Powers 1

Chayenne Powers

Dr. Nancy El Gendy

HNR 301

6 May 2022

The Lord of the Rings: Worldbuilding A Realm of Power, Corruption, Humanoids, and Politics

I. Introduction

Overtime, aspects of the soul, or something similar in nature, have been analyzed in

relation to how we, as humans, exist together. These hypotheses have not only been a part of

ancient philosopher’s studies and dialectic thought experiements, but have astutely been

questioned for millenniums by a wide variety of people from different backgrounds. Humanitiy’s

interpersonal and intrapersonal behavioural studies have not only been blatantly thought about

by philosophers, but by authors as well; for example, in the indirect case of J.R.R. Tolkien,

creator of characters and a whole political landscape. There are plenty of novels that analyze

what a utopia would look like, or even how it might fall into a dystopia. In such an examination,

Middle-Earth comes to mind, as the world seems to be neither, and yet, J.R.R. Tolkien is

seemingly making a statement on not only the nature of the individual, but what kind of an

individual(s) should be running the state; he also makes rhetoric as well in regards to whether the

state is going to be of a cruel experience in the case of whether the individual running it is

unethical and also cruel. He pulls from multiple Pagan traditions, like that of Beowulf, and also

from philosophers like Plato, and vicariously, Socrates. At the same time, faith is a heavy

undertone in his work by natural circumstance. He, being a Roman Catholic, can make an

undeniable tie to Augustine’s political framework, which is based off the Bible, albiet not as

intently strong as many may claim. All these different thoughts intersect for Tolkien, and even
 Powers 2

seemingly umbrella’s itself under a wider Humanistic lens. Tolkien’s political philosophy is

revealed through how individuals react and change within the world. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings

rectifies the classical idea that a political ruler should rule on the merits of practiced virtues, but

like an political philosophy, it intersects at every turn.

II. Tolkien in Context

J.R.R. Tolkien was ultimately born in 1892, Bloemfontein, South Africa, however was

raised in England and attended King Edward VI school, and later attended Exeter College,

Oxford and devolved into his love for English Literature and Linguistics (Shippey 1-2). In 1916,

Tolkien took place in the battle of Somme during World War I, but was later discharged due to

Trench Fever (2). Upon return, his career took off academically as a professor and was elected to

the Rawlinson and Bosworth chair of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford (Shippey 2). Tolkien produced a

revolutionary work, including his 1936 British Academy lecture titled, “Beowulf: the monster

and the critics.” (2). It was widely accepted as a turning point in the study of that specific poem,

which had been around for more than a millennium eventually reaching print (2-3).

The importance of his work here is that of a study of ancient tradition that will eventually

make an astute appearance in his own fictional works later.

Beyond that, Tolkien was a devout Catholic. “going so far as to insist, in a letter…to a

Jesuit friend, Robert Murray, that although The Lord of the Rings contains no overt reference to

Christianity at any point, and very little to religion, it nevertheless remains' ‘a fundamentally

religious and Catholic work’” (4). Of course, Tolkien’s words here can easily fall victim to

mortem auctoris – or death of the author. There might be plenty to suggest that Tolkien’s work is

blatantly Christian, however, at the same point, one could argue that because the work is purely

secular, that one can’t connect to any religious ties. Regardless of any substantial religious ties,
 Powers 3

Tolkien’s work roots itself in the soil of political thinkers that have existed since the classical

age.

III. Platonic Roots

With that being said, J.R.R. Tolkien based a large portion of his work off of Platonic

thought. In The Republic, Plato, and by default due to the dialogical nature of his political

thought, Socrates, sets up the idea that the soul of a person has three parts, being, appetite,

rationality, and spirit. To start, the appetitive part of “...the soul [can be explained as that] of the

thirsty person, insofar as he's thirsty, [he] doesn't wish anything else but to drink, and it wants

this and is impelled towards it..." (Plato, 439 a-b), and then states that some people who are

thirsty do not wish to drink (439 c). The same can be said for spiritive part of the soul, in which

one can get angry (449 e), and cause war or conflict if that person believes someone has been

unjust to him (440 b). These two parts of the soul, according to Socrates, are monitored by the

rational part of the soul, in which it “exercises foresight on behalf of the whole soul” (441 e).

Socrates thinks that those who’s rational rules well over the other parts of the soul, will also be a

good ruler of any kingdom, state, or in the context of this work, polis. He calls them

philosopher-kings.

This crafts the ideological idea that a person's soul is the basis for what will later be not

only the best kind of ruler, but also the best kind of guardian of a polis–which is a sort of

city-state. Socrates states that, “Until philosophers rule as kings in cities...cities will have no rest

from evils” (Plato 473 c-d). In The Lord of The Rings, there’s a comparison between what a

good ruler and bad ruler of a country or kingdom or city-state looks like in full relation to the

state of the ruler itself.

 Powers 4

The most obvious ruler in the novel, and the ultimate protagonist is that of Sauron.

Sauron can be described as an ultimate evil. In Frodo’s vision in Galadriel’s mirror, he sees,

[something] altogether dark, as dark as if a hole had opened in the world of sight…Frodo

looked into emptiness. In the black abyss there appeared a single Eye that slowly grew,

until it filled nearly all the Mirror. So terrible was it that Frodo stood rooted, unable to cry

out or to withdraw his gaze. The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow

as a cat’s, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window

into nothing. (The Fellowship of the Ring 408-409).

While this depiction is of Sauron’s eye, there isn’t an direct depcition of him to any of the

characters within the novel. His eye, a repeated figure, is the most we get of him, and the

depictions of such is altogether terrifying.

Contrast this with his depictions of how great a leader of Aragorn is within the fellowship

and onwards, with the entire series culminating into his eventual rule and how it’s justified, we

get a pretty direct idea of the Platonic idea that a virtuous leader will shape an ideal society.

Aragorn is a much more complex subject. At first glance, he is a “a strange-looking

weather-beaten man…[wearing] high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen

much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-strained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was

drawn close about him” (The Fellowship of the Ring 177), but was later described by another as a

“tall heir of kings, wise with many winters, greycloaked, hiding a power that…yet felt” (The Two

Towers 72). These difference are of great importance, because before Aragorn became king at the

end of the novel, his purpose was doing what Plato might consider a Gaurdian’s role and held the

guardian’s virtuous qualities–proteting the polis from corrupting forces and not actively seeking
 Powers 5

power and authority to rule. Aragorn cares not for displays of wealth, but rather, his actions lead

him forward and he’s determined to serve a greater good.

To add, a ruler can be good and then corrupted. King Théoden of Rohan was considered a

good and just ruler who quickly fell from grace once a corrupting factor influenced his decision

making. Gríma Wormtongue was a man who was more akin to a symbolic voice of the

unvirtuous. He was the Chancellor to King Théoden, who he manipulated into inaction about

Saruman’s actions, due to King Théoden’s depression from losing a son and had assumed

Wormtongue had essentially been handling the situation, lowering the King’s power and

hightening Sauron’s (The Two Towers 124-126). The country, in turn, was in shambles and, as

noted before, slowly falling into Sauron’s hands through Sauraman and Wormtougue’s

collaborative efforts.

With all this in mind, Tolkien is getting at a pretty interesting point–that the person ruling

a country affects the political outcome of said country. This point is not a new one, at all. It’s

antiquated. Again, Plato’s entire thesis was on how someone with the best soul, someone the

most virtuous, would be a good ruler for their political polis. The "Guardians" of Socrates' polis

are those that guard the polis. The guardian is the person who is able to fight, or pick up a shield

(Plato 347 c) because not just anyone can, according to his line of thinking–especially not the

cobblers, farmers, and craftsmen. He brings up guardians who are picked at youth (375 a) need

"keen senses, speed to catch what [they] see, and strength in case it has to fight out what [they

capture]" (375 a). If they lack gentleness or spirit, they can't be a good guardian (375 c). They

must be combined with "...philosophy, spirit, speed, and strength" (376 c). Guardians are also

"co-guardians" of the polis (463 b), which is the direct relation to the "co-rulers" of other,

non-polis cities/states.
 Powers 6

In The Lord of the Rings, regardless of the multiplicity of rulers in the realm, there are

also a series of humanoids who, within the Fellowship of the Ring, portray these qualities

excellently. The members of the Fellowship of the Ring represent “the other Free Peoples of the

World” (The Fellowship of the Ring 309) Frodo and his fellow hobbits Merry, Sam, and Pippin;

two Men, Aragorn and Boromir; Legolas the Elf; Gimli the Dwarf; and Gandalf. They were not

chosen for the roll, but rather selflessly volunteered, knowing that the the journey they were

dispatched on would be of constant great peril. This aligns with Plato’s idea that those who are

guardians do not wish to be so, but rather selflessly are so. They require strength and

determination, and can not “lack gentleness or spirit” (375 c). As Elrond states no one

“understand[s] and cannot imagine what lies ahead…[and]...The strength of your friendship is

clear…” (The Fellowship of the Ring 310).

Regardless, Socrates states that, “Until philosophers rule as kings in cities...cities will

have no rest from evils" (Plato, 473 c-d), implementing the guardians or a guardian as a

philosopher king or kings ensures that a, in this case, Middle Earth will be safe from evils, such

as Sauron.

Tolkien draws from Plato more, in his creation of the entire purpose of the book. The

blaring similarities between the Ring of Gyges and the One Ring to Rule Them All isn’t to be

easily ignored. The Ring of Gyges was originally introduced in Plato’s The Republic, the second

book. It’s a mythological artifact used as a thought experiment by Glaucon, a conversant with

Socrates, to discuss questions surrounding human morality and what is good. The artifact grants

an individual the power to go invisible, and such, what is stopping them from committing crimes

then?
 Powers 7

In The Fellowship of the Ring, the ring is a Ring of Power is something more than a

simple ring with magical abilities. Lore-wise, it’s described as having a will of it’s own as “...[it]

looks after itself…it may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he

plays with the idea of handing it onto someone else’s care–and that only at an early stage, when

it first begins to grip” (The Fellowship of the Ring 60). This makes a distinct difference between

that of the Ring of Gyges, and that of the One Ring. However, despite the detailed differences,

they are both used to gain power and place themselves at the highest form of government. In The

Lord of the Rings, there are few people who can withstand it’s drawl, and regardless of if one can

for a time, they have typically succumbed to the desire for it. Within the novels, there is one

character who seems to desire it none, and thus there be no affect on he.

Tom Bombadil is a character had been widely forgotten about, as he was cut from The

Lord of the Rings films. This cut had valid reasoning for that rendition, but it’s inclusion within

the novel and lore creates a really interesting philosophy. To explain, Bombadil is unlike many of

the other characters within the novel. Bombadil explains,

…you are young and I am old. Eldest, that’s what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom

was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first

acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was

here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed

westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the

stars when it was fearless—before the Dark Lord came from Outside (The Fellowship of

the Ring 131).

He’s an ancient being. He existed before the time of men, as well as shaping the earth itself.

Regardless of this, he’s the antithesis of Sauron. As I will later explore, Sauron wanted to control
 Powers 8

the world with his power, initially for good. Bombadil, on the other hand, is what Plato might

call, a philosopher-king–perhaps the ultimate one. I’d argued above that Aragorn, for instance

could be considered on, but to the behest of myself, and even Plato, we might assume and

acknowledge that no one can ever be a philosopher-king truly, given they all might fall to the

draw of the ring, just as Boromir did, and will be explored later. Tom Bombadil is seen as

resistant to the will and drawl of the ring, however. Gandalf states, “the Ring has no power over

him. He is his own master, but he cannot alter the Ring itself. Nor break it's power over others”

(The Fellowship of the Ring 298). This is perhaps the most important quote that relates Tolkien’s

work to Plato’s; Bombadil exists as a statement on how power works over an individual.

Regardless of his ancientness, it works as a symbolic gesture that there’s a case where a man can

hypothetically resist the pull of the ring. One can’t shift the sway power has over others, but one

can deny power to have any sway over themselves. Those who completely and irrevocably do

not even consider power, according to Plato, would be the best rulers. Unfortunately, Tolkien is

also making a statement that this is not the case. In the way of Frodo asking about whether he

take the ring, and to which Gandalf replies,

He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand

the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it

away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and

that alone is answer enough (The Fellowship of the Ring 298).

This is a criticism of Plato, directly or not. Esentially, Tolkien is describing a world where a

guardian of the ring is under no pressure to do any harm with it. However, this isn’t a definite

plus side. Someone who is fully within his own mind cannot be trusted to care about the

necessary well-beings of those around himself.

 Powers 9

Regardless of these arguments, it’s difficult to deny that Tolkien doesn’t take some level

of natural inspiration from Plato’s dialougical thoughts. Despite the technical disagreements,

there’s a dense degree of intersection between the two political thoughts.

IV. Norwegian Paganism and Traditions

Tolkien was, first and foremost, a linguist. He translated many works. One of the worlds

that he was most well-known for translating was Beowulf. Beowulf is an Old English work that

follows a member of the Norse tribe, the Geats. In 1936, Tolkien’s British Academy lecture,

“Beowulf: the monsters and the critics'', became widely accepted as the turning point in the

study of the poem (Shippey 2). It’s not hard to find some blatant inspirations from Beowulf as a

source in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.

In Beowulf, the extraction many people come to in the piece is in regards to the Norse

themes of kinship. Kinship itself is a socio-political attribute that relates to who might rule in any

given kingdom, as well as what standing you might have in any given kingdom or tribe. “So

ought a kinsman act, / Instead of plotting and planning in secret / to bring people to grief, or

conspiring to arrange / the death of comrades… each was concerned for the other’s good.”

(Beowulf 2166-2171). These lines make clear that the ideal kinsman is to honor their fellow

kinsman, rather than plotting to cause another harm. The relationship is a sacred thing, as

violation of it results in, “suffering [an] damnation in the depths of hell” (589).

Boromir, a warrior of Gondor, eldest son and heir of Denethor II, Captain of the White

Tower, Captain-General, High Warden of the White Tower, and Steward-prince of Gondor, was

apart of the fellowship in The Fellowship of the Ring. His role in the novel was, like the others,

to protect the One Ring. However, due to the magically pull of the One Ring–he was corrupted.

He succumbs to the pull of the ring, eventually attacking Frodo, the Ring-Bearer, for it. For this,
 Powers 10

he fell from fate and wished to harm Frodo (The Fellowship of the Ring 446-450) in order to

receive such a trophy.

Despite this fall, however, it is argued that Tolkien redeems Boromir. Boromir, at the end

of his life, saves Frodo and others from a hoard of Orcs (The Two Towers 3-4), which are on the

hunt for ring, not directly under command by Sauron, but nonetheless are attempting to gain

Sauron’s favor. When the One Ring was finally destoryed, they “ran hither and thiter mindless;

some threw themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark

lightless places far from hope” (The Return of the King 243-244), proving their direct connection

to Sauron.

Within this line of thinking one could argue, on one hand, that Tolkien is not adapting to

the Norweagian socio-political practice of proper kinship, as Boromir does not perfectly uphold

this standard, betraying Frodo. On the other hand, there is not evidence, in the Norwegian idea,

that redemption cannot happen. It begs to be asked, whether or not was pulling from this

ideology more indistinctly, rather than through the Christian lens of one constantly trying to

redeem oneself for a higher, and to some argument, self-interested sake.

Regardless, there’s another blanant overlining similarity in the creation of Gollum’s

creation within Sméagol’s now heavily currupted body, as well as Grima Wormtongue. Sméagol

became Gollum not only because of his curruption via the ring, but also because because of the

murder of his friend Déagol that haunted Gollum (The Fellowship of the Ring 62). In Rateliff’s

article, “Grima The Wormtongue: Tolkien and his Sources,” he states that, “Beowulf predicts

that Unferth will be damned because he is a “kin-murderer’” (Rateliff 17). Mind you, Unferth is

a source of jealousy towards Beowulf who also was “under a cloud for killing his brothers”

(Beowulf 1166). Essentially, Unferth killed his own kin and in warrior culture, this is of great
 Powers 11

distain, and possibily the worse. Tolkien uses this directly in his story of Sméagol’s curruption,

as noted. On the mention of Grima Wormtongue, he never outright had the chance to kill his

essential kin, King Theoden, but it’s noted he had been trying, under orders of Sauron.

Wormtoung has more in common wih Unferth, in the sense of they’re both a King’s counsellor,

taunting those who come to visit the king. Regardless of their loyalties, “Grima is revealed to be

a spy for Saruman, seeking to destory King Theoden and usurp his place” (Rateliff 16). Gandalf

makes sure to explain to the King, “Once it was a man…” (The Two Towers 132). Wormtongue

otherwise is decribed as a “wizened figue of a man, with a pale wise face, and heavy lidded

[dark] eyes” (124), as well as a “long pale tongue” (132). While these characteristics are not

inherently ghoolish, they are unlike a majority of the population in Tolkien’s world, unless one is

more “inherently” evil. There’s an even stronger similarity in the sense of how both Gollum and

Grima Wormtongue speak about themselves in the third person as noted both here for Gollum:

‘No, no, master!’ wailed Gollum, pawing at him and seeming in great distress. 'No use

that way! No use! Don't take the Precious to Him! He'll eat us all, if He gets it, eat all the

world. Keep it. nice master, and be kind to Sméagol. Don't let Him have it. Or go away,

go to nice places, and give it back to little Sméagol. Yes, yes, master: give it back, eh?

Sméagol will keep it safe; he will do lots of good, especially to the nice hobbits” (The

Two Towers 273).

As well as in Grima’s dialouge:

'Mercy, lord,' whined Wormtongue, grovelling on the ground. Have pity on one worn out

in your service. Send me not from your side! I at least will stand by you when all others

have gone. Do not send your faithful Grima away’ (132).

 Powers 12

In both cases, they are becoming akin to one another, and in that way, is in some ways less that

the average man. Smeagol is much father along in this changing process, however Grima had

just started. They’re united through their connection to Sauron, but also within their folly of

either trying to kill their kin, in Grima Wormtongues case, or having already succeeded, such as

in Smeagol’s case.

Regarding Lordship, in Beowulf, it “depicts the Germanic model of choosing a new king

in which a broadly defined kin group has, for good or ill, a decisive voice” (Biggs 733).

Regarding Aragorn becoming king, despite any claims he had to the throne by heritage, he earns

it by a type of inclusive vote.

'Men of Gondor hear now the Steward of this Realm! Behold! one has come to claim the

kingship again at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dúnedain of

Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the

Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of

the line of Valandil, Isildur's son, Elendil's son of Númenor. Shall he be king and enter

into the City and dwell there?'

And all the host and all the people cried yea with one voice. (The Return of the

King 264-265).

Specifically, what’s happening here is Aragorn, as mentioned before, has claimed a number of

titles due to his good deeds and otherwise gifts towards the realm, and the people of the realm

unanimously agreed upon his rule over them based upon that. Again, this is in reference to their

defeat of Sauron, one who wishes to control all of the realm with acknowledgable terror.

According to these Norwegian traditions, Aragorn would be a much more suitable ruler, given

his gifts to his kins, rather than the slaughter or them.

 Powers 13

In this section, there’s one final note to add in relation to the support of Norwegian, or in

the case, Old English traditions, and that’s in regards to the fact that Tolkien wishes there was

more of it left after the Norman Conquest (Butler 114). “Tolkien’s ‘earliest writings in

mythology was anchored in the ancient legendary history of England; and more than that….it

bleeds through into Middle-Earth at innumerable points” (116). Tolkien yearned for more of

pre-Norman Conquest history, as his studies in what’s left of those tails prove that. Repeatedly,

you can even equate names and geography to the place Tolkien would call home, and note a

series of relations between what’s left of Old English (and by default, Germanic and Norwegian)

texts and his very own work and mythology.

V. At Political Odds

There’s been plenty of political thinkers who might disagree with the standpoint of

Tolkien’s political and philosophical interpretations.

Niccolò Machiavelli is coined for saying the phrase, “the ends justify the means” in

whole reference to how a ruler might not only come into power, but even remain in power.

To be most specific, Boromir is the topic of discussion again. Machivelli states that, “The

desire to acquire things is perfectly natural and ordinary” (Machivelli 11). In reference to

specifically Boromir’s desire of the One Ring, Machiavelli is seemingly saying it’s absolutely

plausible and normal to desire, in this case, that thing. Plato would argue that people who want to

rule would be poor rulers because they’d rule in the interests of themselves, rather than what a

ruler should be–someone who rules in the interests of the people. They’d have stability within

their polis. Machiavelli would agree in some sense, in that the best way for a ruler to stay in

power is by simply not having a large portion of the population want to see their ruler fall from

power and authority. With this in mind, foundationally Tolkien’s political philosophy isn’t soley
 Powers 14

at odds, but rather the foundational approach is different. In a sense, despite Boromir’s desire for

the One Ring, the artifact is literally magical and “the Ring itself decided things (The Fellowship

of the Ring 61). However, on a more symbolic level, it could easily represent exactly what

Machivelli is talking about–which is things, whether material or something more abstract like

power.

Galadriel and Gandalf are an example that’s hard to navigate. For instance, they both

know the ring holds extroidanry power, but are able to withhold themselves from the want of

holding such power. In Galadriel’s case,

‘And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord

you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning

and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as

the Storm and the Lightening! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love

me and despair!’

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light

that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall

beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she

let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was

shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and

sad.

‘I pass the test,’ she said. ‘I will diminish, and go into the West and remain

Galadriel.’ (410-411).

I point out this entire passage because it shows that the nature of the Ring, the simple desire of

the ring, changes how people perceive you, in essence in relation to how Frodo, in this instance,
 Powers 15

perceived Galadriel. She is different, now changed, terrifying and beautiful, much more powerful

than before. She, herself, even notes that a change takes place. The commentary on going to the

West is in wider reference to Valinor, a place where immortals go to reside–a sort of death, in

some instance. This was her life’s traial, as she had to come face to face with the One Ring in

order to prove to herself that she could refuse it. Regardless of what this means to here, the focus

of the one ring, in this instance, is that Tolkien comes scathinly close to simply agreeing with

Machivelli’s philosophy that it’s natural to desire power. However, Tolkien disagrees with

Machivelli, in the culmination of promoting it as a good thing to deny such power, especially

given the circumstance of Galadrial already holding a different Ring of Power, as highlighted in

the section carved out above.

To further premote this arugmentation, in Gandalf’s case, earlier on in The Fellowship, he

states that,

With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would

gain a power still greater and more deadly…Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to

become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity

for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it,

not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength

(The Fellowship of the Ring 67-68).

Gandalf knows that such a powerful artifact will undoubtedly taint him, and thus is in denial of

Frodo trying to hand it off to someone that he deems more capable of being untained by it (67).

In both of these cases of Frodo seeing someone he deems more fit to carry they burden of it, both

of these people refuse the burden despite this power. They know they are already extraordinarily

powerful over the regular humanoids of Middle Earth, and any more power would corrupt not
 Powers 16

only themselves, but cause them to rule terribly to their subjects, in the vein of being evil.

Machivelli might say that it’s natural not only for them to desire it, but also to wield it and gain

power in ways that are universally deemed terrible, such as crimes like assassinations, coups, and

more (Machivelli 28).

Tolkien argues with this ideological thought, as his usage of Aragorn becoming King.

Aragorn never directly sets out to be a king, but rather is trying to, in a sense, set Middle Earth

free from evil exploits and that makes him a good canadate for ruling. He doesn’t gain political

power by setting out and killing those already in power, he earns it by defeating a great evil,

Sauron.

On the more “evil” connotation, there’s the general idea that Sauron will also use the

concept of “means to an end”. In Morgoth's Ring, Volume 10 of The History of Middle Earth,

Melkor, who was arguably the first Dark Lord of Middle Earth, desired the power to create but

didn’t have that power and he began to hate all in existance because of it and would’ve destoryed

everything in existance due to subcumming to a nihilisitc ideology, “He was aware, at any rate

originally when still capable of rational thought, that he could not 'annihilate' them: that is,

destroy their being; but their physical 'life', and incarnate form became increasingly to his mind

the only thing that was worth considering” (Morgoth's Ring 348). Sauron didn’t initially want

this, however.

He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with

it. He still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature

in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of

his relapse) that he loved order and co-ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful

friction.…and though the only good in, or rational motive for, all this ordering and
 Powers 17

planning and organization was the good of all inhabitants of Arda…his 'plans', the idea

coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the

End, in itself (349-350).

In essence, Sauron initially wanted to do good, unlike Melkor who wanted all, and when he

realized he couldn’t have that, wanted to create Nothing. However, Sauron’s plan took president

over everyone who was supposed to benefit from it, and he easily slid into wanting power,

control, and dominance, as is seen in The Lord of the Rings novels and in other editions of the

universe Tolkien created.

Sauron used cruelty and violence to gain and maintain a kingdom–which is what people

are fighting against, and is ultimately the Machivellian architype of ruler.

…it is to be noted that in taking a state, its conqueror should calculate the sum of all

those injured he has to do, and do them all at once, so as not to have to do new ones every

day. By not repeating them, he will reassure men and win them over by means of his

benefits....the less they are tasted, the less they will offend, whereas benefits should be

distributed very gradually, so that they may be better savored (Machivelli 30)

Machivelli is in support of using violence to gain and maintain whatever said kingdom, and the

question becomes, to Tolkien, at what point is the violence too repreated to be good? Tolkien sets

up a clear distinction between those who are immortal and those who are mortal, and do the

immortal’s frequency of bad deeds matter if they have all of time to make them? Does it matter if

the “cruelties are used well or badly[?]” (30). Tolkien, in the sense of Sauron’s initial good

intentions would disagree with such an assessment.

On a different end, there are also political philosophers that explore what human nature

might be. Thomas Hobbes tends hold the belief in which humans are naturally immoral creatures
 Powers 18

that need to summit to one absolute monarch because they’d be in a constant state of war

otherwise. If they’d not to this, man’s life would be, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”

(Hobbes 72). They’d ideally give up their freedom for the insurance of another thing, which is,

“nothing else but the security of a man’s person, in his life, and in the means of so preserving

life, as not to be weary of it” (77). Hobbes accounts that man is to be ruled over by someone with

absolute authority to protect themselves from death and otherwise harm.

Tolkien’s political philosophy isn’t so black and white as this. For instance, while he does

take the stance that some in that those in this universe may fall in line with the political thinking,

such as Sauron, he never explains that humans might be as black and white as this. For instance,

the One Ring to Rule them all is depicted as corrupting normal folk. Eventually one might

succumb to such power, however we aren’t explicitly evil and going to immediately abuse it. No

one does, and if they think they might, there is enough goodness to specifically not engage with

something they know is corrupting–for instance, the example of Galadrial and Gandalf. Both

being overtly seen as good, but not innately. They have the ability to slip into evilness, no

different that Saruon did, as noted in The History of Middle Earth.

VI. Christian Roots

As stated in context, Tolkien was a self-proclaimed devout Christian (Shippey 4), despite

his rhetoric that he “cordially dislike[s] allegory in all its manifestations” (The Fellowship of the

Ring X). However, in the same vein, he also states that The Lord of the Rings is a

“‘fundamentally religious and Catholic work’” (Shippey 4). There’s a genuine question on

whether his intentions truely matter.

One of the leading political thinkers in the Roman Catholic Church, is Saint Augustine of

Hippo. His writings influenced not only the development of Christianity, but also Christianity’s
 Powers 19

place in Western culture. He created a political docrtine of thought that was based upon how

Christians can reconcil the impefect nature and their eventual place in the afterlife. Augustine

created two cities in order to explain the imperfect society and perfect society: The City of Man

and The City of God. The City of God is the final good, “which is perfected, and so it exists

fully” (Augustine, 141), and is more specifically eternal life and peace, which “God will give us”

(141). He describes peace as, “an ordered obedience, in faith, under eternal law" (154). The City

of Man, however, is only peaceful if there “is an ordered concord concerning commanding and

obeying among citizens” (154). What he’s saying is that generally, the peace of all things is “the

tranquility of order” (154), and that order is found through not only cooperation with each other,

but also with God and His eternal law.

These themes, perhaps to Tolkien’s disdain and perhaps not, do inadvertently appear in

Tolkien’s novel. Being mindful, Augustine, as well as Catholosism believes that evil does not

exist in God’s actions. Elrond, Lord of Rivendell, Ring-bearer of Vilya, and Vice-regent and

herald to Gil-galad states that, “nothing is evil in the beginning” (The Fellowship of the Ring

300). Both seem to be in agreement upon that at the beginning of creation, no evil exists, and that

evil must be a changing of good (Augustine 440).

The One Ring, mind you, has a will–which sort of implies its sentience, which means it

either knowns of goodness, or at some point wasn’t wholly or innately evil. “he made that Ring

himself…and he let a great part of his own former power pass into it, so that he could rule all the

others” (The Fellowship of the Ring 56). On this premise, Sauron passed his evil will onto the

One Ring. With that being said, it’s important to note that Sauron wasn’t innately evil either. As

stated above, Sauron initially wanted to do good for the world he inhabited, with the people he

inhabited, but he eventually fell mad with power and making those who he wished to help, suffer
 Powers 20

(Morgoth’s Ring 349-350). To add, the issue of the ring is it itself now desires to rull over the

other. It’s famously engraved with the phrase, “One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them” (The Fellowship of the Ring 55). This

is all just to say that the ring’s will is essentially just Sauron’s.

According to Larry Brunner of Hardin-Simmons University, he sets out to describe three

separate types of Christian humanism. Regardless of the other two types, he sets out to state that

there is a type in which Western society is focused on a tragic flaw. It’s founded on the thought

that one must ponder and correct said tragic flaw in a civilization, where it is founded off of a

definite belief system. The paper makes the case that Tolkien belongs to this category, insofar as

“The Lord of the Rings is an analogy for Christian humanism in the historically emerging sense

that is the central concern of this book ... not so much an escape from modernity as a rejection of

modern dehumanization" (Brunner 367). I point out this passage, to note that Christianity is

historically in flux, and not only is there multiple ways to believe obsensibly, but the framework

for belief seems to change based upon the idea that any Christian might focus on. In Tolkien’s

case, this is, as noted, the rejection of dehumanization, which historically he had been vary aware

of given his time in World War I (Shippey 2). Notedly, Tolkien himself also believed that “the

Catholic Church should reform” (Garbowski 42).

Withing the article, “A Wind from the West: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Tolkien's

Middle-Earth” by Gregory Hartley, he explains the intense similarities in the role of the Holy

Spirit throughout The Lord of the Rings. For instance, he argues that that the primary function of

the Holy Spirit is to act as a guide through knowledge and wisdom, and Tolkien himself place

“so much stress on the value of… “loremasters” in the opposition of evil that other characters

who come in contact with them seek wisdom and knoweldge and gain discerncernment for their
 Powers 21

efforts” (106) while giving examples of multiple occasions where the character’s seeking of

knowledge had helped them on their journeys (106-107).

There are also innumerable examples of characters that have the gift of healing another.

Many of the characters are biblical in this regard. For instance, Ioreth states, “The hands of the

king are the hands of a healer” (The Return of the King 138) about Aragorn. In fact, we’ll note

that, as stated above, in Aragorn’s crowning as king, this is one the elements that made his claim

stronger (265).

Aragorn embodies the commission Christ delivered to his own disciples just before their

first healing ministry Wielding the Holy Spirit, they "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers,

raise the dead, [and] cast out devils," (Matt. 10:8). Aragorn heals the sick by delivering

Frodo, Faramir, Eowyn, and Merry from the Black Breath; he raises the dead by calling

forth the spirits of the Oathbreakers on the Paths of the Dead; he casts out devils when he

drives away the Nazgûl at Weathertop. By investing Aragorn with this gift, Tolkien

demonstrates the Sovereignty, or Divine empowerment, of Aragorn's reign (Hartley 107).

This sums it up well enough, and even Augustine would as well agree that this makes for not

only a good citizen, but a good ruler, for “Faith, hope, and charity make us citizens in that [good]

republic” (Augustine 211).

The final spiritual gift of the Holy spirt, as wisdom and knowledge has been covered, is

discernment. There’s a repeated theme in all Christian works thus far, which is a reminder of the

unnverving. Hartley notes that Gandalf’s study of the ring in events before the novel (and after

The Hobbit), allowed him to learn and “discern correctly the identity of the One Ring and to

forbid its use again Sauron” (Hartley 106). To note, this fits in with Merry scolding Pippin for
 Powers 22

not using his freetime well in Rivendell, and the knowledge that Merry gained there helped them

when they became lost later.

Desistively, I’ll note that Tolkien’s references here are subtle at best. Hartley makes

another, rather convincing argument, however, which is that Gandalf's character arc certainly

shares parallels with Christ's–while also stating that this doesn’t mean Gandalf is an allegory for

Christ (96). This conclusion however, bears merrit, as Gandalf died protecting others from a firey

demon, a Balrog (The Return of the King 370-372), and later returning as “Gandalf the White” in

The Two Towers. (The Two Towers 102). Despite these, and other similar claims, they seem to be

unintentional coincidences, rather than intentional depositions. However, it’s noted that Tolkien,

only in hindsight, interpreted his writings religiously (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien 204).

VII. Humanism

Humanism is a belief that emphasizes the value and goodness of human beings, stressing

common human needs while seeking solely rational ways of solving human problems. In

Christopher Garbowski’s piece, "Recovery and Transcendence for the Contemporary

Mythmaker: The Spiritual Dimension in the Works of J. R. R. Tolkien,” he states that “It has

been noted that Frodo carries out his perilous mission without any evident belief in life after

death” (167). In some ways, this claim serves as the foundation not only for Tolkien’s political

philosophy, but also serves as an opposition to Tolkien’s otherwise Christian Roots. As noted,

these roots were subtle as best, and Tolkien himself stated that he “dislike[s] allegory in all its

manifestations” (The Fellowship of the Ring X), despite also claiming that The Lord of the Rings

is a “‘fundamentally religious and Catholic work’” (Shippey 4). Again, it should also be

emphasized that Tolkien’s interpretation of his own peice being religious was only in hindsight

(The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien 204). However, his exploration of mortaily is not to be dismissed
 Powers 23

as unnecessary to the argument. Tolkien uses symbolism of dark and light in order to really drive

home how severe the stakes are in how “characters live under the shadow of death, and its

bedfellows, darkness and despair. But this is darkness with hope. Both time and death are limited

in the power they can exert” (Waters 204). With all this in mind, it’s almost difficult to begin to

make an argument against the fact that Tolkien’s political philosophy is humanistic. Such an

idology isn’t exclusive from the Norwegeon socio-political tradition of kinship, being based on

gift-giving, and services to man’s kin.

It should be noted that “According to Tolkien, the genuine goals of literary subcreation

and fantasy do not involve delusion or manipulation. Instead…[it] should aim to craft a

wonderful, desirable world in speech, intended and experienced as a genuine common good”

(Keys 208). In Key’s article, there a note that Tolkien was not inherently particularly interest in

politics themselves (205), however, in the simplification of a means to a happy life and what is a

common good (as in, what it looks like), we’re left again, with a rather humanistic approach.

Dr. Zachary Schmoll of Faulkner University makes another argument exploring this idea

that there’s a humanistic idea to what each character is doing and why they’re doing it.

The common good returns through the king, not the modern tyrant. Frodo’s pity toward

Sméagol and, to a lesser degree, Sam’s pity, who was faced with opportunities to kill

Sméagol but held back, is ultimately used as an instrument of the unnamed and rarely

talked about higher power [the common good] in Middle-Earth to help Frodo destroy the

Ring…Through this personal, specific good, the greater common good emerges allowing

the true king Aragorn to reign on the throne, administering distributive justice and

allowing for freedom (599).

 Powers 24

There’s an idea that the higher power of pity and doing what is perceived to be good will only

create a sort of exponential growth of good. Throughout Tolkien’s work, the opposition is easily

black and white in regards to good verus evil, however there’s also the regards to the fact that

people are not black and white, and can both change for the worst, while still being able to

redeem themselves. In giving someone the opportunity to, by not ending their life outright,

there’s a consistent theme of the value of human, or in the case of The Lord of the Rings,

humanoid life.

VIII. Conclusion

J.R.R. Tolkien’s political philosophy is not as cut and dry as one might want to

assume–given his especially devout Catholicism. Like all political philosophy, it’s muddled,

intersectional, and at times, ultimately unclear. In Tolkien’s words, The Lord of the Rings doesn’t

contain much in the way of religion (Shippey 4). However, he states that it is still inherently a

“‘fundamentally religious and Catholic work’” (4). This, despite being the words of the author,

isn’t solely true, in the sense that many of Augustine’s political ideas came not only from the

Christian Bible, but also from Plato and Socrates themselves. It’s also to note that Tolkien

himself only interpreted it fundamentally religious subsequently to the publication of the novel

(The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien 204). To note, Tolkien explicitly also used The Ring of Gyges

within his own work, reshaped some to be The One Ring, in some attempt to make a statement

about how power corrupts, and using multiple examples on how, in some manner, humanoids are

a uncurrupted until they are corrupted, but this doesn’t ruin one forever unless they allow it.

Augustine would disagree, as instead we spend our entire lives trying to become uncorrupted

because we are already damned. Curruption runs deep, and in many forms as well. Symbolically,

the ring represents the will of evil, however, it’s the evil that one does that their kin that ruins
 Powers 25

himself. Boromir, who attacked Frodo for the One Ring, Gollum who had killed his loved one

for it, and Grima Wormtongue, who was on his way to no redepmption, trying to kill his king and

doom all those who reside in it to Sauron, who’s will is the One Ring’s will. Tolkien celebrates

selfless acts, by rewarding those who do good and save many, and allowing some to redeem

themselves or prove their devotion to doing good in order to highlight a humanistic, and perhaps

even ancient, political philosphy that man should be dedicated to one another to create a peaceful

existance, rather than damning all to chaos and destruction.

 Powers 26

Works Cited

Augustine, Michael W. Tkacz, Douglas Kries, Ernest L. Fortin, and Roland Gunn. Political

Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Print.

Beowulf. The Norton Anthology of English Literature, edited by Stephen Greenblatt and James

Simpson, 10th ed., vol. A, W.W. Norton & Company, 2018, pp. 37-109.

Biggs, Frederick M. “The Politics of Succession in ‘Beowulf’ and Anglo-Saxon England.”

Speculum, vol. 80, no. 3, 2005, pp. 709–41, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20463382.

Brunner, Larry. “The Return of Christian Humanism: Chesterton, Eliot, Tolkien, and the

Romance of History.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, Jan. 2010, p. 365.

EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A221092175&site

=eds-live.

Butler, Catherine. “Tolkien and Worldbuilding.” J.R.R. Tolkien: A Collection of All New Critical

Essays by Contemporary Scholars, edited by Peter Hunt, Palgrave Macmillan,

Houndmills, Basingstroke, Hampshire, UK, 2013, pp. 106–120.

Foster, Mike. “The Worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien: The Places That Inspired Middle-Earth.” Mythlore,

vol. 38, no. 2, Mar. 2020, p. 220. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A639544105&site

=eds-live.

Grube, and C D. C. Reeve. Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1992.

Hartley, Gregory. “A Wind from the West: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Tolkien’s
 Powers 27

Middle-Earth.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 62, no. 1, Sept. 2012, p. 95. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A326130678&site

=eds-live.

Hobbes, Thomas, and E M. Curley. Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of

1668. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1994. Print.

Hunt, Larry. “Mere Humanity: G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien on the Human

Condition.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 57, no. 3, Mar. 2008, p. 484. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A179815840&site

=eds-live.

Huttar, Charles A. “Recovery and Transcendence for the Contemporary Mythmaker: The

Spiritual Dimension in the Works of J. R. R. Tolkien.” Christianity and Literature, vol.

52, no. 3, Mar. 2003, p. 425. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A107757067&site

=eds-live.

Keys, Mary M. “J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, or, There and Back Again: Recovering a

Platonic-Aristotelian Politics of Friendship in Liberal Democracy.” Homer Simpson

Ponders Politics: Popular Culture as Political Theory, edited by Joseph J. Foy et al.,

University Press of Kentucky, 2013, pp. 203–31. EBSCOhost,

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2015025795&site=e

ds-live.

The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Edited by Humphrey Carpenter. Boston: Hougbton Mifflin, 1981

Machiavelli, Niccolo, and Peter Bondanella. The Prince. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2005. Print.
 Powers 28

Rateliff, John. “Grima the Wormtongue: Tolkien and His Sources.” Mallorn: The Journal of the

Tolkien Society, vol. 25, Sept. 1988, pp. 15–17. EBSCOhost,

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=1991065233&site=e

ds-live.

Rogers, M. “J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography.” LIBRARY JOURNAL, vol. 125, no. 11, June 2000,

p. 122. EBSCOhost,

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswss&AN=00008768100023

9&site=eds-live.

Schmoll, Zachary D. “Middle-Earth and the Return of the Common Good: J.R.R. Tolkien and

Political Philosophy by Joshua Hren (Review).” Christianity & Literature, vol. 69, no. 4,

Dec. 2020, pp. 598–601. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edspmu&AN=edspmu.S20565666204

0006X&site=eds-live.

Shippey, T. A. ‘Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel (1892–1973)’, Oxford Dictionary of National

Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, Oct 2006 [http://0-

www.oxforddnb.com.helin.uri.edu:80/view/article/31766, accessed 2 Feb 2007]

Tally, Robert T., Jr. “Utopian and Dystopian Themes in Tolkien’s Legendarium.” Mythlore, vol.

38, no. 2, Mar. 2020, p. 195. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A639544099&site

=eds-live.

“Teaching and Living and Dying ‘as If Nothing Had Happened’: The Example of Tolkien. (News

and Announcements).” Christianity and Literature, vol. 51, no. 2, Jan. 2002, p. 320.

EBSCOhost,
 Powers 29

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A84542784&site=

eds-live.

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Fellowship of the Ring. New York: Ballentine Books 2012. Print.

Tolkien, J.R.R. Morgoth’s Ring. The History of Middle Earth: The Later Silmarillion. Edited by

Christopher Tolkien, vol. 10, HarperCollinsPublishers, 1993.

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Return of the King. New York: Ballentine Books 2012. Print.

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Two Towers. New York: Ballentine Books 2012. Print.

Waters, Sarah R. A. “Fantasies of Time and Death: Dunsany, Eddison, Tolkien.” Mythlore, vol.

39, no. 2, Mar. 2021, p. 199. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsglr.A664812725&site

=eds-live.