from aren't just wolves and maybe the odd goblin. These evils would be older and deadlier (and, again, never named or described). If it was just wolves and goblins, he'd probably say wolves and goblins.
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right.

I'd just note that the Brandybucks, in the above, rise to meet a "strange invasion" from the Old Forest. Granted, the reference right after is specifically to wolves; but this implies to me that they're not too concerned with what they're facing. Maybe it's wolves, or goblins, or the forest itself. Whatever it is, it's strange; but their action seems urgent and not conditioned on picking a fight they calculatingly think they can win. Perhaps that confidence is born of ignorance. But even when faced with the wraiths, Fatty Bolger wasn't idle, and Farmer Maggot didn't seem the least bit cowed.

I don't mean to imply the Rangers stood watch needlessly. I just wonder if it needed to be totally secret after all.
 
Oh I follow. Yeah, maybe the secrecy is more for their own sake than for the Hobbits' sake. They are happier in the background. Maybe they justify it (to themselves and to others) by framing the secrecy as for the benefit of the others.
 
If the Hobbits knew the Rangers were there they might not have been motivated to respond in the same way and the Bounders might not be a thing either.
With the secrecy there are two layers of protection, without it there may have been only one.

That said, I think focusing on the Shire here is shortsighted: Bree and surrounds is just as much under the Rangers’ secret protection, with other settlements that we don’t hear about protected too. Secrecy may also allow the relocation of forces to meet current threats without upsetting the temporarily less-protected populace.
 
I think it's less about thinking that they couldn't handle it and more an Innocence/Experience thing. Whether one can handle the dangers or not, the knowledge of the danger changes the way one looks at the world.

I loved watching fireworks on the Fourth of July every year. For me, the bright colors and loud noises were all part of the fun and excitement of the holiday. My grandfather, however, had served in Vietnam; and for him, the fireworks were reminders of death and devastation. My Innocence allowed me to enjoy what he in his Experience could not.

That's not to say that Experience is a bad thing in itself. Experience can be good or even necessary, and if one must face the dangers, it's better to do so knowing them. But it still requires a loss of Innocence, and ultimately, I think that's what the Rangers are protecting. The Rangers are an Experienced people, and thus they understand what a loss it would be if all Innocence was lost.
 
I think the Buckland horn repulsion of the Riders is an interesting point, since the Riders only left because other greater affairs were afoot elsewhere. There is a need for equalization. The Rangers are the mortal versions of the Istari. When an Evil of a higher order interferes with the affairs of a lower order, it is permissible for a Good of a higher order to counterbalance. The Istari (good Maiar) were sent (if I recall) to counterbalance the intrusion of a wicked Maia into Middle-Earth. The Istari didn't just forcibly save everyone's bacon, but gave the good and true of Middle-Earth a chance, if they exercised their goodness, to continue to have the chance to exercise their goodness. If Frodo had failed, and Sauron stretched his hand over Middle-Earth, Eru Ilúvatar would have sent a greater servant, and if mortals had again failed, a greater servant still. (Sam sees a star above the ruin of Mordor...) It reminds me of C.S. Lewis' statement in Perelandra that, had sending his Son to a terrible death failed, God would have gone to some even more terrible length, as the cube is to the square, to save even a single good lost sheep.

So the Rangers are better groomed, and more mortal, Istari. The Rangers aren't mentioned in the context of stopping wolves or strangely aggressive trees. They are there for foes that freeze the heart--Evil of a higher order that would, if left un-counterbalanced, simply overwhelm even the stoutest Proudfeet. (And given that the Rangers were scattered by the Riders, this suggests there is a higher order above the Rangers.)

This general argument is for Catholics called the principle of subsidiarity. Local governance is the goal, to the extent possible. Of course, to believe this, you have to be receptive to a metaphysics of orders: that there really is a higher and a lower. But higher does not mean of more dignity; the angels, for example, under Catholic theology, are a higher order in terms of power, but humans have their own great dignity (and in fact in some ways angels are servants to humans; as by analogy Rangers are noblesse-obligeyish servants to hobbits). And the fact that one might not trust Pres. Trump or Sen. Biden with any such power is not a proof against Tolkien's metaphysics; such mistrust may suggest that there is no higher order in our faded world (and that such fading is a good or a bad thing), or that the higher order has become corrupted and venal, or that the lower order has become corrupted and arrogant, or that we have given our respect to the wrong order (politics rather than e.g. art or religion or tradition or science or progress), or...

When the Riders attack the helpless under Weathertop, an intermediate order wields flaming brands to give the helpless a chance to show their own dignity and stoutness and resilience, fleeing to take haven in another higher order, which is threatened with siege by a still higher order, which siege is broken by a grey guide from an uncertain order (not acting through, but rather assisting, those who were helpless on Weathertop). LoTR is in some ways a rhapsody on the medieval Great Chain of Being showcasing the dignity of the "lowest" link of the hnau.
 
Last edited:
That's such a great post--thank you.

Regarding Tolkien's metaphysics (and because you've mentioned him): I'm reminded also of CS Lewis' commentary on Paradise Lost. Of course, many have suggested Milton took Satan's side, either consciously or unconsciously. This was a man who famously opposed the King in his own country; how could we read his most famous text as anything but allegory?

Well, Lewis believes (and I am convinced as well, for what it's worth) we must avoid that temptation. What Milton opposes is illegitimate Kingship, not Kingship per se. And the sovereignty of God is, of course, absolute and beyond reproach.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top