The Politics of Tolkien

[Mrs. Maggott]

Albeit, we are not permitted to discuss political (and religious) topics on the forum except - I would suppose - for the political matters that are presented in Tolkien's works themselves.

For example: I don't think that there can be any doubt that, in "The Hobbit", Tolkien found the "oligarchy" of Laketown to be a situation of a lesser nobility than the monarchies of Dale, the Lone Mountain and the Elven Kingdom of Mirkwood. Remember, The Master of that town succumbs to the dragon sickness and runs off into the wilderness with most of the treasure to eventually starve in his madness. But even before that, we are told that he abandoned the town to save himself while there were still folk willing to defend it and when the survivors huddled on the shores of the lake after the town's destruction, the Master was one of the few with a shelter. Now, this is NOT the behavior of a true leader or one who has the right by virtue of his personal virtue and worth, achieved leadership. Indeed, we are told that the Master achieved and held his position as the result of his business acumen rather than any true virtue.

On the other hand, Bard - a descendent of the kings of Dale - remains in the town until it is destroyed under him and, in fact, slays the dragon! Furthermore, he takes over leadership of the remnants of the townsfolk albeit always "ruling" in the Master's name. Thus he is not only valiant in battle and a natural leader, but humble and self-effacing in that he does not attempt to take advantage of his newly won popularity to usurp the Master's place.

And I believe that we have other points made in other works regarding Tolkien's opinion regarding not only various nations, but those who lead/rule them. At first glance, certainly, it would seem that a certain hereditary lineage provides the necessary grace and nobility for leadership, but even where that exists, certain personal characteristics might produce less than desireable results.

In cultures where there appears to be a very loose ruling structure - The Shire, Bree, the Beornings etc. - attempts to inflict a more centralized rule is generally seen as inappropriate or worse. Remember, it is Lotho Sackville-Baggins desire to "rule" the Shire "for the welfare of the 'masses', of course" that lead to the situation that exists at the time the hobbits return from the War.

In any event, I wonder if anyone else has some insights into Tolkien's view of the politics of Middle-earth or even the Blessed Realm?

[Barliman Butterbur]

Albeit, we are not permitted to discuss political (and religious) topics on the forum except - I would suppose - for the political matters that are presented in Tolkien's works themselves...I wonder if anyone else has some insights into Tolkien's view of the politics of Middle-earth or even the Blessed Realm?

Careful M — you've opened the door...;):eek:

Barley

[Gothmog]

Careful M — you've opened the door...;):eek:

Barley
In point of fact there is no door to open. Subjects related to Tolkien and/or his works are not only allowed but encouraged.

[Mrs. Maggott]

In point of fact there is no door to open. Subjects related to Tolkien and/or his works are not only allowed but encouraged.
I believe that the good Innkeeper was being playful! :p

But it is interesting to note the unusual "set up" of Tolkien's various societies in M.e. They go from fairly large kingdoms - Gondor, Rohan, Harad and Mordor (yes, it is a kingdom in its own way!) - to small kingdoms - Umbar, Dale, the Elves of Mirkwood and Lorien and the dwarf kingdoms of the Blue Mountains and the Lonely Mountain - to loose confederations of peoples with fairly amorphis governing structures - the remnants of Arnor, Laketown, the Beornings, Bree et. al. and the Shire - and finally, small independent places of "power" like Rivendell and Orthanc. No matter how you look at it, this sort of conglomeration of ruling structures has no equivalent in historical fact - unless, of course, you go around the globe to find similar examples. Yet, Tolkien structures all of Middle-earth in this way.

Perhaps something can be adduced from these particular arrangements since they appear to cross the line of good and evil. For instance, Gondor is a kingdom and good while Mordor is a kingdom and evil. Rivendell is a small seat of power and good, Orthanc is the same - and evil. And so forth. Anyway, I thought it might be an interesting tangent to explore at a time when many are complaining that there's "nothing new".

[Ciryaher]

But the Shire is obviously what Tolkien considered ideal. A few leaders (Thain, Mayor, and Master of Brandy Hall) were present, but they only had roles either in a particular family/area (i.e. the Thain or Master) or at particular events (like the Mayor). Otherwise people got on with their own business, with only a few services offered by the governing body, those being the services of the Bounders, Shirriffs, and Post.

The ideal is obviously a minimal government, although Tolkien also recognizes the danger that this innocent way of life poses, particularly in a dangerous world/area. This is reflected by the strength of monarchies, in contrast to the peace of a polite anarchy.

[Mrs. Maggott]

And yet, the line of Numenor is presented as the "ultimate good" - when, of course, those who inherit it also inherit the character to go with it! The last King of Numenor brought the country to ruin and destruction. However, Aragorn is noted to be "pure" in his blood connection to that realm. Gandalf also notes that the "blood of Numenor runs almost pure" in Denethor and Faramir - but not Boromir. There can be no doubt that in Gandalf's mind that makes Boromir less than his brother. So it can be said that to Tolkien (as with Lewis) a monarchy is the most "blessed" of rules always, assuming, of course, that the monarch is him or herself "blessed" and not an evil tyrant like the Witch-king or Sauron.

Yet, for the simple folk, doubtless a smaller "government" is better as we can see by the pastoral nature of the Shire and Breeland. But we must also take note that when Lotho with the assistance of Saruman's thugs began to take over the Shire, he was not able to subdue the Bucklanders under the Thain - while he was easily able to dominate and subjugate the rest of the Shire which had no such leader to head up resistance.

It is a very subtle matter with several points of view. Doubtless, however, the governance of any group would be affected - for better or worse - by the circumstances surrounding it. Therefore, what worked well in peacetime might be less successful in times of war - and vice-versa.

[DGoeij]

Well, the Shire was off course under protection of the Rangers. I personally doubt wether the Bounders themselved would have been able to protect the Shire borders against anything more gruesome than the occasional unwanted traveller or troublesome animal.

In this protected atmosphere the decentralized (if any) governing of the Shire was bound to be the most succesfull. Matters were left to local people with local knowledge (the Gaffer and his 'taters') and every region thrived quite happily.

During the War of the Ring the Rangers abandoned the Shire and Saruman's ruffians, off course at first under Lotho's authority, moved in. Apart from Tookland, the Shire was easily subdued. But I recall a comment by farmer Cotton about the Tooks being able to defend themselves more easily because of their 'deep holes'. The clan-like structure of this large and wealthy family, being led by the Thain must have heklped in organising their 'army'. Yet I suspect that Tookland reembled something of an underground village, enabling the armed Tooks to repel the ruffians from their lands at every opportunity and simultaniously making an attack extremely difficult.

[Mrs. Maggott]

While it is true that the natural defenses of the Tooks helped them to be successful in resisting their attackers, the fact that they were able to make any resistance was due to the presence of a strong and acknowledged leader among them.

On the other hand, the rest of the Shire was not used to having a central figure to turn to in times of danger and therefore much of what might have been successful resistance - at least in the beginning - was dissapated by their lack of cohesive effort. By the time the Shirefolk had any intention of resisting, it was already too late to do so.