: First it is necessary to try to make some sort of rough and ready definition of what makes a society feudal.

Agreed.

: A feudal society is one where relationships which in non-feudal advanced societies are based on money and trade transactions are largely replaced by personal service.
: This is not to say that a feudal society may not possess a coinage or have merchants, just that a fully developed monetary market economy does not exist, or at least is of limited scope and importance.
: A central feature of feudal societies is both the personal nature of the relationships within it (I will return to this theme later). Probably deriving from this is another important facet of feudalism - heredity. In feudal societies the perquisites of power and "Public office" tend to be hereditary, and more than this the status of virtually every member of society is fixed from birth.

This is all of one sort. Let me see if I can add some clarification.

Feudalism is generally defined as an economic and political system based on vassalage. Certainly, as you say, personal relationships are based largely, though not necessarily exclusively, on personal service. What's interesting, however, is that of the two components, or "faces" of feudalism, most of your focus - and your case - is on the political aspect - specifically, the hereditary transmission of political offices. Let's take the political side first, then.

I. Political Feudalism

Even Michael would concede that, in fact, most of the primary political positions in Gondorian society - the King, the Steward, the lordships of the primary political divisions were indeed hereditary. Numenoreans (to put it mildly) placed a great deal of stock on lineage, and this undoubtedly had implications for social mobility as well. As you well point out:

: 2) Heredity - offices of state seem to have readily become inheritable in Gondor that of the Steward being the most obvious. The positions of lords of fiefs, which would equate with a provincial governor or satrap, to judge from the Princes of Dol Amroth (the only indication we have) are also hereditary.

What's less clear, however, is the system of services all this entailed. A number of minor lords - Lossarnach, etc. - are mentioned, and it's fairly clear that each seems to be responsible for producing a set number of men at arms at need. Whether they serve in a system of hierarchical vassalage - i.e., that a minor lord would owe his service and that of his men first to, say, Angbor of Lamedon before the King/Steward, is unclear. The major lords mentioned, however, do seem to have had some discretion as to how many troops they might contribute to the central army. Also unclear is the exact nature of the relationship between knights or other men at arms and the lords. Did they receive land for their service? Or cash payment? We simply don't know.

So far so good. But all this proves is that Gondor had a political system based on hereditary nobility - which is not quite the same thing as feudalism. It is, however, a necessary component. Especially when at least a limited degree of vassalage involving military service appears to be involved. We may conclude that Gondor appears to have been at least semi-feudal in its political structure - or at least, that it exhbits certain feudal traits. In contrast to a medieval king, however, the Stewards seem to have retained a great deal of centralized, if not quite absolute, authority. I would call it a centralized feudal (or semi-feudal) polity.

II. Economic Feudalism

To some extent, economic and political systems overlap, and this is certainly true of feudalism, where economic relationships involve owed services which have inherently political implications. But some aspects can be isolated.

European (and Japanese) feudalism was characterized economically by feudation, whereby services were rendered by vassals in the form of rents by the landless, and by military service (and possibly rents) by landed vassals. In the case of Europe (since you bring it up), this evolved (or devolved) from proto feudal structures already in place in the last Roman period (primarily latifundia), with some modification by Germanic tribes. As you've noted, this collapsed into pure feudalism when external trade all but came to a halt in the seventh and eighth centuries:

: It would seem therefore that lack of trade dynamics and the resulting loss of a true monetary economy result in a society turning in on its own local resources and towards feudalism.

: So what of the position of Gondor?
: In the whole of Tolkien's writings I can only think of one instance of any long distance trade in ordinary produce - wine to the Elven Kingdom of Mirkwood. Dwarves are reputed to be traders but other than the odd firework to The Shire nothing much is seen of Dwarven trading. Even the Numenoreans do not come across as great traders - they came to M. Earth as asset strippers (Lond Daer woodchopping) and later as overlords but seem to have been far too lordly to haggle!

Actually, they first came in a benign fashion, teaching the Men of the coasts new skills. It was only when they began establishing havens that resource exploitation began in earnest.

: Gondor in the later Third Age had few trading opportunities. Eriador was moribund, the Dwarves distant, the Northmen few and rather scattered, Rohan a possibility but little is said of trade with her, and lastly there are Rhun and Harad whose inhabitants were constantly hostile.
: It would seem that conditions were right in Gondor for a feudal society to be in operation. Indeed, given the Numenoreans' apparent lack of interest or ability in trade, feudal society may have been of long standing with the Dunedain..

This is all extrapolation on your part - and not bad extrapolation either. The evidence, however, as is clear even from your treatment, is nearly nonexistent as regard Gondorian trade in the late Third Age, save that it had certainly declined from earlier years.

A lack of extrernal trade, however, is not always consonant with feudalism. It was certainly true of Western Europe and Japan; however, it was also true of many primitive societies, as well as at least one advanced one in China, at least during several periods in its history. Given the lack of evidence, we can only speculate about the precide economic structure of Gondor at the end of the Third Age. It's likely that, indeed, trade had seriously declined, that urban vitality had significantly diminished, and that there was likely a strengthening to some degree of certain client-vassal relationships in late Gondorian society. The best medieval parallel, in this sense, would be Byzantium, not post-Roman Western Europe, for Byzantium retained a class of small landed farmers well into the Middle Ages. There's no evidence of a class of peasantry in Gondor, and I tend to believe that peasantry was contrary to the Numenorean character, even in it's diluted state.

Based on the meager evidence available, it seems impossible to definitively characterize Gondorian society as economically feudal - or even to extrapolate such a conclusion. I suspect that Gondor, in its deterioration, was beginning to develop increasingly feudal economic characteristics as trade declined - just as Rome, one of Tolkien's models for Gondor, did in its last stages. But that's just speculation. We just don't know.

In regards to your discussion of Tolkien's choice of nomenclature, I think you may overstate the case. It's dangerous to read too much into Tolkien's choice of words, especially with what we know if his later regrets regarding some of it. Not that it can be entirely ignored; there's a good deal of it, after all. However, given the absence of a landless peasantry and the centralized (albeit weakening) nature of the Gondorian political system, I'd be reluctant to characterize Gondor as anything worse than semi-feudal.

My conclusion: Politically, Gondor appears to have possessed a rather centralized feudalism; economically, there's no evidence of key aspects of feudalism.

R.M. Lender
aka "Oberon"