Politics in The Shire

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm sorry, can you remind me of the quote in which Tolkien stated that "Middle-earth was very feudal"?

ETA: A search through the Index of the Revised and Expanded Letters reveals only one reference to "feudal" or "feudalism". I will leave it hear without any comment, since I would say it speaks for itself.

Caught the 9.30, which (just, I suppose, because I had time to spare) left Oxford on time (!!!), for the first time in human memory, and reached Brum only a few minutes late. I found myself in a carriage occupied by an R.A.F. officer (this war's wings, who had been to South Africa though he looked a bit elderly), and a very nice young American Officer, New-Englander. I stood the hot-air they let off as long as I could; but when I heard the Yank burbling about 'Feudalism' and its results on English class-distinctions and social behaviour, I opened a broadside. The poor boob had not, of course, the very faintest notions about 'Feudalism', or history at all – being a chemical engineer. But you can't knock 'Feudalism' out of an American's head, any more than the 'Oxford Accent'. He was impressed I think when I said that an Englishman's relations with porters, butlers, and tradesmen had as much connexion with 'Feudalism' as skyscrapers had with Red Indian wigwams, or taking off one's hat to a lady has with the modern methods of collecting Income Tax; but I am certain he was not convinced. I did however get a dim notion into his head that the 'Oxford Accent' (by which he politely told me he meant mine) was not 'forced' and 'put on', but a natural one learned in the nursery – and was moreover not feudal or aristocratic but a very middle-class bourgeois invention. After I told him that his 'accent' sounded to me like English after being wiped over with a dirty sponge, and generally suggested (falsely) to an English observer that, together with American slouch, it indicated a slovenly and ill-disciplined people – well, we got quite friendly. We had some bad coffee in the refreshment room at Snow Hill, and parted.

[TolkienJRR]

I'm sorry, can you remind me of the quote in which Tolkien stated that "Middle-earth was very feudal"?

ETA: A search through the Index of the Revised and Expanded Letters reveals only one reference to "feudal" or "feudalism". I will leave it hear without any comment, since I would say it speaks for itself.

Caught the 9.30, which (just, I suppose, because I had time to spare) left Oxford on time (!!!), for the first time in human memory, and reached Brum only a few minutes late. I found myself in a carriage occupied by an R.A.F. officer (this war's wings, who had been to South Africa though he looked a bit elderly), and a very nice young American Officer, New-Englander. I stood the hot-air they let off as long as I could; but when I heard the Yank burbling about 'Feudalism' and its results on English class-distinctions and social behaviour, I opened a broadside. The poor boob had not, of course, the very faintest notions about 'Feudalism', or history at all – being a chemical engineer. But you can't knock 'Feudalism' out of an American's head, any more than the 'Oxford Accent'. He was impressed I think when I said that an Englishman's relations with porters, butlers, and tradesmen had as much connexion with 'Feudalism' as skyscrapers had with Red Indian wigwams, or taking off one's hat to a lady has with the modern methods of collecting Income Tax; but I am certain he was not convinced. I did however get a dim notion into his head that the 'Oxford Accent' (by which he politely told me he meant mine) was not 'forced' and 'put on', but a natural one learned in the nursery – and was moreover not feudal or aristocratic but a very middle-class bourgeois invention. After I told him that his 'accent' sounded to me like English after being wiped over with a dirty sponge, and generally suggested (falsely) to an English observer that, together with American slouch, it indicated a slovenly and ill-disciplined people – well, we got quite friendly. We had some bad coffee in the refreshment room at Snow Hill, and parted.

Please provide me some time, but it came from an interview during the 60's. He was asked if he would create our world as thoroughly feudal as Lord of the Rings and he stated yes he would! A similar statement is found in Carpenters bio. There is a third source that at least leads evidence to it and i will search my sources for it.

But as far as I am aware, this is not really contested among Tolkien scholars, (I have seen numerous papers in journals on the subject, or that assume such) due to what I would argue (as would any medieval historian- I would imagine) is overwhelming evidence within Middel-earth. Especially among the free peoples.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In my experience, Tolkien scholars are almost never in agreement about anything. Whatever proposition made by an eminent Tolkien scholar is followed by an equally eminent Tolkien scholar making the opposite proposition. For example, you mention Carpenter with some degree of approval, but 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. In any event, for the record, I checked the index of his book, and there is no appearance of the words "feudal" or "feudalism" or anything similar. Nor is there any in Scull & Hammond's massive Reader's Guide. In the Chronology that goes along with the Reader's Guide, there are only two references to "Feudal" or "Feudalism". The first is the same letter to Christopher that I refer to earlier. The second is a reference to Tolkien attending a meeting of the Oxford Dante Society in May of 1949 at which Professor E.F. Jacob presented a paper on the feudal hierarchy in Dante's Inferno. Nothing about Tolkien stating that "Middle-earth was very feudal."

In any event, I'm not entirely clear exactly what is that Tolkien scholars supposedly all agree on. Is that Tolkien said that Middle-earth was very feudal, or that Middle-earth was very feudal (or perhaps that Middle-earth should be very feudal)? Or something else altogether? Perhaps you could clarify that and provide some citations to the papers in journals that you refer to above, along with more information about the specific comments that Tolkien made. Tolkien was certainly very strongly influenced by medieval literature, but that is not the same thing as saying that "Middle-earth was very feudal."

I look forward to learning more.

[Alatar]

Is that Tolkien said that Middle-earth was very feudal, or that Middle-earth was very feudal (or perhaps that Middle-earth should be very feudal)? Or something else altogether?

Channeling your inner Gandalf V?

Good morning!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[TolkienJRR]

In my experience, Tolkien scholars are almost never in agreement about anything. Whatever proposition made by an eminent Tolkien scholar is followed by an equally eminent Tolkien scholar making the opposite proposition. For example, you mention Carpenter with some degree of approval, but 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. In any event, for the record, I checked the index of his book, and there is no appearance of the words "feudal" or "feudalism" or anything similar. Nor is there any in Scull & Hammond's massive Reader's Guide. In the Chronology that goes along with the Reader's Guide, there are only two references to "Feudal" or "Feudalism". The first is the same letter to Christopher that I refer to earlier. The second is a reference to Tolkien attending a meeting of the Oxford Dante Society in May of 1949 at which Professor E.F. Jacob presented a paper on the feudal hierarchy in Dante's Inferno. Nothing about Tolkien stating that "Middle-earth was very feudal."

In any event, I'm not entirely clear exactly what is that Tolkien scholars supposedly all agree on. Is that Tolkien said that Middle-earth was very feudal, or that Middle-earth was very feudal (or perhaps that Middle-earth should be very feudal)? Or something else altogether? Perhaps you could clarify that and provide some citations to the papers in journals that you refer to above, along with more information about the specific comments that Tolkien made. Tolkien was certainly very strongly influenced by medieval literature, but that is not the same thing as saying that "Middle-earth was very feudal."

I look forward to learning more.

Well, I guess that is the case with almost everything. But generally, the closer you are to the original, the better. Tolkien approved and worked with Carpenter, as did Christopher. So, this modern rejection of Carpenter sounds like a case of newer scholars needing something to do or reinterpreting Tolkien to their own liking.

I would have to hear why some rejected Tolkien's own authorized biographer, who was allowed access to his writings to interview him and his family and friends. If they object to slight technical issues, that is one thing; to misunderstand Tolkien would be another. And they would have to explain why Christopher accepted Carpenter as well. I would, however, be interested in alternative understandings. If you have a paper or book that argues feudalism is not apparent in Lord of the Rings, I would love to read it.

As Carpenter tells us, Tolkien was a monarchist who liked the "virtues of an old-fashioned feudal society." Tolkien once said, "Touching your cap to the Squire may be damn bad for the Squire, but it's damn good for you." And in Letters 58, Tolkien wrote that he defended feudalism against an American officer during WW2 who was "burbling about feudalism."

As for the source where Tolkien stated that Lord of the Rings was solidly feudal, start at minute 36. Notice that both the interviewer and Tolkien assumed Lord of the Rings was " solidly feudal," and Tolkien states that had he the power of the Valar, he would make our world feudal (hierarchy, hereditary inheritance) as well!

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r ... &FORM=VIRE
Interview with J.R.R. Tolkien - BBC 1964 | TT 591

But the main argument comes from Middle-earth itself. You seem to reject feudalism among the free peoples. I would like to know what you base this on. I want to know how it is interpreted or missed because it seems so self-evident to me. Here is an article I wrote on the subject (I cite Colleen Donnelly, "Feudal Values, Vassalage, and Fealty in The Lord of the Rings," Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature)

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

I am very busy, and I wish I had time to cite every paper that mentioned feudalism's involvement with LOTR (I doubt I have come across the majority of them), but I just cannot. I know you are a scholar, and I am certain you could come up with more than I can if you wish. I will find sources for what I have written, but I cannot go down rabbit trails.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Carpenter was not involved in writing Tolkien's biography until after Tolkien passed away. It was Christopher that he worked with, not Chrisopher's father, in response to a request by Rayner Unwin that some kind of a biography be produced. When Carpenter completed his first draft, Christopher rejected it and Carpenter had to take a lot out. Apparently, Carpenter himself was very dissatisfied with the end result. Personally, I think the book has value so far as it goes, but the best current source of biographical information about Tolkien is Scull and Hammond's Chronology. In an interview printed in the book The Art of Literary Biography, Carpenter stated:

The first draft of that life [his authorized biography of Tolkien] was a long sprawling thing, and was deemed unacceptable by the Tolkien family, or by the member of it Christopher Tolkien?] who controlled permission to quote previously unpublished material. I went away and rewrote it, and it was then deemed acceptable. What I’d actually done was castrate the book, cut out everything which was likely to be contentious. I’ve therefore always been displeased with it ever since (270).

You seem to reject feudalism among the free peoples.

Not at all; I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I was just trying to get you provide more information. Certainly, Tolkien's comment about it being good for the squire to touch his cap is well-known and has been discussed here before, so I won't say more about what I think about it. [ETA: In point of fact, the previous discussion in 2021 about that comment was started by ... you!]

[TolkienJRR]

Carpenter was not involved in writing Tolkien's biography until after Tolkien passed away. It was Christopher that he worked with, not Chrisopher's father, in response to a request by Rayner Unwin that some kind of a biography be produced. When Carpenter completed his first draft, Christopher rejected it and Carpenter had to take a lot out. Apparently, Carpenter himself was very dissatisfied with the end result. Personally, I think the book has value so far as it goes, but the best current source of biographical information about Tolkien is Scull and Hammond's Chronology. In an interview printed in the book The Art of Literary Biography, Carpenter stated:

The first draft of that life [his authorized biography of Tolkien] was a long sprawling thing, and was deemed unacceptable by the Tolkien family, or by the member of it Christopher Tolkien?] who controlled permission to quote previously unpublished material. I went away and rewrote it, and it was then deemed acceptable. What I’d actually done was castrate the book, cut out everything which was likely to be contentious. I’ve therefore always been displeased with it ever since (270).

You seem to reject feudalism among the free peoples.

Not at all; I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I was just trying to get you provide more information. Certainly, Tolkien's comment about it being good for the squire to touch his cap is well-known and has been discussed here before, so I won't say more about what I think about it.

But Tolkien knew the bio was coming and that Carpenter was the author. And the issues you speak of I think have no bearing on Tolkien's own views or what I have written about.

I will have to check out your source, as it seems very interesting for many reasons.

I still need to get the updated version of letters!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But Tolkien knew the bio was coming and that Carpenter was the author.

I'm curious to know what you base that statement on. My understanding is that Tolkien was bitterly opposed to any biography at all. Carpenter himself acknowledges that to some extent in his Author's Note at the beginning of his book, writing, "Tolkien himself did not entirely approve of biography. Or rather, he disliked its use as a form of literary criticism. ‘One of my strongest opinions,’ he once wrote, ‘is that investigation of an author’s biography is an entirely vain and false approach to his works.’"

If you are basing the statement on the visit with Tolkien that Carpenter describes at the beginning of his book, I don't think that visit had anything to do with the Biography, which was published 10 years later. At the time of the visit that Carpenter describes, he was 21-year-old student at Oxford (and the son of the "Warden" of another school at Oxford before his father was appointed to become the Bishop of Oxford).

Indeed, Rayner Unwin in his book confirms that the biography was not conceived during Tolkien's lifetime and instead resulted from Rayner's own intervention after Tolkien's death:

I had long worried that without an authorised biography there would inevitably be ill-informed and tendentious writings about Tolkien over which neither he nor we [George Allen & Unwin, Tolkien’s publishers] would have any control. In his lifetime Tolkien had brushed aside the fear, and for him indeed it would have been yet another distraction. But after his death it was one of the first matters I raised with the [Tolkien] family. They accepted the need for something to be done, but were doubtful about who could be entrusted with such a commission and what control there might be over what was written. As a stop-gap solution I suggested a pictorial biography, using family pictures for the most part, with extended captions as the text. […] Priscilla [Tolkien], who lived in Oxford, knew a young man that she thought might be suitable. He worked for Radio Oxford, and I agreed to meet him. Humphrey Carpenter […] was personable, eager, and willing to throw up his job on the radio to undertake our project. I didn’t think a mixture of photographs and extended captions needed any great qualifications so I agreed to terms on the spot and encouraged him to get down to work. The material he needed for his research was stored in the converted barn next to the house that Christopher [Tolkien] was then living in outside Oxford, and Humphrey found himself working closely alongside Christopher. It soon became apparent that Humphrey had dug himself so enthusiastically into the project that a full-scale biography was in the making. Christopher seemed agreeable, and so was I (248-249).

However, as I noted above, Carpenter apparently dug himself into it too enthusiastically for Christopher's liking, requiring him to "castrate the book" to make it acceptable.

[Frelga]

TJRR, I'd like to clarify how you define "feudal"? Are we talking about the system where vassals hold the land from their liege, all the way up to the king, in exchange for military service? Or some other definition?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, since a comment was made in this thread about what I believe that was not, so far as I can tell, actually based on anything that I said about what I believe, I thought that it would behoove me to say something more about what I actually do believe about this topic.

First of all, as Verlyn Flieger most aptly reminds us, the most important thing that one has to remember about Tolkien is that he is full of contradictions. What he believed, and what his art meant, can rarely be summed up in simple conclusions. As Verlyn reminds us in her brilliant paper "The Arch and the Keystone,"

He is the center held in place by the two sides of his own nature. That nature hopes for the Happy Ending but expects the dragon. It can see his work as Catholic yet describe it as not Christian. It can walk toward Heaven with Niggle’s joy and walk away from Faery with Smith’s regret. That nature can with ruthless compassion engineer the separate destinies of both Frodo and Sam. These oppositions are the sources of Tolkien’s power and the tension between them is the energy that unites it. They are what after sixty-five years still sets him apart from the others and makes him the icon, the image, the towering figure that he is.

That having been said, I think that the best place to start in talking about Tolkien's views about politics, including "Politics in the Shire," is letter 52, written by Tolkien to his son Christopher at the height of World War II (in the summer of 1943) when Christopher was 18 and had been called up in the RAF. At the time the letter was written, Christopher was at a training camp in Manchester. We have discussed this letter before, and much of what I am about to say is based on what I said previously.

He begins with one of the more provocative statements in his writings:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy.

Tolkien was clearly no fan of democracy; he didn't think it worked. He wrote in another letter 13 years later (the same letter that he made his famous statement about the "real theme" of LOTR being "Death and Immortality"):

I am not a 'democrat' 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.

I think his two models for ideal governance were the Shire -- where a group of humble folk live in peace with each other with virtually no central control --and Gondor under the rule of King Elessar -- where the people are governed by a single, enlightened leader.

Then he gets even more provocative:

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!

I don't think that Tolkien is honestly advocating for capital punishment for anyone who advocates nationalism. But he clearly thinks that that is the scourge of the time.

If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offense 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.

I love this. I think it really gets to the heart of what Tolkien thought was wrong with modern society. It is the depersonalization of the state, of the government that he sees as the biggest problem. The potential for abuse of power is magnified greatly when its focus is an unapproachable concept of "the state" rather than an identifiable, personalized individual. Tolkien, the wordsmith, really captures this concept with his invented word "Theyocracy".

I think Tolkien really believed in the concept of divine authority, and that the men that could successfully govern men were those who were chosen by God to do so. But I want to highlight one part of that last part of the letter, which shows just how radical Tolkien really was:

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as 'patriotism', may remain a habit! But it won't do any good, if it is not universal."

Despite Tolkien's earlier protestation that his adherence to anarchy did not mean whiskered men with bombs, he really wished that he could wipe out all signs of "progress". He really, truly believed that technology was the scourge of human civilization. Another part of the letter is very telling about Tolkien's true attitude. He said:

The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari* 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. The quarrelsome, conceited Greeks managed to pull it off against Xerxes; but the abominable chemists and engineers have put such a power int Xerxes' hands, and all ant-communities, that decent fold don't seem to have a chance.

* "I do not wish to be made a bishop."

I see several important ideas reflected in this passage. First is the idea that the most efficient times would be if all leaders were men who did not want the job, and preferred to be elsewhere. But that only works when technology has not given those who want the power the ability to exploit it. The bottom line is that Tolkien wishes to return to an older, simpler time.

He confirms this in the concluding paragraph saying to Christopher "We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us)." But then he adds the following, more uplifting words:

But there is this comfort; otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water. Also we have still small swords to use. 'I will not bow before the Iron Crown, nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.' Have at the Orcs, with winged words, hildenæddran (war-adders), biting darts, -- but make sure of the mark, before shooting

I would guess that he is referring to his (their) love of England (which he explicitly refers to in the following letter). The idea of only the fish out of water have an inkling of water is a fascinating one: he is basically saying that only those who have lost what they love and need can truly appreciate what they love and need. The quoted words are two lines from the poem Mythopoeia that Tolkien wrote for C.S. Lewis. As I wrote in the previous discussion, I'd love to hear what others might think of what they mean in this context.

x-posted with Frelga, whose question was and is very apt and would be helpful to have an answer to, particularly with regard to the subject of politics in the Shire, where, as I said before, a group of humble folk live in peace with each other with virtually no central control.

[TolkienJRR]

sorry

[TolkienJRR]

Meanwhile, since a comment was made in this thread about what I believe that was not, so far as I can tell, actually based on anything that I said about what I believe, I thought that it would behoove me to say something more about what I actually do believe about this topic.

First of all, as Verlyn Flieger most aptly reminds us, the most important thing that one has to remember about Tolkien is that he is full of contradictions. What he believed, and what his art meant, can rarely be summed up in simple conclusions. As Verlyn reminds us in her brilliant paper "The Arch and the Keystone,"

He is the center held in place by the two sides of his own nature. That nature hopes for the Happy Ending but expects the dragon. It can see his work as Catholic yet describe it as not Christian. It can walk toward Heaven with Niggle’s joy and walk away from Faery with Smith’s regret. That nature can with ruthless compassion engineer the separate destinies of both Frodo and Sam. These oppositions are the sources of Tolkien’s power and the tension between them is the energy that unites it. They are what after sixty-five years still sets him apart from the others and makes him the icon, the image, the towering figure that he is.

That having been said, I think that the best place to start in talking about Tolkien's views about politics, including "Politics in the Shire," is letter 52, written by Tolkien to his son Christopher at the height of World War II (in the summer of 1943) when Christopher was 18 and had been called up in the RAF. At the time the letter was written, Christopher was at a training camp in Manchester. We have discussed this letter before, and much of what I am about to say is based on what I said previously.

He begins with one of the more provocative statements in his writings:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy.

Tolkien was clearly no fan of democracy; he didn't think it worked. He wrote in another letter 13 years later (the same letter that he made his famous statement about the "real theme" of LOTR being "Death and Immortality"):

I am not a 'democrat' 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.

I think his two models for ideal governance were the Shire -- where a group of humble folk live in peace with each other with virtually no central control --and Gondor under the rule of King Elessar -- where the people are governed by a single, enlightened leader.

Then he gets even more provocative:

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!

I don't think that Tolkien is honestly advocating for capital punishment for anyone who advocates nationalism. But he clearly thinks that that is the scourge of the time.

If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offense 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.

I love this. I think it really gets to the heart of what Tolkien thought was wrong with modern society. It is the depersonalization of the state, of the government that he sees as the biggest problem. The potential for abuse of power is magnified greatly when its focus is an unapproachable concept of "the state" rather than an identifiable, personalized individual. Tolkien, the wordsmith, really captures this concept with his invented word "Theyocracy".

I think Tolkien really believed in the concept of divine authority, and that the men that could successfully govern men were those who were chosen by God to do so. But I want to highlight one part of that last part of the letter, which shows just how radical Tolkien really was:

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as 'patriotism', may remain a habit! But it won't do any good, if it is not universal."

Despite Tolkien's earlier protestation that his adherence to anarchy did not mean whiskered men with bombs, he really wished that he could wipe out all signs of "progress". He really, truly believed that technology was the scourge of human civilization. Another part of the letter is very telling about Tolkien's true attitude. He said:

The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari* 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. The quarrelsome, conceited Greeks managed to pull it off against Xerxes; but the abominable chemists and engineers have put such a power int Xerxes' hands, and all ant-communities, that decent fold don't seem to have a chance.

* "I do not wish to be made a bishop."

I see several important ideas reflected in this passage. First is the idea that the most efficient times would be if all leaders were men who did not want the job, and preferred to be elsewhere. But that only works when technology has not given those who want the power the ability to exploit it. The bottom line is that Tolkien wishes to return to an older, simpler time.

He confirms this in the concluding paragraph saying to Christopher "We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us)." But then he adds the following, more uplifting words:

But there is this comfort; otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water. Also we have still small swords to use. 'I will not bow before the Iron Crown, nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.' Have at the Orcs, with winged words, hildenæddran (war-adders), biting darts, -- but make sure of the mark, before shooting

I would guess that he is referring to his (their) love of England (which he explicitly refers to in the following letter). The idea of only the fish out of water have an inkling of water is a fascinating one: he is basically saying that only those who have lost what they love and need can truly appreciate what they love and need. The quoted words are two lines from the poem Mythopoeia that Tolkien wrote for C.S. Lewis. As I wrote in the previous discussion, I'd love to hear what others might think of what they mean in this context.

x-posted with Frelga, whose question was and is very apt and would be helpful to have an answer to, particularly with regard to the subject of politics in the Shire, where, as I said before, a group of humble folk live in peace with each other with virtually no central control.

Great post, I think you just pretty accurately described Tolkien's anarcho-monarchism!

However, I might disagree with the claim he was full of contradictions. He was a man who believed in a fallen world, and a consistent mythology and worldview. Just as he stated with Middle-earth that supposed contradictions are due to lack of information, I would say the same about his worldview. He was not a utopian.

[TolkienJRR]

TJRR, I'd like to clarify how you define "feudal"? Are we talking about the system where vassals hold the land from their liege, all the way up to the king, in exchange for military service? Or some other definition?

Well, I guess we should have begun with this

Most are familiar with the "fully formed" French version of feudalism, and that is involved at times, but Tolkien's form was more familiar in pre conquest England and the early forms of Germanic/kingship of the Early Middel ages. Which some have described as a decentralized aristocracy of Sovereign lords than a monarchy.

The owner of the land can be less attached to a distant king with few obligations that have become more oaths and staying true to ancestors' agreements rather than direct lord/vassal interaction. People lived more as free landowners than on manors or directly under a lord on his land. Lords were the true rulers, who were Sovereign within their own realm in a highly localized system.

[TolkienJRR]

But Tolkien knew the bio was coming and that Carpenter was the author.

I'm curious to know what you base that statement on. My understanding is that Tolkien was bitterly opposed to any biography at all. Carpenter himself acknowledges that to some extent in his Author's Note at the beginning of his book, writing, "Tolkien himself did not entirely approve of biography. Or rather, he disliked its use as a form of literary criticism. ‘One of my strongest opinions,’ he once wrote, ‘is that investigation of an author’s biography is an entirely vain and false approach to his works.’"

If you are basing the statement on the visit with Tolkien that Carpenter describes at the beginning of his book, I don't think that visit had anything to do with the Biography, which was published 10 years later. At the time of the visit that Carpenter describes, he was 21-year-old student at Oxford (and the son of the "Warden" of another school at Oxford before his father was appointed to become the Bishop of Oxford).

Indeed, Rayner Unwin in his book confirms that the biography was not conceived during Tolkien's lifetime and instead resulted from Rayner's own intervention after Tolkien's death:

I had long worried that without an authorised biography there would inevitably be ill-informed and tendentious writings about Tolkien over which neither he nor we [George Allen & Unwin, Tolkien’s publishers] would have any control. In his lifetime Tolkien had brushed aside the fear, and for him indeed it would have been yet another distraction. But after his death it was one of the first matters I raised with the [Tolkien] family. They accepted the need for something to be done, but were doubtful about who could be entrusted with such a commission and what control there might be over what was written. As a stop-gap solution I suggested a pictorial biography, using family pictures for the most part, with extended captions as the text. […] Priscilla [Tolkien], who lived in Oxford, knew a young man that she thought might be suitable. He worked for Radio Oxford, and I agreed to meet him. Humphrey Carpenter […] was personable, eager, and willing to throw up his job on the radio to undertake our project. I didn’t think a mixture of photographs and extended captions needed any great qualifications so I agreed to terms on the spot and encouraged him to get down to work. The material he needed for his research was stored in the converted barn next to the house that Christopher [Tolkien] was then living in outside Oxford, and Humphrey found himself working closely alongside Christopher. It soon became apparent that Humphrey had dug himself so enthusiastically into the project that a full-scale biography was in the making. Christopher seemed agreeable, and so was I (248-249).

However, as I noted above, Carpenter apparently dug himself into it too enthusiastically for Christopher's liking, requiring him to "castrate the book" to make it acceptable.

Thank you for sharing this with me. And sending me back to the bio.

I agree that Tolkien himself never desired a biography. He stated, "I shall never write any ordered biography; it is against my nature, which expresses itself about things deepest felt in tales and myths." Even Carpenter admitted his real biography can be found only in Middle-earth.

But yes, it appears I misread or read too much into Carpenter's "Author Note," stating that Tolkien disliked biographies, but at the same time, he knew one would be written due to his popularity and so was preparing for that. Carpenter then writes of his visit with Tolkien, and I thought this was part of his entrance to Tolkien as the authorized biographer.

Thank you for correcting me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

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.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

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

[Eldy]

Not having read (or previously heard of) this book I don't have an opinion on it, but there's a certain joy to reading negative reviews and this one definitely delivered!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not having read (or previously heard of) this book I don't have an opinion on it, but there's a certain joy to reading negative reviews and this one definitely delivered!

I'm glad you enjoyed it, Eldy. Obviously, I'm not going to recommend you read the book, but if for some reason you end up doing so I'd love to hear your impressions.

[Eldy]

In the unlikely event I read it, you'll be the first to know!