Politics in The Shire

[TolkienJRR]

I am currently preparing a review for the Journal of Tolkien Studies of a book by three eminent Tolkien scholars who eviscerate Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, and apparently that has been a trend among a certain group of scholars, while others still consider him a worthwhile source.

Since I mentioned this here and the review was just published, I suppose I should post it here. I will note that I dislike being quite so negative (though some here might be surprised at that) but it is my job as a reviewer to provide an honest response. As can be seen from the review, on the spectrum of opinion about Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, I fall more towards the positive side than the negative side.

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewconte ... enresearch

Thank you for posting, time prevents me from reading it at the moment, but it is on the list!

[TolkienJRR]

I think part of the problem of using the term "feudalism" when discussing the Shire is that there is an element of patriarchal cruelty that is commonly associated with that term that is completely antithetical to Tolkien's semi-utopian presentation of the Shire. Moreover, while Tolkien certainly had some monarchist tendencies, that is not at all reflected in the politics of the Shire, which he described in a letter to W.H. Auden as “half republic half aristocracy” and that it symbolizes “the liberation from an evil tyranny” of all other human political systems (Letters 241).

Particularly relevant to this subject is a draft letter that Tolkien wrote but never finished to a reader named A.C. Nunn in which he speaks about this very topic at length. A short passage from that letter is worth quoting.

As far as I know Hobbits were universally monogamous (indeed they very seldom married a second time, even if wife or husband died very young); and I should say that their family arrangements were 'patrilinear' rather than patriarchal. That is, their family names descended in the male-line (and women were adopted into their husband's name); also the titular head of the family was usually the eldest male. In the case of large powerful families (such as the Tooks), still cohesive even when they had become very numerous, and more what we might call clans, the head was properly the eldest male of what was considered the most direct line of descent. But the government of a 'family', as of the real unit: the 'household', was not a monarchy (except by accident). It was a 'dyarchy', in which master and mistress had equal status, if different functions. Either was held to be the proper representative of the other in the case of absence (including death). There were no 'dowagers'. If the master died first, his place was taken by his wife, and this included (if he had held that position) the titular headship of a large family or clan. This title thus did not descend to the son, or other heir, while she lived, unless she voluntarily resigned. It could, therefore, happen in various circumstances that a long-lived woman of forceful character remained 'head of the family', until she had full-grown grandchildren.

That ain't feudalism as that term is commonly known. Indeed, it is a hint of just how radical Tolkien really was.

While I agree feudalism implies many negatives to the modern reader, Tolkien did not hold such an opinion! Nor does history (sorry to post this here)



I would also add the idea we have about women under the feudal age are also distorted, and one will find, at times, not out of line with The Shire!

https://www.thepostil.com/women-in-the-middle-ages/

If you check the first link I say how medieval kingship, that I argue Tolkien borrowed from and adapted, was not a "monarchy" as we understand it today. Before the 14th century it would be better to categorize them as a decentralized aristocracy of sovereign lords. And within those areas wide variety of politics existed at the local level, many like the Shire! So the Shire was not a "monarchy" but under kingship at the "higher" non local level.

https://www.thepostil.com/kingship-in-middle-earth/

[TolkienJRR]

I think part of the problem of using the term "feudalism" when discussing the Shire is that there is an element of patriarchal cruelty that is commonly associated with that term that is completely antithetical to Tolkien's semi-utopian presentation of the Shire. Moreover, while Tolkien certainly had some monarchist tendencies, that is not at all reflected in the politics of the Shire, which he described in a letter to W.H. Auden as “half republic half aristocracy” and that it symbolizes “the liberation from an evil tyranny” of all other human political systems (Letters 241).

Particularly relevant to this subject is a draft letter that Tolkien wrote but never finished to a reader named A.C. Nunn in which he speaks about this very topic at length. A short passage from that letter is worth quoting.

As far as I know Hobbits were universally monogamous (indeed they very seldom married a second time, even if wife or husband died very young); and I should say that their family arrangements were 'patrilinear' rather than patriarchal. That is, their family names descended in the male-line (and women were adopted into their husband's name); also the titular head of the family was usually the eldest male. In the case of large powerful families (such as the Tooks), still cohesive even when they had become very numerous, and more what we might call clans, the head was properly the eldest male of what was considered the most direct line of descent. But the government of a 'family', as of the real unit: the 'household', was not a monarchy (except by accident). It was a 'dyarchy', in which master and mistress had equal status, if different functions. Either was held to be the proper representative of the other in the case of absence (including death). There were no 'dowagers'. If the master died first, his place was taken by his wife, and this included (if he had held that position) the titular headship of a large family or clan. This title thus did not descend to the son, or other heir, while she lived, unless she voluntarily resigned. It could, therefore, happen in various circumstances that a long-lived woman of forceful character remained 'head of the family', until she had full-grown grandchildren.

That ain't feudalism as that term is commonly known. Indeed, it is a hint of just how radical Tolkien really was.

Sorry, I also meant to say that i agree that Tolkien is unique, and you won't find anything just like the Shire, or his political thoughts in this earth, only Middle-earth!

I wonder what aspects of the Shire in his mind were "republican" or half republic. What do you think?

[Frelga]

A wife inheriting her husband's position is not necessarily a sign of a progressive society. At least two Russian empresses ruled after their husband's death. Catherine I ruled after the death of her husband, Peter the Great until her own death. And Catherine II, aka the Great, took over from her husband, whom she probably had assassinated.

[TolkienJRR]

A wife inheriting her husband's position is not necessarily a sign of a progressive society. At least two Russian empresses ruled after their husband's death. Catherine I ruled after the death of her husband, Peter the Great until her own death. And Catherine II, aka the Great, took over from her husband, whom she probably had assassinated.

I would never claim that medieval feudalism was "progrsive" , just the opposite.

But women did inherit land and owned business, worked, voted etc independent of husbands.