54
Фаэрни (ах'энн) — то же, что и майяр.
«Учитель… Я — это ты, ты — это я, сердце мое в ладонях твоих» (ах'энн).
Дхол-таэро, «глава-воин» (ах'энн) — командир длиной сотни, капитан.
Насколько я поняла, такой дикий способ размножения касается только «великих орков», подобных Болдогу. Право зачать ребенка с бессмертной прародительницей — привилегия, которой удостаиваются особо отличившиеся. Видимо, старший Болдуинг на службе Морготу проявил себя.
Кстати, мне кажется, что из остальных (я имею в виду только довольно крупные вещи) ближе всех к приличной планке подскочила проза Маргариты Тук и Примулы Брендибэк. И сгубила их вещи как раз бледность реалий. И серьезные неточности в «исторической реконструкции»: Эомер не мог вести дневник, это очень поздний для Европы жанр, он в данные Толкиеном типы культур не вписывается (равно как не мог вести дневник и Маэдрос в первом издании ЧКА, так что правильно сии записки ликвидировали). А если он его вел, да еще и с таким содержанием:-) (ага, представьте себе викинга-мужеложца), то об этом должен нам сообщать дополнительный повествователь-рассказчик, у которого должны быть явные мотивы, чтобы представить сюжет так, а не иначе (например, подобные «эротические фантазии» должен излагать соотечественник Осенней Хризантемы, который изображает Эомера и Арагорна в стилистике какого-нибудь позднего а-ля-хэйанского романа) — но не «всезнающий» внешний автор, который может повествовать только о том, что «было на самом деле». Потому что «на самом деле» в Толкиеновском мире эти герои так бы себя не повели — это аксиома. Интересно, кто-нибудь что-нибудь понял в этом филологическом прокваке?:-)
[См. «Осенний сад с хризантемами», а также критику на произведения Маргариты Тук и Примулы Брендибэк в Одинокой Башне — К.Кинн]
But if you imagine people in such a mythical state, in which Evil is largely incarnate, and in which physical resistance to it is a major act of loyalty to God, I think you would have the 'good people' in just such a state: concentrated on the negative: the resistance to the false, while 'truth' remained more historical and philosophical than religious.
Of course in 'real life' causes are not clear cut — if only because human tyrants are seldom utterly corrupted into pure manifestations of evil will. As far as I can judge some seem to have been so corrupt, but even they must rule subjects only part of whom are equally corrupt, while many still need to have 'good motives', real or feigned, presented to them. As we see today. Still there are clear cases: e.g. acts of sheer cruel aggression, in which therefore right is from the beginning wholly on one side, whatever evil the resentful suffering of evil may eventually generate in members of the right side. There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and the wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called right and wrong, or good and evil, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict. A judge must assign right and wrong according to principles which he holds valid in all cases. That being so, the right will remain an inalienable possession of the right side and Justify its cause throughout. (I speak of causes, not of individuals. Of course to a judge whose moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the cause will not justify the actions of its supporters, as individuals, that are morally wicked. But though 'propaganda' may seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact 'right', that is not valid.
The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.)
Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgement as to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to the other side.
In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Numenoreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world. So even if in desperation 'the West' had bred or hired hordes of ores and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right…
So I feel that the fiddle-faddle in reviews, and correspondence about them, as to whether my 'good people' were kind and merciful and gave quarter (in fact they do), or not, is quite beside the point. Some critics seem determined to represent me as a simple-minded adolescent, inspired with, say, a With-the-flag-to-Pretoria spirit, and wilfully distort what is said in my tale. I have not that spirit, and it does not appear in the story. The figure of Denethor alone is enough to show this; but I have not made any of the peoples on the 'right' side, Hobbits, Rohirrim, Men of Dale or of Gondor, any better than men have been or are, or can be. Mine is not an 'imaginary' world, but an imaginary historical moment on 'Middle-earth' — which is our habitation.
