epublications@Marquette

Thomas, Ethan

English

Tolkien and Hume\u27s Problem of Evil

Zuckerberg, Mark

Zuckerberg Facebook post about quarterly earnings report

Zuckerberg Facebook post of selfie with hoodie

Zuckberberg Facebook post about Civilization VII coming to Quest

Zuckerberg Facebook post and photo celebrating 21st birthday of Facebook

Zuckerberg Threads post about Mesa data center

Rogan, Joe

Joe Rogan Experience #2255 - Mark Zuckerberg

Zuckerberg Threads post about Meta\u27s FAIR lab in Paris

Swiatek, Sean

Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette 4610 English: Individual Authors: J.R.R. Tolkien English Student Research 2025 The Makings of a Nation: Nobility and Tyranny in Tolkien’s Legendarium Sean Swiatek Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/english_4610jrrt  Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Swiatek, Sean, "The Makings of a Nation: Nobility and Tyranny in Tolkien’s Legendarium" (2025). 4610 English: Individual Authors: J.R.R. Tolkien. 31. https://epublications.marquette.edu/english_4610jrrt/31 Sean Swiatek Dr. Canavan Engl 4612 J.R.R. Tolkien 14 December 2024  The Makings of a Nation: Nobility and Tyranny in Tolkien’s Legendarium   The Lord of the Rings, and J.R.R. Tolkien’s legendarium as a whole, generally do not concern themselves with the inner workings and politics of their fantastical nations. First and foremost, Tolkien’s stories are about people, and how they are corrupted, stay virtuous, or are redeemed. To read The Lord of the Rings as a treatise on politics would be foolhardy, however there are still lessons and insights to be gained from Tolkien’s treatment of his world and nations. As befits his fantastical world, Tolkien’s personal and written politics betray a close focus on individuals and their great deeds, rather than political systems, while supporting systems of governance wherein the strong protect the weak, and otherwise take no role in the smaller matters of life.  Contrary to most contemporary political theorists, Tolkien held closer to monarchism than one would expect for a 20th century intellectual. Tolkien seemed wholly uninterested with questions of government, by which is meant the literal systems and apparatus through which a state is run, rather holding closer to his principles of how life ought to be, and extrapolating good rulership from these principles and virtues. He had a remarkable distaste for politics, holding it as a necessary evil at best, and a corruption of true patriotism and the human spirit at worst. In Letter 52, to his son Christopher, he describes his opinion on “state” as an apparatus unto itself, saying “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!” (Letter 52). This distaste for normal politics, of course, extends to his work - there is very little real elaboration into the actual political systems of his various nations, beyond implying some vague form of either small-scale democracy, in the case of the Shire, or vague feudalistic monarchy, in the case of the various Mannish and Elven kingdoms. Nor do any political systems come under specific criticism by Tolkien - no attention is paid, in fact, to the governments of the Sauron, or Morgoth, or “evil men” like the Haradrim. Rather, evil manifests itself as a corruption of normal leadership, and not in the systems that allowed such leadership to flourish, such as in book 3 of The Lord of the Rings or Akallabêth. Tolkien, via his disinterest in government and focus on just leadership, reveals and reinforces his opinions on what makes a nation and person great, and how to avoid despotism and tyranny.  The Elves, for the purposes of this paper, are frankly irrelevant due to their lack of need for true systems of governance. Much of the purpose of permanent systems are to prevent corruption, that a system of checks and balances should exist to limit the authority of leadership so that should an evil or incompetent leader arise, the harm done is limited. There is a near complete lack of information on the governance of Elves beyond a presumed monarchy, and secondly, they are immortal, and thus no checks must exist on their power. For if an ideal ruler were to arise, one that is almost wholly good, then absolute power for that individual would be just, and the idealized politics present throughout the legendarium function without issue, for problems of governance lie not with any system, but with the individual.  The Shire, in many ways, serves as Tolkien’s ideal, an idyllic life untroubled by strife and bad actors. However, Hobbits generally display a sense of naivete in all things, a flaw extended into their idealized, but weak, political systems. Perhaps, however, it would be easier to refer to a lack of true political systems (as befits Tolkien’s worldview). Tolkien expresses that the individuals within a society should be held important and responsible, writing to Christopher “ 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” (Letter 52). As such, the Shire and its prosperity is not linked to any specific system, but rather to “Sharkey and his gang” or “Mayor Samwise,” and their individual justness, or lack thereof. The Shire is an unbelievably high trust society, to the extent that it is believed by Frodo that “no hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire” (The Lord of the Rings, 1254). Though there exists a system of shirriffs to keep the peace, the worst crime that Hobbits seem to commit is the theft of silverware. Their society is a naive one, but one that, internally, works near perfectly. What makes the Shire so idyllic is not their barebones governmental system, but rather that the members of the society are, for the most part, good individuals.  Despite this, Tolkien himself is not so naive as to think all that is needed for a community is a trustworthy and good population, though he in no part disagrees with the sentiment behind it. The Hobbits are as children, protected from evil through the efforts of more worldly men. When the rangers leave the northern kingdom to participate in the War of the Ring, the Shire is almost immediately taken over by Saruman. The Scouring of the Shire is the closest Tolkien gets to real opinions on political apparatus, though only through the negative lens of Saruman’s “government”. Saruman’s rule operates almost as a communist satire - the ruffians seize all production, in order to later distribute food and other goods among the population (though of course no such distribution seems to take place.) However, given both Tolkien’s lack of interest in actual systems, and dislike of allegory, it is likely that its resemblance to the real world system is entirely coincidental. Rather, it is a statement against active government overreach - Tolkien would not want a system wherein the government takes an active role in one’s life. His criticism of Saruman’s rule, and love of the Shire as it should be, reveals a man whose ideal state is one who protects its citizens without having any interaction with them in the day-to-day workings of the country.   Most true insight into Tolkien’s politics  comes not from The Lord of the Rings but rather the extended legendarium, most especially in  Akallabêth, the story of the rise and fall of Númenor. Tolkien directly criticizes Númenor’s fall into colonialism in the Silmarillion, writing that “[Númenor] hunted the men of Middle-earth and took their goods and enslaved them, and many they slew cruelly on their altars” (The Silmarillion 262), a clear devolution from their earlier status of “Bringers of gifts” (262). To Tolkien, it was not simply the discovery and migration to new lands that was the evil - rather what was right for the Númenorians was to come as teachers, benefactors, and yes, rulers. Númenor holds to a rather antiquated system of noblesse oblige, wherein the strong not only have the right, but the duty to “educate” weaker men. An idea that may strike contemporary readers as idealistic or evil, a bit too similar to the White Man’s Burden. However, Tolkien was still a British citizen, born in a colony, holding views on British colonialism that in a sense seem optimistic. These views on colonialism continue to reflect Tolkien’s lack of reflection on actual political systems, instead holding to his emphasis  the effect of individual rulers and cabinets. To him, it was not the act of colonialism that was necessarily evil, in fact it could be very beneficial to the less developed Middle-earth. It was only when Númenor became corrupted, ruled by a tyrant and despot, that colonialism became a truly evil act of pillaging and sacrifice, a fall from grace for a once noble and benevolent empire. Yet again, it is shown that to Tolkien, the form of government is irrelevant, rather that the choice of ruler is what truly matters.  To further elaborate on this idea of noblesse oblige, one only has to look at the rule of Aragorn, or rather how little Tolkien writes about it. For being the titular character of the third volume, Tolkien writes little about his rule beyond that Gondor prospered under it. This is not necessarily a flaw of the writing, but rather a function of it - The Lord of the Rings is not concerned with the functions of a government just as Tolkien is not. The simple fact that a good and righteous man is on the throne is enough for the reader to accept that his rule is similarly good and righteous. Aragorn, again, brings up the idea of the strong’s duty to the weak -  his entire character hinges on it. He is, in a sense, a sort of ubermensch, a man whose blood and bearing make him inherently above “lesser” of his kindred. His nobility, however, does not come from this blood, but from his kindness and wisdom towards those below him. Thus, Tolkien is again focusing on his function as a man, and not on the Gondorian system of governance. The more or less absolute power that Aragorn wields is not inherently good or evil, but rather a reflection of the one who holds it.  Political systems and leaders, in Tolkien’s world, are not created to be evil, but instead corrupted. The Shire had shirriffs before the arrival of Saruman, but the post only became tyrannical when an evil leadership was instituted and the once noble government of the Shire fell to its influence. Rohan, and Théoden’s corruption, works similarly. The office of the king has no check on power - despite the clear evil being done by Théoden and Grima Wormtongue, not a person in Rohan disputes the injustices befalling his kingdom due to Wormtongue’s influence. Once again, the problem to Tolkien is not the system itself - despite how easily corruptible the absolute monarchy of Rohan is - but rather that the person sitting the throne is unjust. Théoden regains his youth and wisdom upon the casting out of Saruman’s influence, but no attempt is made to reform the system which allowed for this corruption - rather the people of Rohan must have faith that the man in the Golden Hall will always be a just and wise king. Tolkien, and his characters, are wholly uninterested with why it was so easy for Rohan to be taken over by evil - rather the moment that said evil is casted out Rohan becomes a righteous kingdom again. This seems to be a naivete of his, for to examine why evil is able to take root in government, one must examine how it does, and what steps to take to prevent it. It is not enough to temporarily right the wrongs of a king or administration, however idealistic Tolkien may want to be on this point. For problems to be fixed permanently, a system must be put in place to prevent said problems, not to simply depend on good men forever ruling righteously.  The most telling example of Tolkien’s individuality-focused politics comes in the never finished The New Shadow. Tolkien never got beyond the very beginning of this novel, as the premise became “sinister and depressing,” largely due to the parts of his worldview pertaining to politics. The scrapped sequel seems to have focused more on political systems than any of Tolkien’s other writings, especially on a secret cult within the city of Gondor. Tolkien seemed to think this was due to the nature of Man, “So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse” (Letter 256). This points at the very problem at which Tolkien, very clearly, does not want to address either in his published works or personal letters - that the individual, however good, cannot stem the tide of evil, of Man’s “quick satiety with good” (Letter 256). These are the very problems that a just system of governance should, principally, address - that however good an absolute leader may be, they cannot live forever, and inevitably one who would seek tyranny and despotism would arise. Tolkien is not oblivious to this - he expressly states that Aragorn’s descendants would become lesser, that as memory fades of the problems that plagued Gondor that another Denethor would arise. These are expressly the difficulties that a system of absolute monarchy creates, for though Aragorn is near-perfect, his sons and grandsons will not be.  Tolkien’s lack of interest in The New Shadow is a direct consequence of his political views, that to write a story wherein Aragorn’s descendents fall to evil, is to write a story that questions whether it was ever just to place Aragorn on the throne. The Lord of the Rings requires a suspension of morality, for the reader to place aside their preconceived notions of politics and accept that an absolute monarchy is just so long that the monarch is just. For if The New Shadow were to deal with political corruption, with another fall of Gondor, it would subsequently ruin the ending of The Lord of the Rings, rendering Aragorn’s victory and coronation bittersweet and leaving the audience questioning whether it was even right. There is a very valid reason why The New Shadow never extended beyond a few pages, and it is because, with Tolkien’s renunciation of political systems, it became infeasible and depressing to write a future of Gondor that included the logical conclusion of such a government.  Tolkien understood politics and governmental systems - it was not naivete or innocence that led to a lack of elaboration into such topics, but rather an idealization of history and of stories that is seen less and less today. The theme of loss permeates all his works, as the very substance of his sub-creation becomes less fantastical, the age of the Elf ending and the age of Man beginning. There was, frankly, no need for him to include the inevitable political machinations and governmental corruption that would have been present in any sequel to The Lord of the Rings, for this inclusion would have moved his world away from fantasy. The reader does not need this explanation - the framing of his world as our own history does all the work in this aspect. The reader knows already that, by necessity, Gondor will become corrupt, that human institutions will fail, that the individual will gain less importance as the capital-S State gains it. It is written into our history, our Mannish DNA. The absence of alternative political systems, of scheming and realpolitik, is central to the story that Tolkien wanted to tell, and to want Gondor to be written as if it were King’s Landing is to miss the central point - The Lord of the Rings is a story of ages past, an age that is many ways was better, or at least more idealistic, where noblesse oblige took forefront, the great fulfilling their duty and no more. To pretend that Tolkien did not know that his legendarium was an ideal is foolishness - this is the same man who himself lived through British colonialism, and whose son fought against the Nazis. He proves he understands government and the corruption that comes with it, writing about these downfalls in Akallabêth and The New Shadow, but taking little interest in the inherent depression and nihilism that comes from writing about very human systems. In his heart, Tolkien is a writer of fairy-stories, and his idealized version of politics is not a flaw, but the very function through which the heart of the story is present.        Works Cited Tolkien, J. R. R., and Christopher Tolkien. The Silmarillion. William Morrow, an Imprint of  HarperCollinsPublishers, 2022.  Tolkien, J.R.R. Letter 52. 1943.  Tolkien, J.R.R. Letter 256. 1964. Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings. HarperCollins Publishers, 2004.   

The Makings of a Nation: Nobility and Tyranny in Tolkien’s Legendarium

Mayer, Andrew

The Place Where Souls Rest: Tolkien, Immortality, and Neurodivergence in Frieren: Beyond Journey’s End

Marquette University

Not a member yet