Looking for Tolkien Quote Preferred Political System

[TolkienJRR]

I have a vague memory of Tolkien stating he would prefer a Gaul-like monarchy or perhaps HRE. He also stated he disliked pagan Rome. Does this ring a bell to anyone?

[Eldy]

The only references to Gaul and the Holy Roman Empire that I'm seeing (with a ctrl-f search; neither are listed in the index of my print edition) are in Letters 77 and 294, respectively.

What kind of mass manias the Soviets can produce remains for peace and prosperity and the removal of war-hypnotism to show. Not quite so dismal as the Western ones, perhaps (I hope). But one doesn't altogether wonder at a few smaller states still wanting to be 'neutral'; they are between the devil and the deep sea all right (and you can stick which D you like on to which side you like). However it's always been going on in different terms, and you and I belong to the everdefeated never altogether subdued side. I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians.

Auden has asserted that for me 'the North is a sacred direction'. That is not true. The North-west of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man's home should. I love its atmosphere, and know more of its histories and languages than I do of other pans; but it is not 'sacred', nor does it exhaust my affections. I have, for instance, a particular love for the Latin language, and among its descendants for Spanish. That it is untrue for my story, a mere reading of the synopses should show. The North was the seat of the fortresses of the Devil. The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a 'Nordic'.

I'm not sure I would describe either of these as Tolkien stating his preferred political system, though. The quote people usually point to when discussing Tolkien's political beliefs is found in Letter 52...

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the an and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy. Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari [1] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that – after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world – is that it works and has worked only when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way.

[1] Latin, 'I do not wish to be made a bishop.' [Editorial endnote.]

...but he's clearly playing it up to some degree, though I've no reason to doubt his sincerity on the basic points. It's worth remembering that Tolkien was far more fond of certain kinds of hierarchy than some people who like to point to the anarchy quote might appreciate. From Humphrey Carpenter's Biography:

His view of the world, in which each man belonged or ought to belong to a specific 'estate', whether high or low, meant that in one sense he was an old-fashioned conservative. But in another sense it made him highly sympathetic to his fellow-men, for it is those who are unsure of their status in the world, who feel they have to prove themselves and if necessary put down other men to do so, who are truly ruthless. Tolkien was, in modern terms, 'right-wing' in that he honoured his monarch and his country and did not believe in the rule of the people; but he opposed democracy simply because he believed in the end his fellow-men would not benefit from it. He once wrote: 'I am not a "democrat", if only because "humility" and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power—and then we get and are getting slavery.' [This is from Letter 186. —Eldy] As to the virtues of an old-fashioned feudal society, this is what he once said about respect for one's superiors: 'Touching your cap to the Squire may be damn bad for the Squire but it's damn good for you.'

The latter comment was made in an interview with the BBC's Denys Gueroult in 1964, which can be listened to on the BBC website and YouTube (see timestamp 37:17). Of course, it must be noted that the above block quote includes a good deal of editorializing by Carpenter, which I offer no opinion on one way or another.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You beat me to it, Eldy, and so I'm not sure I have much to add. I will add that there is quite an interesting discussion about Letter 52 in the Tolkien's Letters subforum:

Letter 52: On Politics

[TolkienJRR]

The only references to Gaul and the Holy Roman Empire that I'm seeing (with a ctrl-f search; neither are listed in the index of my print edition) are in Letters 77 and 294, respectively.

What kind of mass manias the Soviets can produce remains for peace and prosperity and the removal of war-hypnotism to show. Not quite so dismal as the Western ones, perhaps (I hope). But one doesn't altogether wonder at a few smaller states still wanting to be 'neutral'; they are between the devil and the deep sea all right (and you can stick which D you like on to which side you like). However it's always been going on in different terms, and you and I belong to the everdefeated never altogether subdued side. I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians.

Auden has asserted that for me 'the North is a sacred direction'. That is not true. The North-west of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man's home should. I love its atmosphere, and know more of its histories and languages than I do of other pans; but it is not 'sacred', nor does it exhaust my affections. I have, for instance, a particular love for the Latin language, and among its descendants for Spanish. That it is untrue for my story, a mere reading of the synopses should show. The North was the seat of the fortresses of the Devil. The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a 'Nordic'.

I'm not sure I would describe either of these as Tolkien stating his preferred political system, though. The quote people usually point to when discussing Tolkien's political beliefs is found in Letter 52...

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the an and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy. Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari [1] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that – after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world – is that it works and has worked only when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way.

[1] Latin, 'I do not wish to be made a bishop.' [Editorial endnote.]

...but he's clearly playing it up to some degree, though I've no reason to doubt his sincerity on the basic points. It's worth remembering that Tolkien was far more fond of certain kinds of hierarchy than some people who like to point to the anarchy quote might appreciate. From Humphrey Carpenter's Biography:

His view of the world, in which each man belonged or ought to belong to a specific 'estate', whether high or low, meant that in one sense he was an old-fashioned conservative. But in another sense it made him highly sympathetic to his fellow-men, for it is those who are unsure of their status in the world, who feel they have to prove themselves and if necessary put down other men to do so, who are truly ruthless. Tolkien was, in modern terms, 'right-wing' in that he honoured his monarch and his country and did not believe in the rule of the people; but he opposed democracy simply because he believed in the end his fellow-men would not benefit from it. He once wrote: 'I am not a "democrat", if only because "humility" and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power—and then we get and are getting slavery.' [This is from Letter 186. —Eldy] As to the virtues of an old-fashioned feudal society, this is what he once said about respect for one's superiors: 'Touching your cap to the Squire may be damn bad for the Squire but it's damn good for you.'

The latter comment was made in an interview with the BBC's Denys Gueroult in 1964, which can be listened to on the BBC website and YouTube (see timestamp 37:17). Of course, it must be noted that the above block quote includes a good deal of editorializing by Carpenter, which I offer no opinion on one way or another.

Perfect. Thanks for the great post. It looks like I scrambled a few letters together. Specifically, I was looking for letter 77, thank you for providing it. I searched the index but could not find anything to point me where I wanted to go, you have.

[Eldy]

Perfect. Thanks for the great post. It looks like I scrambled a few letters together. Specifically, I was looking for letter 77, thank you for providing it. I searched the index but could not find anything to point me where I wanted to go, you have.

I'm glad I could help!

You beat me to it, Eldy, and so I'm not sure I have much to add. I will add that there is quite an interesting discussion about Letter 52 in the Tolkien's Letters subforum:

Letter 52: On Politics

That thread is an interesting read! I've always been intrigued by what Tolkien may have meant by "unconstitutional monarchy." It's a provocative phrasing, though he clearly did not mean it to refer to Classical despotism nor early modern absolutism. I know it's always dicey to try to divine an author's personal politics from their fiction—especially Tolkien's, where the main stories present (Faithful) Númenóreans and Gondorians as more or less unambiguously good, but he clearly felt otherwise if you read deeper into the posthumously published material—but I think some it can be instructive up to a point.

The quasi-libertarian wonderland of the Shire is clearly not intended to be "realistic," with its supposed absence of murder (as per Frodo during the Scouring of the Shire) and lack of need to attend to its own defense, but as an idealized society it indicates some of what Tolkien considered worth idealizing. It's not the classless utopia some people make it out to be. In The Hobbit, Bilbo might be (as Shippey says) bourgeois, but he's not so in LOTR, in which the concept of the Shire was developed. His mother comes from the closest thing the Shire has to aristocracy, and he himself is a landowner, a country Squire, implicitly collecting rents from his tenants in Bagshot Row (whose inhabitants were evicted after the mainline Bagginses were no longer in possession of Bag End). Bilbo himself was unusually egalitarian in his respect for the Gaffer and teaching Sam to read, but one imagines most Hobbits "touching their caps" to people like Bilbo.

Tolkien's comments about Númenórean politics are also worth considering:

A Númenórean King was monarch, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say.

The original italics around the word "monarch" have always jumped out at me. Tolkien was fond of italics in general, but they seem to suggest a certain enthusiasm for the idea of a monarch who gets to make unquestioned decisions. I recently read a bit about Adrian Vermeule, a contemporary legal scholar and fetishist of the "strong executive," who converted to Catholicism after coming to prominence, and his notion of a strong leader who "has ample authority to protect the vulnerable from the ravages of pandemics, natural disasters, and climate change, and from the underlying structures of corporate power that contribute to these events" reminded me of the Númenórean concept. Though Vermeule's strong leader is also the leader of a strong state bureaucracy, which is a rather significant difference from Tolkien. His ideal system would seem to be for the King to do away with overbearing bureaucracy and other mechanisms of social control in both the public and private spheres—which is not the same as doing away with traditional, small-scale hierarchies like the Squire–tenant relationship, and overall loyalty to the King—to the benefit of the common people who are otherwise at the mercy of politicians and the professional–managerial class.

Of course, the common flaw is that these systems depend on the King/executive being virtuous, and there's no mechanism for removing an unjust ruler (something Tolkien implicitly acknowledged in the history of Númenor, as there was seemingly no recourse to the coup of Herucalmo/Tar-Anducal except to wait for him to die and the Sceptre to pass to his proper heir) besides armed rebellion. But I have a hard time imagining Tolkien approving of that unless it resulted in the restoration of, and was preferably led by, the rightful King.

[TolkienJRR]

Perfect. Thanks for the great post. It looks like I scrambled a few letters together. Specifically, I was looking for letter 77, thank you for providing it. I searched the index but could not find anything to point me where I wanted to go, you have.

I'm glad I could help!

You beat me to it, Eldy, and so I'm not sure I have much to add. I will add that there is quite an interesting discussion about Letter 52 in the Tolkien's Letters subforum:

Letter 52: On Politics

That thread is an interesting read! I've always been intrigued by what Tolkien may have meant by "unconstitutional monarchy." It's a provocative phrasing, though he clearly did not mean it to refer to Classical despotism nor early modern absolutism. I know it's always dicey to try to divine an author's personal politics from their fiction—especially Tolkien's, where the main stories present (Faithful) Númenóreans and Gondorians as more or less unambiguously good, but he clearly felt otherwise if you read deeper into the posthumously published material—but I think some it can be instructive up to a point.

The quasi-libertarian wonderland of the Shire is clearly not intended to be "realistic," with its supposed absence of murder (as per Frodo during the Scouring of the Shire) and lack of need to attend to its own defense, but as an idealized society it indicates some of what Tolkien considered worth idealizing. It's not the classless utopia some people make it out to be. In The Hobbit, Bilbo might be (as Shippey says) bourgeois, but he's not so in LOTR, in which the concept of the Shire was developed. His mother comes from the closest thing the Shire has to aristocracy, and he himself is a landowner, a country Squire, implicitly collecting rents from his tenants in Bagshot Row (whose inhabitants were evicted after the mainline Bagginses were no longer in possession of Bag End). Bilbo himself was unusually egalitarian in his respect for the Gaffer and teaching Sam to read, but one imagines most Hobbits "touching their caps" to people like Bilbo.

Tolkien's comments about Númenórean politics are also worth considering:

A Númenórean King was monarch, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say.

The original italics around the word "monarch" have always jumped out at me. Tolkien was fond of italics in general, but they seem to suggest a certain enthusiasm for the idea of a monarch who gets to make unquestioned decisions. I recently read a bit about Adrian Vermeule, a contemporary legal scholar and fetishist of the "strong executive," who converted to Catholicism after coming to prominence, and his notion of a strong leader who "has ample authority to protect the vulnerable from the ravages of pandemics, natural disasters, and climate change, and from the underlying structures of corporate power that contribute to these events" reminded me of the Númenórean concept. Though Vermeule's strong leader is also the leader of a strong state bureaucracy, which is a rather significant difference from Tolkien. His ideal system would seem to be for the King to do away with overbearing bureaucracy and other mechanisms of social control in both the public and private spheres—which is not the same as doing away with traditional, small-scale hierarchies like the Squire–tenant relationship, and overall loyalty to the King—to the benefit of the common people who are otherwise at the mercy of politicians and the professional–managerial class.

Of course, the common flaw is that these systems depend on the King/executive being virtuous, and there's no mechanism for removing an unjust ruler (something Tolkien implicitly acknowledged in the history of Númenor, as there was seemingly no recourse to the coup of Herucalmo/Tar-Anducal except to wait for him to die and the Sceptre to pass to his proper heir) besides armed rebellion. But I have a hard time imagining Tolkien approving of that unless it resulted in the restoration of, and was preferably led by, the rightful King.

I admit I have not read the link provided by Voronwë the Faithful, but I believe Tolkien was reffing to feudalistic kingship where customs were passed orally as his unconstitutional monarchy; before the rise of written law. Unlike the later middle ages absolutist kings [also of Númenor and Gondor] These Germanic northern societies were libertarian with almost powerless kings. The feudal lord was below the law, he was under it and restricted by it; he could not create it or declare what law was, only customs could do that. The feudal lord simply provided a service, a duty to the tribe to protect and uphold the law. The law is where he derived his power. Further, there were many mechanisms to justify resistance to such a king, in fact, it was part of the law to do so if the king when outside of what the law and customs enabled him to do.

Fealty, as distinct from obedience, is reciprocal in character, and contains the implicit condition that the one party owes it to the other only so long as the other keeps faith. This relationship, as we have seen, must not be designated simply as a contract. The fundamental idea is rather that ruler and ruled alike are bound to the law; the fealty of both parties is in reality fealty to the law; the law is the point where the duties of both of them intersect. If, therefore, the King breaks the law, he automatically forfeits any claim to the obedience of his subjects…a man must resist his King and his judge, if he does wrong, and must hinder him in every way, even if he be his relative or feudal Lord. And he does not thereby break his fealty. (Fritz Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages, Translated with an Introduction by S. B. Chrimes [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1939])


Bilbo- Question, where did you get this from?

implicitly collecting rents from his tenants in Bagshot Row (whose inhabitants were evicted after the mainline Bagginses were no longer in possession of Bag End).

[Eldy]

Before the rise of written law where customs were passed orally. Thes Germanic northern societies were libertarian of a sort with almost powerless kings. Unlike the later middle ages absolutist kings [also of Númenor and Gondor] the feudal lord was below the law, he was under it and restricted by it. He could not create it or declare what law was, only customs could do that.

So were Númenórean and Gondorian monarchs, as per the Letter 244 quote in my previous post.

Bilbo- Question, where did you get this from?

implicitly collecting rents from his tenants in Bagshot Row (whose inhabitants were evicted after the mainline Bagginses were no longer in possession of Bag End).

It's an inference. The Gaffer having been forced out of Bagshot Row is stated multiple times in the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire." Sam witnessed this in the Mirror of the Galadriel (see the eponymous chapter of FOTR), indicating it occurred before Saruman/Sharkey came to the Shire and things really fell apart. Also, in The Hobbit, Bilbo has the title of "Esquire," which in the Primary World is associated with (among other things) country squires / the landed gentry. Bag End is an obvious analogue to large country houses—"only the richest and the poorest Hobbits still lived in holes, according to the LOTR Prologue—so I don't think it's a stretch to infer that the small properties immediately adjoining it, at least one of whose inhabitants is a servant employed in Bag End, were owned and rented out by the master of the big house. But Tolkien did not directly state so, to the best of my knowledge, so others are free to take different interpretations.

[TolkienJRR]

Before the rise of written law where customs were passed orally. Thes Germanic northern societies were libertarian of a sort with almost powerless kings. Unlike the later middle ages absolutist kings [also of Númenor and Gondor] the feudal lord was below the law, he was under it and restricted by it. He could not create it or declare what law was, only customs could do that.

So were Númenórean and Gondorian monarchs, as per the Letter 244 quote in my previous post.

Bilbo- Question, where did you get this from?

implicitly collecting rents from his tenants in Bagshot Row (whose inhabitants were evicted after the mainline Bagginses were no longer in possession of Bag End).

It's an inference. The Gaffer having been forced out of Bagshot Row is stated multiple times in the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire." Sam witnessed this in the Mirror of the Galadriel (see the eponymous chapter of FOTR), indicating it occurred before Saruman/Sharkey came to the Shire and things really fell apart. Also, in The Hobbit, Bilbo has the title of "Esquire," which in the Primary World is associated with (among other things) country squires / the landed gentry. Bag End is an obvious analogue to large country houses—"only the richest and the poorest Hobbits still lived in holes, according to the LOTR Prologue—so I don't think it's a stretch to infer that the small properties immediately adjoining it, at least one of whose inhabitants is a servant employed in Bag End, were owned and rented out by the master of the big house. But Tolkien did not directly state so, to the best of my knowledge, so others are free to take different interpretations.

Indeed, I have actually used the same letter in describing Gondor/Númenor. I should have said the king was a proper monarch, rather than absolutist king. However as Tolkien told us, he was the final arbiter in interpreting the law, some might see that as above the law.



I like it.