British Communists: Michael H. R. Tolkien’s letters to the Evening Despatch (1944) and the Catholic Herald (1948)

British Communists: Michael H. R. Tolkien’s letters to the Evening Despatch (1944) and the Catholic Herald (1948)

Oronzo Cilli

In this article, a revised and extended version of my piece “1944: Michael H. R. Tolkien and the Soviet ‘mania’” published on Academia.edu, I present some information regarding Tolkien’s second son that is still unpublished for the general public and has never been cited by other scholars in their work. In particular, I am referring to several letters published between 1944 and 1948 in the Evening Despatch [1], the Birmingham daily newspaper, and in the Catholic Herald, the leading British Catholic weekly, in which M.H.R.T., during and immediately after the Second World War, denounced the myth and idealisation of Communism in England, warned against Soviet influence and defended Christian values. To these, I add an appendix on the misrepresentation of history which claims that J. R. R. Tolkien was a reader of Candour, the British nationalist political magazine founded by journalist and political activist A. K. Chesterton.

Let us proceed in order.

Fig. 1

Michael Hilary Reuel (1920–1984) was the second son of J. R. R. Tolkien. Skipping over the story of his childhood and the connections with some of his father’s writings, in September 1939 he attempted to enlist as a volunteer in the British Army, but was advised to postpone enlistment until after completing his studies at college. He entered Trinity College, Oxford, but the following summer left his studies to begin training with the anti-aircraft artillery. With his anti-aircraft battery, in 1940, he took part in the defence of airfields during the Battle of Britain and, shortly afterwards, in December of that year, due to an injury caused by an accident involving an army vehicle, he was hospitalised in Worcester. In 1941, as an officer cadet in the Royal Air Force, he was awarded the George Medal “for acts of bravery not in the face of the enemy, including those displayed in defending RAF stations during heavy bombardment” and, in November of that year, he married Joan Audrey Griffith (1916–1982), a nurse he had met several months earlier, with whom he had his first child, Michael George Reuel, in 1943. In 1944, due to being declared unfit for military service, he returned with his family to Oxford, resuming his studies at Trinity College. [2]

1944: MICHAEL H. R. TOLKIEN AND THE SOVIET ‘MANIA’

BACKGROUND. Between late September and the first half of October 1944, a series of internal and international events unfolded.

Fig. 2

On 26 September 1944, Archibald Maule Ramsay, a former British Army captain and, at the time of his arrest in 1940, a Member of Parliament representing the Scottish Unionist Party, was released from prison. Ramsay was a highly controversial figure: known for his antisemitic views, support for the dictator Francisco Franco, sympathies towards Nazi Germany, and staunch anti-communism. This last stance led him to found, in 1937, the United Christian Front to combat attacks on Christianity “coming from Moscow.” In 1939, Ramsay established the Right Club but was arrested the following year under Defence Regulation 18B. [3]

When Ramsay was freed on 26 September 1944 and returned to his parliamentary seat, British communists protested strongly. On the same day, the Evening Despatch featured an article in its “Public Opinion” column opposing Ramsay’s release, with references to his Nazi sympathies, written by Sam Blackwell, secretary of the British Communist Party for the Midlands. [4]

A few days after Blackwell’s note on Ramsay appeared, on 4 October, the same newspaper published a response signed by an anonymous “Not Forgotten”:

Fig. 3

“BRITISH COMMUNISTS EXCLUDED”

Sir:—Why does S. Blackwell get so excited about the release of Captain Ramsay? If Mr. Blackwell has a short memory, the intelligent Englishman has not, and can well remember the activities of the British Communists in the early days of the war. When Russia was attacked, the war became a holy one to the Communists; previous to that, they called it an imperial war. In the first period of the war, the British Communists were notorious saboteurs and strike fomenters, and vilified and abused the Government on the slightest pretext. When praise is given to our gallant ally-Russia-that does not include the B.C.P.

A letter diminishing the role of the British communists, accusing them of “short memory,” which soon after would spark considerable controversy.

Fig. 4

It is useful to recall that, by the end of 1944, relations between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom were already in a phase of détente. Leading the British was Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, who had succeeded Neville Chamberlain in 1940; although Chamberlain had resigned, he was still frequently mentioned in various debates.

On 9 October 1944, Churchill flew to Moscow to meet the dictator Joseph Stalin. The objective was to redefine the borders of the states occupied by the Red Army. The notable absence at the table was the American president Roosevelt, justified by the fact that presidential elections were underway in the United States. [5] Churchill’s visit lasted ten days and established what later became known as the “percentages agreement,” dividing Hungary (50% USSR – 50% Allies), Greece (90% Allies – 10% USSR), Romania (90% USSR – 10% Allies), Bulgaria (25% Allies – 75% USSR), and Yugoslavia (50% Allies – 50% USSR), with only Poland excluded as it was entirely assigned to the USSR. [6]

On the very day Churchill flew to the Soviet capital, the Evening Despatch pages featured sharp responses to the accusations levelled at Blackwell and the British communists by “Not Forgotten.” Among the letters was one from Blackwell himself:

“MALICIOUS SLANDER”

There is something unwholesome about and individual who pays lip-service to “our galiant Russian Allies,” while slandering and vilifying the British Communists who have for 20 years campaigned for friendship with the Soviet Union, a friendship which could have prevented this war.

Fig. 5

Chamberlain flew to Munich and brought disaster: Churchill flew to Moscow and planned Allied victories and future world security. The Communists were urging such steps as early as 1938.

“Not Forgotten” has forgotten many thing (or perhaps he never knew). He forgets for instance, that we organised the British Battalion of the International Brigade, and that 500 British Communist lads gave their lives fighting Hitler and Mussolini in Spain. It is a strange sort of patriotism which sees good in Russian Communists but none in our own.

How dare he cover himself behind a nom-de-plume to write a malicious slander about organising sabotage and fermenting strikes which has no basis in fact!

Blackwell, of course, praised the role of the British communists and their two-decade-long support for the necessity of friendship with the Russians, which “could have prevented the war.” He also cited the difference between Chamberlain and Churchill. The former had flown to Munich in 1938 to meet the French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier and the dictators of Germany, Adolf Hitler, and Italy, Benito Mussolini (with Stalin notably absent), to sign the agreement that was supposed to prevent conflict. [7] The latter, as just mentioned, went to see Stalin.

For Blackwell, the Munich trip caused a “disaster,” while the journey to Moscow laid the foundations “for the Allied victories and the future salvation of the world.”

In the following days, other members and sympathisers of the Communist Party joined Blackwell in responding to the accusations of “Not Forgotten,” intervening on the role of the British communists, particularly those from Birmingham, and on the figure of Chamberlain. One correspondent, H. T. Goodchild, recalled how: “Then there was the Anglo- German Naval Treaty, which permitted Hitler to build more submarines: and do not forget the “gentleman’s agreement” between Mussolini and Chamberlain.”

Debate over? Far from it. On 14 October, once again in the “Public Opinion” column of the Evening Despatch, the controversy over the note by “Not Forgotten” and Sam Blackwell continued. However, dominating the exchange among the various letters was one signed “Michael H. R. Tolkien (former Lieutenant of the Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment), Oxford.” The newspaper titled his letter “Soviet ‘mania’.”

The second son of J. R. R. Tolkien wrote:

SOVIET “MANIA”

I am not a member of any particular political party, so I do not write in any spirit of party animosity; my own ideals are incapable of realisation under a system, whatever its precise political complexion, which allows so small and secondary a place for God and true Christianity.

I was, however, surprised to see in Monday night’s issue of the Evening Despatch with what extraordinary presumption the Communists of Birmingham arrogate to themselves a halo of righteousness, a myth of their unparalleled insight into the future: in fact, a sort of “I told you so” story, which seems to me little short of fantastic.

One grows tired of the thread-bate abuse hurled at Neville Chamberlain, whatever his faults for Mr. Sam Blackwell and his following would have been in a sorry plight as indeed we all should, if that courageous old gentleman had not gone to Munich in 1938, when there was no question of anyone from Britain being in the least welcome in Moscow. One grows equally weary of this Soviet-worship, which amounts to little short of a mania. May I ask how many of your Communist correspondents have lived for any length of time in the U.S.S.R.? I have not done so myself for I believe too firmly in freedom to have had several personal acquaintances who have lived there, and I do not refer to those who have gone on carefully conducted tours round Moscow and systematically been shown the wonders of Communism. From first-hand accounts I have heard I fear the British Communists dream that the Soviet Union is a garden of Eden is no more than a phantom of their imagination.

I do not underestimate Soviet Russia’s contribution in this war towards the overthrow of Nazi Germany, but I refuse, in the name of freedom, to pay lip-service to an ex-ally of Germany, whose unprovoked aggressions in the past, though far less in number than Germany’s, were nevertheless inspired by precisely the same motives. To deny this is childish, and worthy only of the deluded outlook of the average “freedom-loving,” though intolerant, Communist.

This letter, which to date has not been found in other publications, allows us to understand the thoughts of Tolkien’s second son regarding the events unfolding in the United Kingdom.

Fig. 6

Michael, at the opening of his missive, specified that his intervention was not driven by partisan animosity as he did not belong to any particular political party, implying that many of the letters published in the previous days were clearly motivated by political allegiance. He then clarifies that although his ideals cannot be realised by any system, whatever its political shade, because it grants “God and true Christianity” only a limited place, he nevertheless felt the need to join the ongoing discussion. He felt compelled to speak out because he was “surprised” by the reading of the 9 October edition of the Evening Despatch, where, with “extraordinary presumption, the communists of Birmingham” arrogated themselves “a halo of righteousness,” narrating the “myth” of their “unparalleled insight into the future.”

From the tone of the letter, it is clear he was also displeased by the “thread-bate abuse hurled at” Neville Chamberlain by Sam Blackwell and his followers. For Tolkien’s second son, all the English would be sailing in very troubled waters at the moment if that brave old gentleman had not gone to Munich in 1938, when there was not the remotest chance that a Briton would be at all welcome in Moscow. This last reference alludes to Churchill’s later visit to Stalin, which in 1938 was unimaginable.

Fig. 7

Michael did not hide his weariness of the “Soviet-worship, which amounts to little short of a mania,” and posed a rhetorical question: he asked whether any of the British communist correspondents had ever lived in the USSR. He himself had never done so, as he “firmly in freedom,” but wrote that he was acquainted with those who had actually lived there, not among those who are expertly taken on a planned “round Moscow and systematically been shown the wonders of Communism.” The accounts Michael said he had heard from those who truly experienced the communist regime led him to write that “British Communists dream that the Soviet Union is a garden of Eden,” and that this “is no more than a phantom of their imagination.”

With intellectual honesty, Michael did not neglect or downplay the role and contribution of Soviet Russia in the downfall of the Nazi regime, but he “refused,” “in the name of freedom,” to say anything favourable about the “ex-ally of Germany,” who had acted for identical reasons, in carrying out past aggressions, albeit “far less in number than Germany’s,” without Russia itself being provoked.

The letter’s closing is truly trenchant and without room for reply: to deny what is written in the final passage is “childish” and fits “the deluded outlook of the average ‘freedom-loving,’ though intolerant, Communist.”

After this letter, the discussion continued only in the 16 October edition of the Evening Despatch, with further letters from readers, before ending on 17 October when the editor published the following announcement:

WRITERS of letters on the record of Communists and on the immortality of the soul have had a good innings, and the time has come when this correspondence must be closed to give readers a chance of expressing their opinions on other topics.

EDITOR

Fig. 8

At the close of this initial discussion, it is interesting to note Michael’s frankness in publicly expressing his views on the behaviour of British communists and doing so in a debate in which he felt personally involved. His reading and the related study undertaken to reconstruct the historical-political context inevitably led to revisiting some of his father’s letters published by Humphrey Carpenter. Unfortunately, due to the editor’s choice, the Letters contain only a few letters written by Tolkien to his son Michael during the period 1940–1945. [8] As mentioned, Michael only returned to Oxford in 1944, which currently prevents a fuller reconstruction of the dialogue between father and son during the Second World War, as is partly possible with the professor and his third son Christopher.

Tolkien, as is well known, harboured (rightly so) a strong aversion to regimes, whether Nazi, Fascist, or Communist and, furthermore, seems not to have held Winston Churchill in high regard, whom he described as “little cherub” (Letters 53) e “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.” (Letters 52).

Fig. 9

Obviously, this study does not aim to explore Tolkien’s thoughts during the Second World War (a topic that no scholar has ever seriously developed), nor could it be covered in a few pages. Nor can Michael’s views be conflated with those of his father, for that would be a disservice to the truth and to the intellectual honesty. We do know, however, that Michael and his father (as did J. R. R. and Christopher) spoke with one another and exchanged views on the events unfolding around them, as is evident from some of the letters. However, it is interesting to highlight certain passages from Michael’s note alongside some of his father’s letters.

For example, re-reading this passage from Michael:

May I ask how many of your Communist correspondents have lived for any length of time in the U.S.S.R.? I have not done so myself for I believe too firmly in freedom to have had several personal acquaintances who have lived there, and I do not refer to those who have gone on carefully conducted tours round Moscow and systematically been shown the wonders of Communism. From first-hand accounts I have heard I fear the British Communists dream that the Soviet Union is a garden of Eden is no more than a phantom of their imagination.

Exactly one year earlier, on 27 October 1943, in a letter to his son Christopher, Tolkien recounts his meeting with Cyril Edwin Mitchinson Joad, a philosopher and well-known television personality, during a dinner at Magdalen College hosted by C. S. Lewis:

Fig. 10

At 9 I went to Magdalen and saw the Joad. […] he is intelligent, kindly, and we agreed on many fundamental points. He has the advantage of having been in Russia – and loathing it. He says the ‘new towns’ do not rise above Willesden level, and the country does not rise at all. He said if you got into a train and looked out of the window, and then read a book for a few hours, and looked out again – there would be nothing outside to see to show that the train had moved at all! (Letters 51)

Joad, after visiting Russia, “detested” it, describing the “new towns” as no better than Willesden, an area in northwest London, and the landscape as bleak and unchanging. This contradicted the image of the Soviet Union as a “Garden of Eden” or an advanced society.

Another point that stands out from Michael’s letter, regarding the salvific role of Stalin and the communists, brings to mind Tolkien’s letter to his son Christopher dated 9 December 1943:

Nothing to read – and even the papers with nothing but Teheran Ballyhoo. [9] Though I must admit that I smiled a kind of sickly smile and ‘nearly curled up on the floor, and the subsequent proceedings interested me no more’, when I heard of that bloodthirsty old murderer Josef Stalin inviting all nations to join a happy family of folks devoted to the abolition of tyranny & intolerance! But I must also admit that in the photograph our little cherub W. S. C. [Winston Spencer Churchill] actually looked the biggest ruffian present. Humph, well! I wonder (if we survive this war) if there will be any niche, even of sufferance, left for reactionary back numbers like me (and you). (Letters 53)

1948: MICHAEL H. R. TOLKIEN, RUSSIA, THE LABOUR PARTY AND AID TO THE DOMINICANS IN GERMANY

BACKGROUND. On 12 January 1941, Tolkien recounted in a letter to Michael, who was hospitalised in Worcester, an evening spent at a pub in Appleton with the Lewis brothers, C. S. and Warren, and Dr Havard. He added that “Air Raid warnings are frequent here, but (so far) remain just Warnings …” and that he feared a new Nazi attack which he believed would “blow up earlier this year than last.” The fear of an imminent attack and the reference to “earlier than last year” suggest Tolkien thought the Nazis would resume bombing his country before July, referring to the Battle of Britain, when the Nazis began bombing in July 1940. [10]

Fig. 11

In the same letter, Tolkien wrote about the possibility that the USSR was preparing “some mischief.” This passage refers to the events exactly two months earlier, on 12 November 1940, in Berlin, where Adolf Hitler, his Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, and the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov met for two days to discuss the possibility of a general agreement between the two countries following the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. [11] Tolkien feared that Soviet Russia was plotting something against England. At the end of the letter, Tolkien wrote:

Meanwhile the Daily Worker is cried in the streets unmolested. We shall have some lively times after the War even if we win it as far as Germany is concerned.

In my various readings of the Letters, I had never given much weight or attention to this passage by Tolkien. In light of my research, I began to wonder why Tolkien mentioned the Daily Worker, the official organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, first published on 1 January 1930. Moreover, why did he add that it was “cried in the streets unmolested,” as if this annoyed him?

Fig. 12

I discovered that from May 1940, distribution of the Communist newspaper had become illegal, as it was considered seditious and anti-British. It is also curious to note that Tolkien’s letter of 12 January preceded by only nine days, on 21 January, the decision by the Home Secretary to order the seizure and banning of the newspaper (along with The Wock) under Defence Regulation 2D, which granted powers to prohibit any publication deemed seditious or obstructive to the war effort. This order was immediately executed by the police that very night, with copies of the paper, printing presses, and premises seized, and those distributing it prosecuted.

Fig. 13

The Daily Worker was led by Douglas Hyde, a British journalist and political activist. It is from Hyde that, several years after Tolkien’s letter, this second “discovery” takes its cue.

On 2 April 1948, on page 2 of the Catholic Herald, a letter signed by Oliver Hawksley appeared, entitled “Why so few?”

Hawksley took inspiration from a report published a few days earlier in the same newspaper about Hyde’s resignation from the editorship of the Daily Worker following his decision to leave the Communist movement and enter the Roman Catholic Church.

Hawksley wrote:

Sir, — An interesting point, apparently remaining undisclosed in your report on the resignation of Mr. Hyde from the editorship of the Daily Worker, is what political party he would support next. Could that be answered with satisfaction the question of why so few desert Communism for Catholicism might be answered.

As it is, only a discerning few find Catholicism a spiritually inspired political challenge to Communistic atheism. The great mass of the people of Britain have no cause whatsoever to view politics from the spiritual standpoint. Politics is a matter of bread and butter to them.

The fact is that there is at the moment no political creed to take the place of materialistic atheism. Democracy? but no two people can agree for what it stands; as a political system it is hazily connected with that loose word (and elusive) freedom. But freedom of what and from what is never either explained or enjoyed. World slavery is a matter of degree in its severity. Freedom of worship has practically no value at all to the majority of Britons-perhaps that is why they are allowed to enjoy it.

By suppressing individual freedom Russia is attaining power with the well-wishing millions of international reds. These enthusiastic supporters have confidence and faith in this political creed. They also hope to benefit by it. How are the Western Europeans benefiting under democracy as we know it? What fanatical zeal can fire the blood or spirit of a good democrat whose leaders shrink, hesitate and grow fearful because at last-long last-they find that their watchword compromise meets with no acknowledgment from the real Christian or the Communist.

Two weeks later, on 16 April 1948, again on page 2 of the Catholic Herald, Michael H. R. Tolkien (The Oratory School, Woodcote, Nr. Reading) took up Hawksley’s discussion. His letter was titled “Labour and Russia”:

Sir, — May I commend the insight of Mr. Hawksley who, in your issue of April 2, brings up a highly pertinent question which must be exercising the minds of many of us at present?

Fig. 15

Europe is faced with the greatest menace since the last great Turkish invasion was broken by the Polish cavalry of John Sobieski before the gates of Vienna in 1683. Yet now, in the hour of peril, we are asked to place our faith in a bankrupt and vague philosophy and to trust our destinies to a gang of second-rate place-hunters.

The ancient bastions of Christendom are in the hands of the infidel, betrayed into their hands by the insensate folly of men professing the same misplaced faith in “democracy” as those in whom we are asked to place our trust now.

The betrayal of Poland, as any Intelligent student of European history must have known at the time, simply constituted the opening of the floodgates to the age-old peril to Christendom from the East. Christendom has been betrayed from within and we are now being asked to trust our betrayers, to trust the weak-kneed self-seeking politicians who sold the passes to the enemies of the Cross “The Labour Party has a consistent record of friendship towards the Soviet Union dating back to 1917,” wrote the prospective Labour candidate for Solihull at the General Election. “We have not the bad Tory record of hatred of the Soviet Union to live down. This will help us to break through the wall of suspicion that at present divides Russia from the West.” That young man would now insert a stronger word than suspicion.

Nevertheless, it was with fatuous pledges such as these that our present rulers hoodwinked the ever gullible masses and so seized power. At the head of them stands the gentleman who gave his blessing to those who sought to set up a Communist tyranny in Spain.

And what of all these stalwarts in the days when energetic action in the West could have crushed the Red peril in its infancy? Happily for them most of us have blissfully forgotten the” Hands off Russia” movement of 1919. No doubt the Lord President of the Council could regale us with many an amusing anecdote about that affair. Doubtless, too, the Foreign Secretary could tell us about the” Jolly George’s” cargo, when the Red flood poured across Poland in 1920.

Can we hope to find a Sobieski, a Charles Martel, a Pilsudski, or a John Hunyades in the ranks of timeservers, or a political faith to rival that of our enemies, in a flabby philosophy. historically the child of the Protestant Reformation and the parent of Communism?

In 1948, Britain was emerging from the Second World War facing enormous social and economic challenges, and the political situation was heavily influenced by the new geopolitical reality dominated by the East-West confrontation and the growing tension between the West and the Soviet Union. The two letters clearly reflect this context, highlighting widespread doubts, fears, and criticisms in those years, which saw deep divisions with many intellectuals and citizens questioning the crisis of values, the role of faith, and the effectiveness of democracy in the face of the communist threat.

Fig. 16

The Soviet Union was engaged in consolidating its influence in Eastern Europe, imposing communist regimes and suppressing individual freedoms. In the West, including Britain, there was growing fear of communist expansion and strong distrust towards political forces seen as too conciliatory or friendly towards Moscow. Clement Attlee’s Labour government (1945–1951) implemented socialist policies but maintained a somewhat open attitude towards the USSR, at least in its early years, which sparked suspicion and criticism.

It is within this context that the letters under consideration take place. In Oliver Hawksley’s letter, one senses a political and spiritual crisis: in his view, the majority of the British population did not see politics from a spiritual standpoint but rather as a material matter (‘bread and butter’). He saw the lack of a ‘political creed’ alternative to communism as a worrying void and considered democracy itself a vague and ineffective concept, incapable of offering real freedom or a solid political identity. Hawksley lamented the lack of firmness and courage among Western democratic leaders who, he argued, hesitate and seek compromise, while at the same time being rejected by both committed Christians and communists. This sense of powerlessness and moral crisis was combined with the fear that Western society was losing its spiritual and political identity.

Fig. 17

In the second letter, Michael H. R. Tolkien compares the contemporary situation to great historical crises such as the Ottoman invasion of 1683 that threatened Christian Europe, emphasising how Christian Europe was “betrayed from within.” His criticism was chiefly directed at British politicians — particularly the Labour Party — whom he accused of being overly conciliatory towards the Soviet Union, thereby effectively facilitating communist expansion. Michael invoked historical figures of great military leaders (John Sobieski, Charles Martel, Pilsudski, John Hunyades) who in the past had defended Europe from external threats. He highlighted the lack, at that time, of comparable courage or political faith in the West, blaming the prevailing philosophy as “weak,” born of the Protestant Reformation and a progeny of communism, incapable of resisting the communist advance.

Both Hawksley and Tolkien reflect a conservative Catholic viewpoint, seeing faith as a bulwark against communism and the moral decay of Western society, where political crisis is also perceived as a spiritual crisis, with a call for loyalty and steadfastness in religious values as the response.

It is interesting to note that Douglas Hyde’s resignation and the issues raised by his son and Hawksley were also the subject of a discussion between Warren, C. S. Lewis’s brother, and J. R. R. Tolkien on 19 March 1948 during a break at the King’s Arms. As Warnie recalled, Tolkien said that: ‘the obvious joke about Jekyll and Hyde is already going the rounds of Oxford. He is, I think rightly, not pleased at the splash the R[oman] C[atholic] papers are making over the news’.” (Scull & Hammond)

POSTSCRIPT

In the same issue of the Catholic Herald dated 16 April, another letter signed by Michael H. R. Tolkien appears, this time an appeal on behalf of the Dominicans in Germany.

Michael writes:

May I appeal to your readers on behalf of a young German and many others in like straits? He was a P.O.W. in this country, during which time he was received into the Church. Not long after his repatriation he joined the Dominicans. I now hear that before making profession of his first vows his superior has instructed him and his brother novices to appeal to any friends he and they have outside Germany, for help in the way of clothing, of which they are in desperate need.

He writes: “I don’t beg for myself only; there are several brothers who were bombed out and are not able to clothe themselves in any way. Though there will be no question about things which could be sent we would thank you especially for shoes and boots, which are by no means obtainable in Germany, stockings (if possible, of white colour for our habits), underwear, sweater, braces, belts and shirts…”

Contributions of the kind mentioned would be gratefully received either at the address printed below, or direct to: Brother A. M. Hertz, O.P., Dominikanerkloster Mariae, Himmelfahrt (21a), Warburg-in-Westfalen, British Zone of Germany.

Obviously, Michael was friends with him, as he specifies in his appeal, but so far, I have found no other connection between the Tolkiens and Hertz.

Anselm M. Hertz (1924–2013) entered the Dominican Order and was ordained a priest in 1953. He served as a professor at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum) and the University of Freiburg. As Professor Emeritus, he taught pastoral theology at the Theological Faculty of Chur and served as spiritual director at the convent of Cazis until his death. His Handbuch der christlichen Ethik is considered a seminal work in theological ethics.

Brief research uncovered two interesting facts that help to place Hertz within the global Catholic context.

The first dates to the post-World War II years, when a debate about religion unfolded in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, triggered by his article “Have We Come to the End of All Religion?” In it, Hertz outlined a history of religiosity in three phases: ‘Public and Private Religion United’ — in the past, faith and worship united society and the individual with God, even during war (prayers for victory or protection); ‘Private Piety’ — following the decline of public religion, God was no longer held responsible for collective events but only for the fate of the faithful, a phase Hertz described as “schizophrenic”; and ‘Secular Self-Transcendence’ — in modernity, the transcendent God becomes a “magical and mythical” relic overcome by humanity’s capacity to “transcend itself” without reference to a personal God.

Fig. 18

This debate was later referenced by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, and featured at the beginning of the chapter On the Theological Basis, Of Prayer and Liturgy: I. The End of Religion? i. A contemporary dispute in his 1986 book The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy. Ratzinger contrasted Hertz’s thesis with that of political scientist Nikolaus Lobkowicz, who sharply criticised this view, calling “empty” the idea of transcendence detached from a concrete God: what good is self-transcendence if it does not lead to a transformative encounter with a living, personal reality? Lobkowicz concluded that any theology abolishing petitionary prayer — and thus thanksgiving — betrays its own purpose. In short, without a God to dialogue with, religion risks becoming philosophical rhetoric devoid of authentic spiritual life.

The second fact dates to 1973, the year of J. R. R. Tolkien’s death, when the German newspaper Das Ostpreußenblatt reported that:

Fig. 19

“The Kirchenpapier of the FDP continues to occupy public opinion within the Catholic Church. The bishops were shocked to learn that professors and theology students from both churches had collaborated in drafting the paper. Among them was the Dominican Father Anselm Hertz of the Walberberg monastery. His order had granted him permission to serve on a committee of the FDP party. Father Hertz, initially considered a ‘right-wing extremist,’ is said to have transformed into a left-wing adviser within the FDP.”

The “Kirchenpapier” was the document adopted by the Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP) in Germany, known as “Freie Kirche im freien Staat” (“Free Church in a Free State”), a “position paper” discussed and approved between 1966 and 1974 in the context of the FDP’s church policy. The German Free Democratic Party, founded in 1948, formally approved the main document at the 25th Federal Congress of the FDP in 1974. It contained a series of theses aimed at redefining the relationship between State and Church, promoting a clearer model of separation and conditions for religious freedom in line with the principles of liberal democracy.

APPENDIX

J. R. R. TOLKIEN, A. K. CHESTERTON AND CANDOUR: 

THE STORY OF A MISTAKEN CLAIM

I add as an appendix a letter published in the Catholic Herald on 4 June 1948, signed by Gerald Hamilton and entitled “Communism and Mosley”.

SIR, — During my recent visit to America I had occasion to visit Cardinal Spellman once or twice and during a long conversation with this most enlightened Prelate I realised that his fear and that of many other of the Catholic clergy was that we in Great Britain are not in fact fully alive to the real dangers of Communism. Indeed, on board the “Queen Mary” a well-known British politician assured me that Soviet policy was simply a continuation of Tsarist Russia’s ambitions, put into more effective practice. In my view this is begging the whole question. I do not care an atom (ominous word) about the political aims of Soviet Russia, but I do care about the gradual infiltration of International Communism, which is out to destroy as fast as possible our Christian civilisation and moral standards. Its teaching is. I take it, in Catholic eyes utterly abominable and we should surely welcome the aid of all men bonae voluntatis who combat this wickedness. For this reason Mr. Tolkien’s remarks about Sir Oswald Mosley are indeed au point. He is the head of the only political party in this country whose chief avowed aim is to overcome the menace of International Communism. He denounced in vigorous speeches the Red Terror in Spain just as a few years previously as the youngest member of the House of Commons he denounced the Black and Tan terror in Ireland. He has been often right, and he certainly has warned us enough about the Communist danger.

The interest in this letter stems from the phrase “For this reason Mr. Tolkien’s remarks about Sir Oswald Mosley are indeed au point.”

Fig. 20

The reference is not to the earlier discussion in which Michael participated following Hawksley’s letter, as Tolkien’s second son does not mention Oswald Mosley. It is likely, however, that between April and June 1948 M. H. R. Tolkien returned to the Catholic Herald to write on the subject, explicitly citing Mosley, although no archival trace of this has been found.

Not having found the letter written by Tolkien, almost certainly Michael H. R., it is not possible to report what exactly the “Mr. Tolkien’s remarks about Sir Oswald Mosley are indeed au point” referred to. do not know the tone of what Tolkien wrote, nor can I infer it from Hamilton’s brief phrase alone, and we do not know if Hamilton’s opinion aligned with that expressed by JRRT’s son (Mosley “is the head of the only political party in this country whose chief avowed aim is to overcome the menace of International Communism. He denounced in vigorous speeches the Red Terror in Spain just as a few years previously as the youngest member of the House of Commons he denounced the Black and Tan terror in Ireland. He has been often right, and he certainly has warned us enough about the Communist danger.”) Therefore, for now, I limit myself to reporting what is within my knowledge.

Fig. 21

Oswald Mosley was a controversial figure in the British political landscape. He served as an officer during the First World War, was a Conservative and later Labour MP. In 1932 he founded the British Union of Fascists, which he led until its dissolution in 1940. After the war, he continued political activity until his retirement in the 1960s. However, the figure of Mosley is useful to me as a link to that of A. K. Chesterton, cousin of the better-known Gilbert Keith Chesterton, and author of Oswald Mosley: Portrait of a Leader (1937), was briefly associated with Mosley but abandoned him in 1938 out of disillusionment. Chesterton himself founded the weekly Candour in 1953, a British nationalist, anti-immigration, and anti-communist magazine linked to the radical right.

This passage allows me to clarify a longstanding matter often brought up in discussions, concerning a purported twenty-year collection of Candour (1953–1973) owned by J. R. R. Tolkien, who reportedly made several annotations in red biro on some issues. This narrative originates from the words of Stephen Goodson, who claimed that in 1973 the Candour copies owned by Tolkien were sold for £10 and that he inherited them in 1997 from A. K. Chesterton’s secretary, Moyna Traill-Smith.

I do not intend to quote the supposed highlights “made by Tolkien,” as this is not the focus of my research, but it is worth asking: which Tolkien?

Fig. 22

In my view, it is entirely mistaken to consider J. R. R. Tolkien as the owner of this collection. He was anti-communist, as well as anti-fascist, and firmly opposed to any form of dictatorship, as clearly expressed in his letters. In none of my research, readings, or discussions have I ever encountered evidence supporting this story. Nor have I, or anyone else to my knowledge, ever seen the issues cited by Goodson, nor the alleged annotations attributed to the Professor.

There is no evidence— and I am convinced there is none— that J. R. R. Tolkien read Chesterton’s magazine. On the contrary, there is solid proof that the reader of Candour and correspondent of Chesterton, whose books he had also read, was Tolkien’s son Michael H. R.

This is a confirmed fact, but it does not imply that Tolkien’s second son endorsed the positions expressed by Chesterton and his magazine. Knowing this is of minor importance in this context. What is certain, as shown, is Michael’s opposition to the communist regime and its ideology, especially in relation to the Catholic faith, from shortly before the end of the war. Additionally, one should consider Michael H. R.’s interest in these matters stemming from his profession as a lecturer in Modern History and a scholar of political movements.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, it is important to clarify that Michael H. R. Tolkien was not J. R. R. Tolkien, and that the so-called “transitive ownership” of ideas—often, in bad faith, applied to one’s political or ideological opponents—is entirely unwarranted. The ideas expressed by Michael were and remain his own. To confuse them with those of his father would be immature.

This analysis has sought to contextualise the letters by reconstructing the public debates and historical settings in which they unfolded, so as to make them accessible to those who choose to undertake a biographical study of M. H. R. Tolkien. Any other interpretation—distorted and partisan—does not belong to me, nor would it ever have my endorsement.

NOTES

[1] A daily newspaper published by Trinity Mirror in Birmingham, Warwickshire. Its first issue appeared on 2 January 1914, while the final edition was published on 31 December 1945.

[2] He completed his studies in 1945, obtaining a degree in Modern History. In December of the same year, Joan gave birth to their second daughter, Joan Anne “Joanna.”

[3] One of the regulations used by the British government during the Second World War that allowed, without trial, the imprisonment of individuals actively opposed to the war against Germany and suspected of pro-Nazi sympathies.

[4] On 3 October 1944, he was the candidate endorsed by the Communists for the mayoral election in Kidderminster, one of the major towns in the Midlands, opposing Labour candidate Louis Tolly and the Conservative candidate (not yet selected at that date).

[5] He was re-elected for the fourth time.

[6] This agreement, however, did not materialise at the end of the War.

[7] Chamberlain also signed another agreement with Hitler, which provided for the use of peaceful means to resolve future disputes between the two countries.

[8] The first edition contains seven letters from J.R.R. Tolkien to M.H.R. Tolkien, with an additional two letters included in the revised and expanded edition.

[9] The Tehran Conference took place in November 1943, attended by the leaders of Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union.

[10] The Battle of Britain began with Nazi attacks over the English Channel (10 July – 11 August), followed by initial strikes on airfields along the coast (12–23 August), then the most critical phase (24 August – 6 September), and from 7 September until the end of October, with daylight raids on London.

[11] An agreement which never came into effect, as Hitler suspended negotiations to definitively break the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the following June, with the invasion of the Soviet Union. However, Tolkien could not have known this at the time.

FIGURES

1. Michael H. R. Tolkien in military uniform, August 1940 (portrait)

2. Archibald Maule Ramsay (portrait)

3. Evening Despatch

4. Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain

5. Winston Churchill and Iosef Stalin

6. World War II propaganda poster - Soviet War Poster Rush British arms to Russian hands - featuring a cartoon style caricature illustration by Nikolai Radlov (1889-1942)

7. Original vintage World War Two political propaganda poster issued by the Communist Party of Great Britain - Strike now in the West and finish the job!

9. “Communism is Death” (Harry S. Truman Library & Museum)

10. An American portrait of Winston Churchill when he was Prime Minister, probably during the Second World War. Date: circa 1940s.

11. Cyril Edwin Mitchinson Joad (portrait)

12. Operations: A German Luftwaffe Heinkel He 111 bomber flying over Wapping, London at the start of the Luftwaffe's evening raids of 7 September 1940.

13. Daily Worker

14. Douglas Hyde (portrait)

15. (25 Mar 1948) Douglas Hyde, former News Editor of the Daily Worker, explains why he has decided to leave the Communist Party. (British Movietone)

16. Battle of Vienna 11 September 1683 by Jan Matejko (detail)

17. Clement Attlee, Harry S. Truman, and Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam Conference, July 1945.

18. “Father, forgive them” – An American anti-Communist cartoon (1948) depicting a crowd of Communists rejoicing at the crucifixion of Christ. Drawn by Joe Maloney for The Tablet newspaper.

19. The feast of faith: approaches to a theology of the liturgy (1986) by Joseph Ratzinger (cover)

20. The “Kirchenpapier” (Freie Kirche im freien Staat, cover)

21. Oswald Mosley (portrait)

22. Oswald Mosley Portrait of a Leader (1937) by A. K. Chesterton (cover)

23. A. K. Chesterton (portrait)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BLACKWELL, Samuel

1944 ‘Public opinion,’ Evening Despatch, September 26, p. 3.

1944 “Malicious slander.” Evening Despatch, ‘Public opinion,’ October 9, p. 3.

CARPENTER, Humphrey (Ed.)

1981 The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd.

2023 The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien: Revised and Expanded edition, London: HarperCollinsPublisher.

CILLI, Oronzo

2020 ‘1944: Michael H. R. Tolkien e la Soviet mania’. Academia.edu.

EVENING DESPEATCH (British Newspaper)

1944 ‘Public opinion,’ October 3, p. 3.

1944 ‘Public opinion,’ October 16, p. 3.

1944 ‘Public opinion,’ October 17, p. 3.

GOODCHILD, H. Y.

1944 ‘Communist policy,’ Evening Despatch, ‘Public opinion,’ October 12, p. 3.

HAMILTON, Gerald

1948 ‘Communism and Mosley’. Catholic Herald, June 4, p. 2.

HAWKSLEY, Oliver

1948 ‘Why so few?’. Catholic Herald, April 2, p. 2.

LIVERPOOL DAILY POST (British Newspaper)

1941 ‘Daily Worker Suppressed. Offices raided by Scotland Yard. Distribution now an offence,’ January 22, 1941, p. 1

NOT FORGOTTEN

1944 ‘British Communists Excluded,’ Evening Despatch, ‘Public opinion,’ October 4, p. 3.

OSTPREUẞENBLATT, DAS (German weekly newspaper)

1973 ‘FDP-Kirchenpapier’. ‘Neues Aus Bonn’, September 29, p. 4.

RATZINGER, Joseph

1986 The feast of faith: approaches to a theology of the liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

SCULL, Christina & HAMMOND, Wayne G.

2017 The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide, I Chronology, HarperCollinsPublisher.

TOLKIEN, Michael Hilary Reuel

1944 ‘Soviet ‘mania',’ Evening Despatch, ‘Public opinion,’ October 14, p. 3.

1948 ‘Labour and Russia’. Catholic Herald, April 16, p. 2.

1948 ‘Dominicans in Germany’. Catholic Herald, April 16, p. 2.