The Quendi

 From Aragorn and Eomer becoming “brothers” after the war, to the ideological titles of “Firstborn” and “Second comers”, there’s quite a bit of sibling rhetoric in LOTR and the Silmarillion. Let’s explore this literary technique and its purpose in Tolkien’s writing.  After the Battle of Pelennor Fields, Eomer renews the Oath of Eorl and calls Aragorn his brother, swearing loyalty and friendship between Rohan and Gondor. Of course they’re not literally brothers, but if we take Aragorn as representing Gondor and Eomer as Rohan — two kingdoms that always stand together — the word takes on a whole new meaning. Tolkien’s rhetorical choice to refer to the kings as brothers indicates the solidarity between the peoples, while also accounting for their differences. “Brothers” are not the same person, but (in this case) they share the same values. A case where “brothers” most certainly do not have the same principles is that of Manwë and Melkor/Morgoth. Here, the description is not mean...

 In an extremely literal sense, the Silmarils are just shiny glowing rocks. If that was all they were, then characters wouldn’t be willing to start wars, kill, and die to get them back. So, what is it that they’re really trying to recover? Here are two possible interpretations:  1.) The Silmarils represent (moral) perfection The Silmarils capture the light of the two trees Laurelin and Telperion in Valinor — the light of an un-marred world. When the trees were destroyed by Morgoth (a personification of evil), that pure light (symbolizing perfect goodness) was compromised, and — at least to the Noldor who left Valinor in a time of distress — so was that perfect world. By winning the Silmarils back, they would be regaining perfection. This would make sense especially in the context of Eärendil and Elwing, Maedhros, and Maglor. Eärendil and Elwing selflessly brought a Silmaril to Valinor with the hopes of redeeming the Eldar and Edain — somewhat restoring “the light”. On the othe...