[Mänwe]

“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy.” - (Letter #52)

His personal view seems very much against his portrayal of the races in Lord of the Rings, where each is ruled by Kings or Queens, in a monarchist fashion. However although the system he may believe is flawed those who are part of the system are not and determine whether the system is flawed. For he goes on to mention in the same letter the following;

“The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari1 as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop.”- (Letter #52)

“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.” - (Letter #52)

These two passages would immediately point me to Aragorn, who had concealed his identity as a Ranger from the north.

“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.” - (Letter #52)

However we have characters such as Denethor which “upsets” this balance, someone who was less capable of leading. There will always be men who strive for control; we know Denethor renounced Aragorn’s authority vehemently.

Originally quoted by littlemanpoet

“According to Tolkien's letters and other sources, he believed in hierarchy. He would have preferred monarchy to any other form of government.”

So if not a monarchy, a dysfunctional monarchy, one that has no complete control over the entire kingdom, ruled by a character that did not look to take power. Which I would suggest is very much his belief in the real world.

Originally posted by Aiwendil

“Nor, I think, can one say that Tolkien was not interested in modern political theory and leave it at that.”

Here, here! Having read through the letters a few passages looked out at me more that others and interestingly enough were all from letter’s to his son.

“People in this land seem not even yet to realize that in the Germans we have enemies whose virtues (and they are virtues) of obedience and patriotism are greater than ours in the mass. Whose brave men are just about as brave as ours. Whose industry is about 10 times greater. And who are – under the curse of God – now led by a man inspired by a mad, whirlwind, devil: a typhoon, a passion: that makes the poor old Kaiser look like an old woman knitting. I have spent most of my life, since I was your age, studying Germanic matters (in the general sense that includes England and Scandinavia). There is a great deal more force (and truth) than ignorant people imagine in the 'Germanic' ideal. I was much attracted by it as an undergraduate (when Hitler was, I suppose, dabbling in paint, and had not heard of it),..” (Letter #45)

Tolkien to me seems to be distinguishing between different social groups here, two different races. Why would he do this if he were not interested, dammit he has a son who would have to live with the possible consequences of the ongoing events.

I think also it goes to support my claim that is the person he believed makes the system wrong. Hitler exploited the “virtues”.

The second again I believe is further evidence to suggest that he had an understanding and interest in the political developments of the era.

“We knew Hitler was a vulgar and ignorant little cad, in addition to any other defects (or the source of them); but there seem to be many v. and i. l. cads who don't speak German, and who given the same chance would show most of the other Hitlerian characteristics. There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes, and don't know the difference between good and evil! (What of the writer?)” (Letter #81)

I can’t see fault with what he says here. [My bold]

Yet from understanding and taking an interest is quite different from practising what you preach. For me Tolkien goes further to dispel any “classist” attitude with the following extracts from a tale he was recounting again to his son.

“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.” (Letter #58)

I take this to be his stand against the idea that our (British) feudalistic past gave rise to distinct social classes. Whether he was right or not in what he continues on to say still shows however that he believed otherwise;

“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.” (Letter #58)

While he may have admitted there was a social divide he himself did not associate himself with being “classist”. His stating that it was “a very middle-class bourgeois invention” is likely proof that Tolkien is as Selmo has stated, a “romantic”, very much in support of the status quo. Technological and political developments were to be disliked.

Perhaps then we could give a certain standing of his political views Lalwendë?

“It was his rather absurd ambition to achieve the rare distinction of being 'head' of two families (he would probably then have called himself Baggins-Sackville-Baggins)” (Letter #214)

The scrabble for social standing by a family inept, I think this compliments Lalwendë’s point nicely.

Indeed Boromir’s point about the rise of Sam to mayor would be further evidence for Tolkien not being classist as he says.

Though I pick up on one point of yours Boromir88,

Originally posted by Boromir88

Because again if we look at Sam, he rises from a servant of Bilbo's and Frodo's to becoming the Mayor of the Shire.

Have I read this wrong, but surely this implies social mobility?

Perhaps then he has shown a progressively attracted nature to social mobility throughout the book. For elements of classism still remain or were present.

“Customs differed in cases where the 'head' died leaving no son. In the Took-family, since the headship was also connected with the title and (originally military) office of Thain, descent was strictly through the male line. In other great families the headship might pass through a daughter of the deceased to his eldest grandson (irrespective of the daughter's age).” - (Letter #214)

Only those born into position will get it, however the Hobbit example here does show “leniency” toward the females of the family. Sexism too is not part of Tolkien too then.

Jumping somewhat haphazardly again, I do think Lush highlights an interesting point about the ring threatening the “hierarchy”. If she is saying that the ring conferred a higher social standing upon Frodo, then I would have to disagree, importance yes but not a higher class. Though I doubt that is what she means, so I will continue by saying (having dispensed with Tolkien’s dislike for allegory) that it too reminds me slightly of the aristocracies’ fear of literate serfs!

Slightly amusing are these passages in the letters I came across, for your benefit Lush

“Even the unlucky little Samoyedes, I suspect, have tinned food and the village loudspeaker telling Stalin's bed-time stories about Democracy and the wicked Fascists who eat babies and steal sledge-dogs. 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.” (Letter #52)

Good lord Tolkien, a terrorist, never!

The last sentence for me is a good summation of Tolkien, he is certainly aware of political developments (I know I’ve said that far too often), and is wise enough to know that only universal cooperation will lead to a better world.

the phantom, would not what you say depend upon what type of "system" being discussed?