Power to the People

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

When you write, you write what you feel. It's notable that all of Tolkien's absolute leaders - Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman - fell on the side of evil.

Fair enough; we can obviously discuss political rule as LotR bears applicability to our own experience. We really can say no more regarding Tolkien's personal views than that.

Tolkien's positive monarchies and leaderships - From Elessar down to the Thain of the Tooks - assumed the form of benevolent dictators respecting individualism.

I realize that you're using an umbrella term by calling all of them benevolent dictators, but it's a mis-construction, my dear guy who no longer be so short. You lead into the differences later in your post. There are two types in the Shire: Sam as Mayor, and Pippin and Merry as hereditary earls. But hereditary earls are not dictators; they were answerable to their overlords, and also answerable to their Councils or Things (Nordic word for council).

This is evident in the Mayorship of the Shire - a leader with no actual duties.

It should be understood that there are two types of leadership responsibilities: those of Head of State, and those of Policy Decision-maker. As with the current British royalty, the Mayorship of the Shire is head of state; that is, figure-head, responsibility lying exclusively in the realm of ceremony.

Likewise, the Thain of the Tooks and the Master of Buckland exerted no real authority.

Not so. They exerted the authority of head of their respective families. Whereas this authority did not carry beyond their extended families per sé, the respect for them held by those not directly related, translated into the authority of reputation, a powerful thing in itself in more loosely governed communities such as the Shire.

[Aiwendil]

This is evident in the Mayorship of the Shire - a leader with no actual duties.

Where do you find it stated that the mayor of the shire has no actual duties?

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Friend of the birds

Where do you find it stated that the mayor of the shire has no actual duties?

In the prologue.

Originally Posted by Tollers

The only real official in the Shire at this date was the Mayor of Michel Delving (or of the Shire), who was elected every seven years at the Free Fair on the White Downs at the Lithe, that is at Midsummer. As mayor almost his only duty was to preside at banquets, given on the Shire-holidays, which occurred at frequent intervals. But the offices of Postmaster and First Shirriff were attached to the mayoralty, so that he managed both the Messenger Service and the Watch. These were the only Shire-services, and the Messengers were the most numerous, and much the busier of the two. By no means all Hobbits were lettered, but those who were wrote constantly to all their friends (and a selection of their relations) who lived further off than an afternoon's walk.

His administritive duties came down to "General Supervisor."

Originally Posted by LMP

It should be understood that there are two types of leadership responsibilities: those of Head of State, and those of Policy Decision-maker. As with the current British royalty, the Mayorship of the Shire is head of state; that is, figure-head, responsibility lying exclusively in the realm of ceremony.

But if we are to accept this as true, then who is the Policy Decision-maker? I hold that the Shire has none, not having a central government or any real governmental structure. So that the Mayor does indeed become the Decision-maker as well as the Figurehead. Except he has no real decisions to make, unless there are two conflicting banquets...

Originally Posted by LMP

Not so. They exerted the authority of head of their respective families. Whereas this authority did not carry beyond their extended families per sé, the respect for them held by those not directly related, translated into the authority of reputation, a powerful thing in itself in more loosely governed communities such as the Shire.

Hmm. You have a point there - they had respect. But I wouldn't muddle that with authority. Save for being the head of a rather large household, neither of them could really be comparable to a governmental position such as Prime Minister, could they? To be succinct, they didn't do anything.

[Lalwendë]

The only real official in the Shire at this date was the Mayor of Michel Delving (or of the Shire), who was elected every seven years at the Free Fair on the White Downs at the Lithe, that is at Midsummer. As mayor almost his only duty was to preside at banquets, given on the Shire-holidays, which occurred at frequent intervals. But the offices of Postmaster and First Shirriff were attached to the mayoralty, so that he managed both the Messenger Service and the Watch. These were the only Shire-services, and the Messengers were the most numerous, and much the busier of the two. By no means all Hobbits were lettered, but those who were wrote constantly to all their friends (and a selection of their relations) who lived further off than an afternoon's walk.

This is interesting, as there is clearly a system of sorts in The Shire, and there are clearly some services to be paid for, i.e. post and policing. But how are these paid for? There is clearly no taxation system, as there are no tax collectors as far as we know (or there would also be a civil service for the mayor to oversee). So those who work for the Postmaster and First Shirriff must do so voluntarily.

In a state where anarchy is the political system used, then people would have to collectively share responsibilities to do the things they wanted to see done. This seems to be what is happening in The Shire.

Even so, it is clearly not a perfect system as there are 'unlettered' Hobbits.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Can we say the same of Lewis' work? I recently saw an article which made the claim that Narnia is a horrible movie because "the reward for heroic behaviour is getting to have political power over others." Now, is this sour grapes? A fair statement to make of Lewis' work?

Good thing the article particularly said movie, because otherwise all I need to say is "Eustace Scrubb and Jill Pole" and the whole thing crumbles down.

[Bêthberry]

(I had a good laugh over Sono's "Che" R R Tolkien!)

Well, I think I finally have some time to catch up on the very interesting ideas people are putting forth here. Very interesting to see all these posts here! Who says we've already talked about everything there is in Tolkien?

It is intriguing to see the term 'theocracy' brought out here, as at least in the US there is a very strong tradition of separation of church and state. This is a very different idea from that in England, where the monarch is 'defender of the faith', meaning Church of England Anglican. (I think I read somewhere that HRH the Next In Line wants that changed to 'defender of faith' to make it somewhat more inclusive.) Now, LotR does not include direct mention of religion nor of Eru. So how does Aragorn become a divine right king--if he does.

It is possible that the differences between Narnia and LotR do arise from the author's different sense of their audience. I don't think we've ever seen a discussion on who Tolkien thought his audience might be--even if it was simply himself or fellow Inklings.

lmp, I think it is possible to consider politics and power in myth. I remember reading the Greek pantheon as a preteen and being amazed at how much squabbling and fighting the Greek deities engaged in and how control and authority were such an issue. And then reading the Norse myths and having the sense that everything up there was so much more, how to put it, anarchic? Well, maybe that is the wrong word. They just had a different feel to me about authority. And I don't know if I would have this same sense now. Isn't it possible for different cultures to produce different mythologies?

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

Much of the cause of
strife in Middle-earth, indeed, seems to come from
human restlessness and interest in change
(often just for the sake of change, even Numenor
not being exempt).

Now this point about change I think is fascinating! Thanks for bringing it up, Tuor. Isn't it true that a belief in the absolute value of things produces a sense that there is an ideal, finished or final state of perfection? This seems to me to be the image of Narnia--one answer, one authority, one way. (I'm talking only about LWW and the movie now, my dear Lhuna.) Yet here is Tolkien, with his profound Catholic faith, producing a world full of change and even insisting upon the recognition of that change. Flux rather than finality. How does he do that?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

And a brief note here about "change",
specifically a comment about Tolkien concerning his
abortive Fourth Age story, which may have
subconsciously effected my comment, I believe
he opines that the very fact of Elessar's peace
caused restlessness among Gondor's youth,
leading them to play games featuring orcs
and the cult that he was going to use as
the chief problem and cause of strife in
his story set in the early Fourth Age.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

But if we are to accept this as true, then who is the Policy Decision-maker? I hold that the Shire has none, not having a central government or any real governmental structure. So that the Mayor does indeed become the Decision-maker as well as the Figurehead. Except he has no real decisions to make, unless there are two conflicting banquets...

In the Shire, it was tradition. .... "the way things were done". We may not like it, but it was - er - the way things were done.

Hmm. You have a point there - they had respect. But I wouldn't muddle that with authority. Save for being the head of a rather large household, neither of them could really be comparable to a governmental position such as Prime Minister, could they? To be succinct, they didn't do anything.

But respect turns into authority when there are crises. Tolkien outlines one such in Appendix B:

2747 Bandobras Took defeats an Orc-band in the North-farthing

All by himself?!? Of course not. We are menat to understand that he led the Tooks and others willing to follow; but Tolkien names BT alone; why? ... because he's their leader.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But how are these paid for?

Free room and board?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

how does Aragorn become a divine right king--if he does?

You know, I think "divine right" is too strong for LotR and Third Age Middle Earth. He had right of ancient lineage. Did that Kingship in Numenor not come from the Valar? Is that divine enough? Yes, but.... does that apply to Gondor come the beginning of the Fourth Age?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

lmp, I think it is possible to consider politics and power in myth.

Indubitably! But to attempt to say what Tolkien's and Lewis's politics were by reading LotR and the Narnia Chronicles is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Bb

Tolkien, with his profound Catholic faith, producing a world full of change and even insisting upon the recognition of that change. Flux rather than finality. How does he do that?

By mirroring reality well, as opposed to writing more of a fairy tale (LWW)? I'm brought back to the 'truism' that Tolkien is writing about death whereas Lewis is writing about a chosen nation, as it were.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It is intriguing to see the term 'theocracy' brought out here, as at least in the US there is a very strong tradition of separation of church and state. This is a very different idea from that in England, where the monarch is 'defender of the faith', meaning Church of England Anglican. (I think I read somewhere that HRH the Next In Line wants that changed to 'defender of faith' to make it somewhat more inclusive.) Now, LotR does not include direct mention of religion nor of Eru. So how does Aragorn become a divine right king--if he does.

That's interesting as I'd say Middle-earth is anything but a theocracy. Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

I wouldn't go so far as to call the UK a theocracy! That's a term I'd associate more with Iran, and as I've heard before, possibly with the Republic and the authority of the Jedi in Star Wars!

I saw an interesting item on TV this morning looking at religion in US and in UK politics. In the UK we have not had a vocally 'Christian' leader since Gladstone whereas in the US such leaders are the 'norm' at the moment. Politicians tend to play down their religious beliefs over here, possibly as it is more secular a society than anything else.

With Tolkien being a Catholic, he would have known that in terms of being one of the 'establishment', he would still have been something of an outsider; when he went to Oxford it was not all that long after the requirement that students be CofE was abolished - 1871. I wonder how he felt about the link between church and state, and if he experienced any sense of being an 'outsider'? I cannot imagine that he would have approved of a theocracy?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

Hear hear!

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

With Tolkien being a Catholic, he would have known that in terms of being one of the 'establishment', he would still have been something of an outsider; when he went to Oxford it was not all that long after the requirement that students be CofE was abolished - 1871. I wonder how he felt about the link between church and state, and if he experienced any sense of being an 'outsider'? I cannot imagine that he would have approved of a theocracy?

I can't either. And I believe that there is an undercurrent of 'outsiderness' as described in Carpenter's biography. If everybody else is CofE, and you're Catholic, both sides of the difference are bound to be aware of it. This does seem to come through in terms of Tolkien's protagonists, too! Bilbo and Frodo were both considered to be 'eccentric', which means of course "outside the circle". So was Aragorn, for that matter! You write what you know.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

There is no religion, but there are divinities. Aragorn's right to the kingship is ultimately derived from the right of kingship given to Elros by the Valar. And it is noteworthy that this right is renewed by the presence of Gandalf - an emissary of the Valar - at Aragorn's coronation; indeed it is Gandalf who literally crowns him.

So, while I agree that one can hardly have a theocracy without an established
(organized) religion, I would say that Aragorn's right is properly called a divine right.