It is also noteworthy that when the German publishers of *The Hobbit* wrote to Tolkien in 1938 asking if he was of 'arisch' (aryan) origins, and could prove it, he refused to do so, indignantly replying that if 'I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of *Jewish* origin. I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.' He consequently advised Allen & Unwin that he was inclined to 'let a German translation go hang.'
Nor is Middle-earth fascist, let alone Nazi. The Shire, for example, functions by a sort of municipal (not representative) democracy, which Tolkien himself accurately described as 'half republic half aristocracy.' The former half has, typically, been ignored by Tolkien's critics in their eagerness to assail the latter; but even here, their case is mixed at best. On the one hand, there is undeniably a certain amount of quasi-feudal paternalism and deference in the Shire, which is particularly evident, and sometimes annoying, as in the case of Sam. To me (and I doubt I am alone in this), it reads like a relic, and is far too hard to take seriously to offer any kind of model whatsoever. Similarly, of the three positions of authority in the Shire, two are hereditary and only one elected. But these officers' powers, and duties, are minimal. True, by the end of *The Lord of the Rings* there is again a King; and one whose kingly qualities Tolkien goes out of his way to establish. But Aragorn merely grants to the Shire, and other areas, the kind of effective independence they already had. Note too that his accession was only with the approval of the people of the City. In other words, local self-government or 'subsidiarity’ obtains: most decisions are taken at the lowest possible level, closest to those who are most affected by them.
The Shire as a yeoman-republic thus has strong links to the tradition of civic republicanism, with its emphasis on a self-governing citizenry and its fear of corruption by clique and commerce. As Donald Davie noticed, the implication of *The Lord of the Rings* points firmly 'towards the conviction that authority in public matters' - as distinct from self-government - '... can be and ought to be resisted and refused by anyone who wants to live humanely.' This tradition has pre-mordern roots, in Aristotle, Cicero and Machiavelli, but its contemporary relevance is none the less for that; and it reminds us that modern parlimentary liberalism has no franchise on democracy and community, or on solutions to our problems - particularly when it has withered to casting a ballot parties. (I once asked Gregory Bateson which political system he thought was best and most humane; he replied, at least half-seriously, 'An inefficient monarchy.')
The Shire also has clear resonances with other postmodern and ecological values that are returning to the fore as modernity turns sour. In sharp contrast to our possessive individualism, the hobbits are intensely communal - *The Lord of the Rings* rarely follows the story of less than two together - and live in a relatively simple and frugal way. Rediscovering the difference between quality of life and standard of living, something hobbits have never forgotten, is becoming urgent. ==Collective voluntary simplicity is becoming the only positive alternative to collective immiseration==. The Netherlands currently requires an area seventeen times its own size to sustain itself; if everyone on Earth lived like an average Canadian, two more Earth's would be required to provide the energy and materials needed. And these two places are not the worst. Yet on the whole, most people are not even happier for it!引自第51页
表示其中内容是对原文的摘抄