I just finished reading The Lord of the Rings yesterday. It is a great novel, one of my all-time favorites. It's a wonderful study of human psychology (both its strengths and weaknesses) and human society. The struggle of each character who encounters The One Ring is gripping; their pain and weakness before its temptation really hits home for those who have ever reflected on the experience of sin. The implausible victory of some characters over the will of the Ring is impressive, while the failure of others is equally disturbing to read about.

The political dimension was also fascinating. It's an overtly monarchist book, which I can appreciate wholeheartedly. The theme of the relationship between the mechanics of government with the society it oversees is wonderfully illustrated and embodied in the person of the restored King who, once he assumes power, rules with a merciful hand because his realm is his, because he loves his realm and his subjects as they love him.

The Lord of the Rings is not an argument against power, but it does show corrupt forms of rule. The characters of Sauron and Saruman are prime examples: when the War of the Ring finally begins they show a complete disregard for the lives of their men/orcs and consider them expendable resources to be used in the quest for power. Aragorn the King was literally born for the throne; as such his conception of himself rested on his subjects and their well-being. That is why so many thinkers have compared a monarchy to a family; just as a father is unlikely to harm his family because he is defined in them and through them, so is a king unlikely to harm his subjects because he is defined in them and through them. Compare this to Sauron and Saruman, who define themselves through their own personal lust for power.

There is a very interesting communal/traditional/libertarian theme running through the novel. The final chapters, where Frodo and his fellow hobbits return to the Shire, illustrate this theme. Whereas the Shire was once governed by influence (the young respected the old, and all respected the ways of their fathers and the authority of a few Shiriffs) the hobbits returned to see their home governed by agents of Sauron. Their purpose was to the squeeze the Shire, to take from it as much as they could. These evil men achieved their purpose by drafting an ever-increasing code of draconian laws (it reminds of that old saying by, I think, Tacitus, that the more laws a government has the more corrupt it has become, or something to that effect). The living relationship that the hobbits had with their past was destroyed. It was precisely that respect for tradition that was their only guarantor of peace and prosperity.

That is what Aragorn the King represents. Human tradition lives in him and his line. Though he defended his kingdom with his sword Narsil (or Anduril) he did not rule by it, as only a true king would.