|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 7, 11:04am
Post #1 of 28
(3483 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Who killed Frodo's parents?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Introduction
The question of who killed Frodo's parents is presented in the first chapter of the book like a murder mystery but not given a definite solution. The story then appears to forget all about the mystery and moves to different matters, never to return to solve once and for all the suspicious drowning deaths of Drogo and Primula.
I started thinking whether Tolkien in fact might have left enough evidence for the reader to solve the case or if he had used the story of Drogo and Primula's deaths simply as a way to remove Frodo's parents from the story as unneeded distractions that would have complicated the plot of Frodo inheriting the One Ring and going on an adventure. But if Tolkien was planning for his riddle to have a solution, we can assume he adhered to the general principle in fictional murder mysteries: the guilty person must be a character that appears in the story, not some vagrant that is never spotted by anyone and then goes away permanently without a trace. This presented a way to approach the issue: I would simply need to examine every single character in the story and see if they fit. After eliminating the unworkable options, what was left should then be Tolkien's intended answer.
So I went through characters ranging from Bilbo to Sauron and checked if they made sense as the solution intended by Tolkien. I considered means, motive, and opportunity in relation to the deaths of Drogo and Primula. Most book characters fit very poorly. In the end, not one but two strong candidates remained standing.
The Case for Intentional Drowning
Firstly, I think it is important to establish that the hobbits had cause to believe that a murder had in fact occurred, even if we don't have a detailed analysis of the evidence that would have been available to a local detective. Sandyman the miller supports the murder interpretation and Old Noakes supports the accident interpretation:
"I’ve heard they went on the water after dinner in the moonlight," said Old Noakes; "and it was Drogo's weight as sunk the boat."
"And I heard she pushed him in, and he pulled her in after him," said Sandyman, the Hobbiton miller.
Our tie-breaker is Gaffer, who uses the phrases "was drownded" and "were drownded" in relation to the case, which implies that he believes (from unspecified evidence) that the deaths were a case of intentional drowning by someone.
"A decent respectable hobbit was Mr. Drogo Baggins; there was never much to tell of him, till he was drownded."
"[..] and he and his wife were drownded, and poor Mr. Frodo only a child and all."
Gaffer's son Sam uses the verb "drownd" twice in unrelated situations later on (once when he had nearly drowned in Anduin and another time when talking metaphorically about Galadriel to Faramir). Sam's words usage confirms that the hobbitish "drownd" in speech is used just like the more normal "drown", with the same range.
Option A: The Outside Solution (Goldberry)
This option may not seem the most likely one at the first glance (a plus when talking about fictional murder mysteries) but has its foundation in Tolkien's beloved folklore. I am talking about the beautiful Goldberry.
The thing about Goldberry is that she would appear to fit the category of a nixie: a water spirit that is sometimes associated with water lilies and has as one of its central traits that it likes to drown people. Water spirits that drown people are a common feature in European folklore, appearing under many local names such as nixie, rusalka, and more. Some spirits are described as entirely female. The folklore of England too has several female water spirits that drown people.
The nixie interpretation finds support in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil where a young unmarried Goldberry draws Tom Bombadil under the river surface. However Tom Bombadil can speak perfectly well underwater and orders Goldberry to go to sleep, which makes Goldberry's antics look less dangerous than they really are. Despite being light-hearted on the surface, the poem treats the danger posed by Goldberry with the same degree of seriousness (or lack of it) it uses for the deadly Old Man Willow, which should be a big clue that Goldberry and Old Man Willow are actually comparable as monsters. Goldberry might even be worse, as she is more mobile and rivers connect many things.
Having nothing better to do with her time before she moved in with Tom Bombadil, Goldberry could easily have left the Withywindle for a swim in the Brandywine and drowned an unsuspecting hobbit couple she encountered by chance. Perhaps Drogo let his hand hang over the edge of the boat (something that the Brandybucks might have known to avoid), and Goldberry then used that hand to pull down the whole hobbit. Primula trying to save her husband and being pulled down too could have been plausibly interpreted by an observer on the river bank as Primula trying to drown her husband.
Goldberry may be beautiful and charming, but she is still a monster like the other entities that dwell in Tom Bombadil's country. A trail of corpses would not be out of the question with such a being and in fact would only be expected. She and her kin could easily be the real reason so many hobbits are suspicious of the idea of boating and consider it much the same as playing with death.
Option B: The Solution Hidden in Plain Sight (Primula)
Then there is the option that we actually have been told the solution to the murderer's identity in the story, right in the scene where the murder mystery is discussed:
"And I heard she [Primula] pushed him [Drogo] in, and he pulled her in after him," said Sandyman, the Hobbiton miller.
It's worth considering that Sandyman the miller might in fact have the correct information in this case, even if Gaffer doesn't support him and the miller isn't portrayed as a likable character.
In any case, it's not like Drogo was the type to have many enemies, which disqualifies a lot of hobbits from having a plausible motive:
"A decent respectable hobbit was Mr. Drogo Baggins; there was never much to tell of him, till he was drownded."
Gaffer omits mentionging whether Primula was a decent respectable hobbit too or if there were rumors about her. He only grants her one adjective:
"You see: Mr. Drogo, he married poor Miss Primula Brandybuck."
Gaffer calls Primula "poor" without explaining his word choice. It might be relevant that Drogo was 12 years older than Primula and would have been particularly fat even for a hobbit based on how someone could say even as a joke that the boat sunk because of Drogo's weight:
"I’ve heard they went on the water after dinner in the moonlight," said Old Noakes; "and it was Drogo's weight as sunk the boat."
It would be an easy interpretation that Primula felt trapped in an unhappy marriage to a boring and very overweight husband. It is unknown what year exactly the marriage took place, but it is likely that Drogo for whatever reason (impotency, infertility, or just lack of interest) was unable to give Primula children for many years. This all would be why Gaffer found Primula pitiful.
There were also other rumors, the secrets behind which could have potentially influenced the tragic course of events:
"Drownded?" said several voices. They had heard this and other darker rumours before, of course; but hobbits have a passion for family history, and they were ready to hear it again.
Assuming these darker rumors were related to the subject matter and not something entirely different such as foreign politics (not like hobbits cared much about that kind of stuff) or the deep dark family secrets of other unrelated hobbits, these rumors would probably be something that have relevance to the highly unusual deaths of Drogo and Primula. Now the question would be what those darker rumors would be. Suspected murder might be expected be as dark as it gets, but it seems that in the peaceful, quaint Shire there were darker rumors still.
My answer to this is that there were suspicions about Frodo's true parentage.
Lobelia Sackville-Baggins to Frodo:
"You don’t belong here; you’re no Baggins - you - you're a Brandybuck!"
Lobelia appears to have been on the verge of saying something much worse here when she hesitates, only tempering her words at the last moment. That would have been why she ends her speech with a relative non-insult after her earlier vehemence.
Old Noakes on Frodo:
"Baggins is his name, but he’s more than half a Brandybuck, they say."
Primula was a Brandybuck, accounting for 50% of Frodo's ancestry, but Drogo's mother was a Bolger, his grandmother a Hornblower, and his great-grandmother a Boffin. This amounts to 0% Brandybuck contribution from that side, though admittedly we don't have the additional family trees to check Drogo's foremothers for possible Brandybuck admixture. However I don't think Lobelia and Old Noakes were thinking about such a trivial thing, or the childhood years Frodo spent at Brandy Hall.
I think the deep dark secret here is that Primula was suspected of being an adulteress and Frodo was suspected of not being Drogo's child. Frodo's true father would have been unknown but suspected (falsely) of being a Brandybuck, perhaps even a Brandybuck too closely related for Primula to marry, making Frodo's birth a case of possible incest.
It is unclear what the legal penalties would have been if Drogo had formally accused Primula and she had been found guilty, but it sounds likely that the consequences would have been significant. There is much we don't know about the legal system in the Shire but we know that it has detailed and strict rules for valid legal documents and that lawyer is a profession that exists there. At the very least, even if there was no firm evidence either way, Primula's reputation would have been ruined and she would have become a social pariah.
Here is the resulting scenario: The likely chain of events is that Drogo went boating so that he could have a private conversation with Primula without being overheard by one of the Brandybucks. Drogo wanted to discuss Primula's suspected infidelity and did not want to wait until they both got home. This caused an argument, and harsh words were spoken. In the end Drogo said something dangerously final, and Primula, driven to a corner, pushed her husband overboard so that he would drown. In the resulting struggle he pulled her down with him, and they both died.
There would have been at least one witness to the struggle and sound carries well over the water, explaining how the elder Sandyman could have come to his information. Drogo as a non-Brandybuck plausibly might not have been familiar with the properties of sound over water, and he also might not have expected for the conversation to turn into shouting. If Primula had survived the boating trip, she would have been in serious trouble and headed for a scandalous murder trial.
An Aside: Frodo's Ancestry
Returning to the matter of Frodo's ancestry, Merry refutes Lobelia's charge that Frodo was really a Brandybuck:
"It was a compliment," said Merry Brandybuck, "and so, of course, not true."
As a high-ranking Brandybuck himself, Merry should have the superior insider knowledge on family rumors. Therefore there is reason to think that Primula's secret lover (assuming the thought process behind Option B is correct) was not a Brandybuck but someone else.
Gaffer:
"A very nice well-spoken gentlehobbit is Mr. Bilbo, as I’ve always said."
A charming bachelor like that is the type that could be easily seen winning the affections of a lonely and unfulfilled wife, especially once you remember that Bilbo looked remarkably youthful for his age.
Frodo also had a lot of family resemblance to Bilbo:
Gaffer:
"But be that as it may, Mr. Frodo is as nice a young hobbit as you could wish to meet. Very much like Mr. Bilbo, and in more than looks."
Of course Bilbo and Drogo were first cousins and all that, but Gaffer appears to think that Bilbo and Frodo turned out more alike than would normally be expected. Bilbo in possession of the One Ring could easily have used his Ring for more than avoiding Lobelia's visits. The Ring's invisibility power would also have been useful to avoid being spotted by Drogo and the neighbors that would have taken note if Primula started receiving visits from a certain gentlehobbit while Drogo was away.
Sandyman the miller:
"He's [Bilbo's] often away from home."
Some of those mysterious absences noted by Sandyman could have been to meet with Primula. The inability of Primula's watchful neighbors to figure out the offending person would presumably have been the biggest reason why Primula's lover would have been believed by the Hobbiton hobbits to be a Brandybuck whom she met on her and Drogo's notably many visits to Buckland. Drogo in turn might have chosen to visit Buckland so often specifically because he had started to suspect that Primula might have a secret lover back home.
Bilbo himself would have known the truth, and this would have been the real reason that he, after a suitable period of time to throw off suspicion, legally adopted Frodo and took him as a heir.
Conclusion
So I present the possibility that Tolkien intentionally crafted an enigma with two solutions that give the reader a choice of two female murderers. Both options follow the standard mystery fiction pattern in that they require for the reader to get past the initial impressions and think critically about the available evidence. The choice of Primula results in a story closer to realistic fiction with its dramatic forbidden love affairs and interpersonal conflicts while the choice of Goldberry leans more towards fantasy and horror fiction where beautiful but inhuman monsters are a staple.
I think Tolkien may have been expecting reader debates about who did it, Primula or Goldberry, but was then surprised when people didn't even seem to notice the mystery.
Additionally, having written this all made me think if it might be possible to make a synthesis of the two contradictory solutions, a "Primula = Goldberry" option if you will. In fact people who had died by drowning, especially if the drowning was from suicide or murder, were in European folklore often believed to turn into water spirits such as Goldberry. If Goldberry had been a hobbit named Primula in a forgotten previous life, this would mean that the Primula option was the historical true version while Goldberry under that identity could not have been the killer in that particular case due to not having been born yet. Thus both Primula and Goldberry could be said to be the real answer: Primula as far as history is concerned and Goldberry for the present day of the story.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
May 7, 2:28pm
Post #2 of 28
(3452 views)
Shortcut
|
Other than the rather mean-spirited Sandyman's conjectures. what evidence of hobbit-cide is actually presented? All I'm seeing is wild speculation based upon rumor, with nothing substantial at hand. In short, there is no case. What I see was most probably an accidental double drowning, unfortunate, even tragic, but not homicide.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 7, 5:55pm
Post #3 of 28
(3451 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I blame that innocent-looking Professor with the pipe!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I enjoyed your post, S-G.
I appreciated you starting with 2 possibilities:
I started thinking whether Tolkien in fact might have left enough evidence for the reader to solve the case or if he had used the story of Drogo and Primula's deaths simply as a way to remove Frodo's parents from the story as unneeded distractions that would have complicated the plot of Frodo inheriting the One Ring and going on an adventure.
And to match that, I have two replies. Going through your possibilities in order, therefore:
1) Conventional reply
To be honest, if you asked me to guess what Tolkien meant by it, I'd say that he needed to give childless batchelor Bilbo an heir, and so needed to orphan Frodo. Then I'd think about the writerly use Tolkien gets from Frodo's parents dying in a boating accident that's still the subject of gossip and rumour years later. And I'd write it off to having a good excuse for the Gaffer to get into exposition: side-benefits of revealing a slightly nastier side to hobbit society, and of giving another source of disagreement between the Baggins-loyalist Gamgees and the Baggins-sceptical folk in that conversation. Oh, and of course, I think we're supposed to be finding the hobbits a little parochial and amusing, but without despising that in them. Perhaps I'd also say that Tolkien seems to be very prim about sexual matters in Middle-earth (but that came up recently).
And then lastly I'd wonder why there wasn't something in Letters or elsewhere had he really intended this to be a mystery and had been disapointed by the lack of engagement from his readership. That last point wouldn't be conclusive, of course: one could argue - with good evidence - that Tolkien thought readers should make up their own minds about the tale, and not have every last thing explained. And so maybe Tolkien kept some ideas for his private amusement, it not mattering one jot nor tittle whether readers appreciated them.
2) But hey, let's have some fun!
(1) is probably not at all unexpected. How about losening up and enjoying your other option? So I enjoyed it. 
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by noWizardme on May 7, 6:01pm)
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 7, 8:42pm
Post #4 of 28
(3436 views)
Shortcut
|
Other than the rather mean-spirited Sandyman's conjectures. what evidence of hobbit-cide is actually presented?
#1: Sandyman claims he is repeating information he heard from elsewhere while Old Noakes is clearly repeating a mean-spirited joke that makes fun of Drogo's weight. Sandyman's information could derive from a reliable source while Old Noakes's scenario is plain implausible if taken literally. The boat would have sunk right away at the pier if Drogo really was that heavy.
#2: Gaffer says Drogo and Primula were drownded. Not "Drogo and Primula drownded". I think this is a highly significant distinction grammatically.
Gaffer may not think that Primula killed Drogo, but that doesn't mean that Gaffer believes the drownings were accidental. I think Gaffer instead thinks the murderer was a third party, but if he suspects anyone in particular he doesn't say.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
May 8, 4:27am
Post #5 of 28
(3424 views)
Shortcut
|
Or "drownded" is simply an odd, provincial hobbit phrasing and you are reading far too much into it. My actual objection, though, is how you casually ignore or dismiss the real possibility (probability really) that the drowning of Drogo and Primula was completely accidental.
I also note the stated fact that there has never been a recorded instance of any hobbit committing a murder in the entire history of the Shire. The only example that we do have is the murder of Déagol by his friend (cousin?) Sméagol. And that was approximately 500 years before Frodo's time.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 8, 5:11am
Post #6 of 28
(3424 views)
Shortcut
|
"Drogo was drowned" is like "Mistakes were made" - a passive sentence that hides responsibility but does not eliminate it.
"Drogo drowned."
- Active sentence
- Intransitive version of "drown"
- Drogo as the subject
"Drogo was drowned."
- Passive sentence
- Transitive version of "drown"
- Drogo as the object
If Drogo was the object, then who was the hidden subject? It would have to have been someone capable of physically drowning a hobbit - an intentional murderer.
There are five uses total of "drownd" of the book. These demonstrate that "drownd" is used the same as "drown" with formulations like Sam's "drownd yourself" when discussing Galadriel's influence on people.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
May 8, 1:48pm
Post #7 of 28
(3394 views)
Shortcut
|
You continue to make unwarranted assumptions and treat them as though they were solid facts. Yes, Professor Tolkien was a master of language; however, he is here depicting characters who are not, and do not necessarily always use proper grammar. It might simply be that the Gaffer is attempting to sound a bit more educated than he actually is, and not entirely succeeding. Or he might be distinguishing "was drownded" as in an accident from "drownded" as in having drowned himself and Primula in an act of murder/suicide. Keep in mind that it is also Sam's Gaffer who notes:
There is no call to go talking of pushing or pulling. Boats are quite tricky enough for those that sit still without looking further for the cause of trouble. It is quite obvious from this that the Gaffer was not attempting to imply any foul play involved in the deaths of Drogo and his wife. But gossips will gossip and it's not surprising that rumors would have risen around the tragedy. You may be familiar with the fan-theory that Gollum was responsible for the accident despite that we are told that he never made it west of the Misty Mountains.
As for your Goldberry hypothesis, I'm fairly certain that the River-daughter is much older than she looks; she and Tom Bombadil have probably been a couple for many decades, if not centuries. She also doesn't seem the type to drown a random pair of hobbits for no reason.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 8, 1:54pm)
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 8, 5:11pm
Post #8 of 28
(3390 views)
Shortcut
|
You continue to make unwarranted assumptions and treat them as though they were solid facts. Yes, Professor Tolkien was a master of language; however, he is here depicting characters who are not, and do not necessarily always use proper grammar. It might simply be that the Gaffer is attempting to sound a bit more educated than he actually is, and not entirely succeeding. Or he might be distinguishing "was drownded" as in an accident from "drownded" as in having drowned himself and Primula in an act of murder/suicide.
Gaffer is an adult native speaker. He knows how to speak his own language, even if it may differ somewhat from the official book version. Tolkien makes Gaffer use "drownded" twice, which shows that he didn't have a transient slip of a tongue. "Drownd" is definitely not an educated word but part of the local Hobbiton folk dialect. Sam uses it too.
There is nothing fancy about passive sentences either even if they tend to be over-used in bureaucrat talk. Transitive and intransitive verbs are basic too. Ordinary people use all these correctly without thinking about what they're doing, even if they have no idea what all these grammatical terms mean.
And once again, Sam's two uses of "drownd" elsewhere in the book demonstrate that the Hobbiton "drownd" works exactly like "drown" in standard English.
Keep in mind that it is also Sam's Gaffer who notes: There is no call to go talking of pushing or pulling. Boats are quite tricky enough for those that sit still without looking further for the cause of trouble. It is quite obvious from this that the Gaffer was not attempting to imply any foul play involved in the deaths of Drogo and his wife. But gossips will gossip and it's not surprising that rumors would have risen around the tragedy.
I think Gaffer thinks an outside person/entity did it. He might believe the superstitious rumors about the water spirits that murder people minding their own business.
You may be familiar with the fan-theory that Gollum was responsible for the accident despite that we are told that he never made it west of the Misty Mountains.
My top rejected candidates were 1) Bilbo, 2) the Brandybucks, 3) Tom Bombadil, 4) Gollum, 5) Frodo. All rejected for good reasons.
The least likely candidate of them all would probably be Éowyn, who would have required a time machine among other things.
As for your Goldberry hypothesis, I'm fairly certain that the River-daughter is much older than she looks; she and Tom Bombadil have probably been a couple for many decades, if not centuries. She also doesn't seem the type to drown a random pair of hobbits for no reason.
Someone who could be much older than she looks is not necessarily really much older than she looks, and by the time the hobbits meet Goldberry it has already been decades from the deaths of Drogo and Primula. Water spirits are mortal in folklore too.
Goldberry is currently under Tom Bombadil's power, and from the evidence of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil it very much looks like Goldberry is the type to drown people for no reason or some reason only known to herself. Water spirits drowning random people is also accurate to widespread depictions in folklore.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
May 9, 1:11am
Post #9 of 28
(3384 views)
Shortcut
|
Keep in mind that it is also Sam's Gaffer who notes: There is no call to go talking of pushing or pulling. Boats are quite tricky enough for those that sit still without looking further for the cause of trouble. It is quite obvious from this that the Gaffer was not attempting to imply any foul play involved in the deaths of Drogo and his wife. But gossips will gossip and it's not surprising that rumors would have risen around the tragedy. I think Gaffer thinks an outside person/entity did it. He might believe the superstitious rumors about the water spirits that murder people minding their own business.
If you are just going to dismiss the Gaffer's own words then I'm not sure there's much less to discuss. I do think that I've adequately demonstrated that the old hobbit's usage of grammar can be interpreted in more than one manner. His phrasing does not need to imply any suspicion of wrongdoing.
I do admire your ability to think outside of the box. My issue is that you tend to forget to include the box. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and an accident is simply an accident.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 9, 6:18am
Post #10 of 28
(3376 views)
Shortcut
|
If you are just going to dismiss the Gaffer's own words then I'm not sure there's much less to discuss. I do think that I've adequately demonstrated that the old hobbit's usage of grammar can be interpreted in more than one manner. His phrasing does not need to imply any suspicion of wrongdoing.
You yourself are dismissing Gaffer's own words that say that 1) Drogo was drowned (was drownded), and 2) Drogo and Primula were drowned (were drownded). Gaffer doesn't say drowned by whom or what, but I don't think he added those extra was/were in his sentences for no reason, and Tolkien wouldn't have had one of his characters say something other than what he meant just to confuse the reader. (The closest thing I can think of is Gollum using wrong plurals, but those imply that he isn't a native speaker and that he learned Common from someone who also wasn't a native speaker. Also, Gollum's native language appears to be like Chinese [or Black Speech] in that it has no grammatical plural.)
There is no call to go talking of pushing or pulling. Boats are quite tricky enough for those that sit still without looking further for the cause of trouble.
Here Gaffer is dismissing the idea of a marital conflict, presumably thinking Drogo too "decent and respectable" for such things. Gaffer doesn't specify how exactly boats are "tricky", and them being prone to falling over for no reason is only an assumption.
Boats are quite tricky enough for those that sit still without looking further for the cause of trouble.
Clearly Gaffer has a deep distrust of boats, but what does he think are the dangers with sitting still, on a river with minimal waves? Does he think boats are prone to tipping over for no reason? If he does, then I think we can dismiss his opinion as a product of ignorance and prejudice. I have some experience with small rowboats, and they really don't tip over just like that.
Gaffer could well mean that with boats someone can easily end up being murdered by a nixie for no reason, even if most hobbits don't believe in nixies these days.
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 9, 11:56am
Post #11 of 28
(3367 views)
Shortcut
|
About treating Drogo and Primula's drowning deaths as simply "an accident", I'd like to mention that accidents don't "just happen" by themselves in a vacuum. There are always causes leading to the accident, and I don't think "Drogo was fat and heavy" is sufficient reason to explain the accident, even if his weight was a contributing factor.
Here is an example of how a realistic boating accident with Drogo and Primula could have happened:
After an extravagant dinner involving large amounts of beer, Drogo (drunk) and Primula (drunk) decide that it would be a fine and romantic idea to go boating in moonlight. They do so, and while in the boat Drogo gets a sudden urge to urinate. He stands up to relieve himself, and Primula is too drunk to stop him in time. The boat tips over, and Drogo and Primula both drown.
I somehow think this chain of events won't be popular either, but an accident probably wouldn't have happened there without large amounts of foolishness, and probably drunken foolishness at that.
Realistically speaking, nimble and dexterous hobbits should be excellent at handling boats, only having trouble with rowing against strong currents, but somehow boats have a deadly reputation among hobbits. The only explanations for this that I can think of are a) water monsters being surprisingly common in Middle-earth, b) something to do with the power of Ulmo in the rivers rejecting hobbits, or c) something do with hobbits being magical creatures aligned with the Earth element, not the Water element.
By the way, while researching this topic I found out that nymphs and rusalkas at least are mortal in folklore. Thus the monster dying of old age could cause a waterway to become safe even if no monster-slayer was available, but a new monster could then move in without anyone being the wiser until the deaths started again.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
May 9, 1:21pm
Post #12 of 28
(3327 views)
Shortcut
|
No, I am not disregarding Gaffer Gamgee's words. I am acknowledging that his usage of "was drownded" can be understood in more than one manner. You, however, are trying to have it both ways: Insisting that Sam's dad is implying that some form of foul play was involved in the drowning deaths of Drogo and Prumula even after he makes a statement that flatly contradicts that view.
Now I really think we should be able to move off of this particular point and explore other avenues on the general subject. The possible involvement of some creature on or in the water has merit.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
May 9, 1:29pm
Post #13 of 28
(3316 views)
Shortcut
|
Frodo supports you (or vice versa), and there's no reason to doubt him. It's part of why the Shire is so bucolic.
'No hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire, and it is not to begin now.'
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 9, 2:09pm
Post #14 of 28
(3259 views)
Shortcut
|
Frodo supports you (or vice versa), and there's no reason to doubt him. It's part of why the Shire is so bucolic. 'No hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire, and it is not to begin now.'
I expected for someone to quote that passage. In fact I'm surprised it didn't appear earlier in this thread...
You may notice that Frodo's sentence has a lot of qualifiers in it:
(No hobbit has ever killed) (another [hobbit]) (on purpose) (in the Shire).
Presumably all of those parts are required or the sentence would become false. Therefore there should be at least one case where a hobbit killed another hobbit on purpose outside of the Shire. Is Frodo really thinking of only Gollum here?
You see, Drogo and Primula died on the Brandywine River. The Shire ended at the Brandywine River.
(And then there is the case of Pearl Took, mentioned in Tolkien's Letters. That one had a lot of uncertainty over whether it was really an intentional hobbit-on-hobbit murder in the Shire or a careless accident that resulted in death.)
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
May 9, 5:53pm
Post #15 of 28
(3150 views)
Shortcut
|
|
riverine borders & jurisprudence
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You see, Drogo and Primula died on the Brandywine River. The Shire ended at the Brandywine River.
My understanding of river boundaries in international law is that they conform to one of three principles:
• Geographic middle of the river - median line
• Middle of the channel or thalweg
• Shore or bank of the river.
Do we know what the situation was with Brandywine, as the de factor border between the Shire, as granted by Argeleb II, and Buckland? Could be pertinent to the case.
We should probably also take into account the fact that rivers can change course over time, leading to border adjustments - as witnessed on several occasions on the borders of Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 9, 6:59pm
Post #16 of 28
(3095 views)
Shortcut
|
...if Frodo believed his parents to have died in an accident but they hadn't really, then Frodo would be innocently mistaken.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Dor-Lomin
May 9, 7:08pm
Post #17 of 28
(3088 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Just a thought about Goldberry
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If she was a somewhat waywood but ultimately good spirit who else do we know like that? Maybe Ossie of the sea, ally of Uinen. Maybe she is his daughter!
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
May 10, 8:49pm
Post #18 of 28
(3034 views)
Shortcut
|
|
it's murder on that watery dance floor
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
An interesting reading! Taking a leaf from noWiz's post, I'd remark that the fact that Tolkien never mused, in correspondence for example, that no one ever cottoned on to his hidden murder mystery is telling enough, for me, that there was no such murder mystery. In addition, I'm not as convinced as you that the text supports the theory as resolutely as you set out.
The 'was drownded' line is having to do a lot of heavy lifting in your reading, I reckon. I defo take the point that 'was drownded' is another way of saying 'was drowned'. However, my own take is that we're getting a series of very colloquial exchanges, where a strict grammatical analysis isn't actually that helpful. The Gaffer is, in my view, making the point that a (double) drowning occurred. And indeed he goes on to dismiss innuendo about anything sinister in the tragedy. A quick Google also tells me that 'was drowned / were drowned at sea' is a way of describing loss of life at sea, without requiring someone actually being the agent of that drowning - a siren, rusalka, silkie, nixie, spouse or any other entity. Seas and rivers - not a perfect comparator but the lingo is worth reflecting on, I reckon.
The main thing on my mind with the murder theory is that I'm not sure it goes with what I see as the function of the pub conversation the author constructs. Especially when it comes to the Gaffer. In each exchange, it comes across to me that the Gaffer is the 'voice of reason', who is there to provide a counterbalance to the 'unreason', in the form of gossip and innuendo. He tells Ted Sandyman to get back in his box on more than one occasion - he reckons Sandyman is wrong and, implicitly, that he's a wrongun', which he turns out to be, proving the Gaffer's point in that regard too. He also tells the visitor from Michel Delving that the legend of Bilbo's hoard of 'jools' and the alleged tunnel network under Bag End is massively overegged - the equivalent of an urban legend. Again, I reckon it's meant to come across as the Gaffer being far closer to accuracy than the claims made by those around him.
There's other ways to read the text though, as ever - not least through the prism of a murder mystery!
Endnote: I note from HoMe VI that the drowning story was once briefly attached to the story of Bilbo's parents and later recycled into the story of Frodo's.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
May 11, 1:39am
Post #19 of 28
(2833 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Someone has an utter lack of etymology...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Drownd is an archaic form of drown and drownded is an archaic form of drowned. It is still found in some dialects either by survival or by emphasis of the -ed since the rhymes-with-round sound of drowned may not sound as obviously past-tense to some ears as others.
It also shows up in a monologue by Marriott Edgar (British Poet and humorist, October 5, 1880 - May 5, 1951): "Nah, thi dint think much to the ocean, waves wur all figgly an small, thur wur no wrecks and nobody drownded, fact, nowt much to laugh at adall."
I would suggest that is the dialect Tolkien borrowed, in part, for the Gaffer. Also notice the use of "nowt" in the phrase, another Gafferism. Actually, Edgar's poems are suffuse with Gafferisms. And it's not surprising, as Edgar was using a Lancastrian dialect, and Tolkien had an intimate knowledge of the dialect, having written The Hobbit in Lancashire, not to mention Tolkien volunteered for military service in June 1915 and was commissioned in the Lancashire Fusiliers.
Here's a stanza of "Sam Goes to It" with a very Gamgee-like complaint that drives him to war:
He'd lived for some years in retirement,
And knew nowt of war, if you please,
Till they blasted and bombed his allotment,
And shelled the best part of his peas.
In addition, The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) gives drownded as an alternative to drowned and there are ten citations throughout the dictionary illustrating its earlier use, but its use now is described as 'vulgar'. Also, "drownt" and "drount" appear in ye auld archaisms, particularly in Scots. No where in the historical record does "drownded" indicate murder. That would, I suppose, be "killeded."
(This post was edited by Morthoron on May 11, 1:44am)
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 12, 10:26am
Post #20 of 28
(1089 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You made me change my mind (kind of)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
An interesting reading! Taking a leaf from noWiz's post, I'd remark that the fact that Tolkien never mused, in correspondence for example, that no one ever cottoned on to his hidden murder mystery is telling enough, for me, that there was no such murder mystery. In addition, I'm not as convinced as you that the text supports the theory as resolutely as you set out.
I think Tolkien included several different mysteries in his story. Not mentioning this one isn't surprising when he doesn't mention the other ones either. The mysteries also wouldn't easily come up in the letters when the people sending letters didn't know to ask.
Tolkien however expresses disappointment in his letters over how few people noticed Frodo's failure. It seems to me that the early letter-writing fans just didn't read very deeply at all, while many of the early critics read even less deeply.
The 'was drownded' line is having to do a lot of heavy lifting in your reading, I reckon. I defo take the point that 'was drownded' is another way of saying 'was drowned'. However, my own take is that we're getting a series of very colloquial exchanges, where a strict grammatical analysis isn't actually that helpful. The Gaffer is, in my view, making the point that a (double) drowning occurred. And indeed he goes on to dismiss innuendo about anything sinister in the tragedy. A quick Google also tells me that 'was drowned / were drowned at sea' is a way of describing loss of life at sea, without requiring someone actually being the agent of that drowning - a siren, rusalka, silkie, nixie, spouse or any other entity. Seas and rivers - not a perfect comparator but the lingo is worth reflecting on, I reckon.
The main thing on my mind with the murder theory is that I'm not sure it goes with what I see as the function of the pub conversation the author constructs. Especially when it comes to the Gaffer. In each exchange, it comes across to me that the Gaffer is the 'voice of reason', who is there to provide a counterbalance to the 'unreason', in the form of gossip and innuendo. He tells Ted Sandyman to get back in his box on more than one occasion - he reckons Sandyman is wrong and, implicitly, that he's a wrongun', which he turns out to be, proving the Gaffer's point in that regard too. He also tells the visitor from Michel Delving that the legend of Bilbo's hoard of 'jools' and the alleged tunnel network under Bag End is massively overegged - the equivalent of an urban legend. Again, I reckon it's meant to come across as the Gaffer being far closer to accuracy than the claims made by those around him.
There's other ways to read the text though, as ever - not least through the prism of a murder mystery!
Endnote: I note from HoMe VI that the drowning story was once briefly attached to the story of Bilbo's parents and later recycled into the story of Frodo's.
(The character called Sandyman in the scene is not Ted but his father. The book doesn't give much information on Ted's father, but he would have been Gaffer's approximate contemporary, and at one point Ted was compared negatively to his father.)
So now I think we have a three-way split in the opinions:
Old Noakes -> accident (mainly Drogo's fault)
Sandyman -> murder (mainly Primula's fault)
Gaffer -> General Boat Danger (not necessarily related to Drogo or Primula's actions in the boat)
This General Boat Danger would be the sort to habitually come from the outside.
My opinion for the killer of Frodo's parents is now that most likely Goldberry did it. (I would like to revise the opening post, but it's unfortunately too late now.) I think I may have had a little too much attraction to the Primula theory because I figured out that scenario much later than the Goldberry theory, giving the impression that Tolkien didn't bury the Goldberry theory so deeply, though I suppose he probably imagined he did.
Re: Bilbo's Hoard
I think there is good reason to think that the Hill is really a pre-hobbit barrow and as such would naturally contain a treasure. Bilbo's father would then have discovered the treasure in the process of making or enlarging his hobbit-hole. If the treasure was cursed, that could explain the early deaths of Bungo and Belladonna.
The Hill is an anomalous, round landscape feature made (seemingly entirely) of sand and dirt, materials that are easy to move. The Hill does not lie right there with the other barrows but isn't terribly far either.
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
May 12, 8:45pm
Post #21 of 28
(1071 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for correcting my mistake - it's Sandyman senior, as you say, not the odious Sandyman junior, who's sticking his oar in (no pun intended...) at the pub!
I think Tolkien included several different mysteries in his story. Not mentioning this one isn't surprising when he doesn't mention the other ones either. The mysteries also wouldn't easily come up in the letters when the people sending letters didn't know to ask.
I get the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' approach you're going for. However, it just happens to be one that I don't reckon applies very well to an author who wrote millions of words before, in parallel to, and after his published works hit the shelves. There not being a single mention of a murder mystery pertinent to one of the main characters strikes me as, well, evidence of absence.
Tolkien however expresses disappointment in his letters over how few people noticed Frodo's failure. It seems to me that the early letter-writing fans just didn't read very deeply at all, while many of the early critics read even less deeply.
The passage of decades has certainly led to several industries' worth of Tolkien scholarship and commentary. And the publication of a vast amount of additional material by CJRT has helped increase both the breadth and depth. Personally, however, I don't feel earlier fans or critics were any less 'deep' in their analyses or insights. Admittedly, that's very subjective of me though, and I have nothing but my nose to go on there.
Even though I haven't concluded, as you have, that murder is the explanation for the drowning of Frodo's parents - and therefore that there must be a murderer - I am fascinated by your idea of a water sprite being involved. The original Goldberry of the c. 1931 poem 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil' (published in 1934) does come across in the vein of a potentially dangerous entity that might just drown Tom Bombadil, if he doesn't act to turn things around. And, as you say, there's plenty of European folklore (and from around the world, for that matter) to draw on for this kind of motiff. I do wonder though whether the Goldberry of the 'pre-Middle-earth' c. 1931 poem and the Goldberry who first appears in a draft of LotR in c. 1938 and is then further developed over a number of years, are quite the same constructs. The same question could be asked of the character of Tom Bombadil, I realise. A case in point might be that the song Tom sings in LotR about how he first met Goldberry ('In the House of Tom Bombadil') only bears some resemblance to Tolkien's original poem and 'When Tommy Met Goldy' story. There is no mention of Goldberry attempting to drown Tom (encounter #1) nor of Tom seizing hold of Goldberry as a prelude to marriage (encounter #2). In LotR, at least in Tom's song, there is only one encounter and it features neither an attempted homicide nor grabbery. The main similarity is that, as in the original poem, the event takes place amidst rushes and water-lilies.
I also note that the Brandybucks, at least as narrated by Merry ('A Conspiracy Unmasked'; 'The Old Forest') are acutely aware of the 'queerness' and indeed dangers on the borders of Buckland. At no point is it mentioned that hobbits go missing due to encountering supernatural risks related to the Brandywine River. The focus is very much on the Old Forest.
And finally to Bilbo's hoard. I do love the idea of the Hill being a barrow, even if I don't reckon there's 'good reason' to conclude that it is. There's no narrative need for it to be one, nor a need for cursed treasure to explain the death of Bilbo's parents. It's the kind of stuff our gossipy hobbits would have loved to chew over with pint in hand but alas, it doesn't feature in the litany of 'queer' things about Bilbo and Frodo. And the only reference to what the area was like before the arrival of hobbit colonists under Marcho and Blanco was that it "had before been well-tilled, and there the king had once had many farms, cornlands, vineyards, and woods. It doesn't much sound like the countryside of Tyrn Gorthad. I think I'll stick with the Gaffer on this, even though his attempts to provide what I read as a reality check fails in the face of the "legend of Bilbo's wealth was now too firmly fixed in the minds of the younger generation of hobbits." ('A Long-Expected Party'). And with that, I conclude that I must be an older generation hobbit!
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
May 13, 2:17am
Post #22 of 28
(1066 views)
Shortcut
|
That's a yup, there Felagund. Just a yup. All the way down the line.
squire online:
Unfortunately my longtime internet service provider abandoned its hosting operations last year. I no longer have any online materials to share with the TORn community.
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 13, 9:13pm
Post #23 of 28
(1030 views)
Shortcut
|
I get the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' approach you're going for. However, it just happens to be one that I don't reckon applies very well to an author who wrote millions of words before, in parallel to, and after his published works hit the shelves. There not being a single mention of a murder mystery pertinent to one of the main characters strikes me as, well, evidence of absence.
I think Tolkien included multiple mysteries in his books, and "Who killed Frodo's parents?" was a really minor one, so it's no wonder he didn't mention it specifically when he didn't mention the other ones either, such as the Helm Ringwraith theory I just posted in another thread, the "Gandalf the White = Saruman" theory I posted earlier, and the unreleased "the big theory that changes everything" (not its real title) which I've been reluctant to reveal early before the theory is ready to be posted because of how utterly radical the theory is, and then there is a rather significant unreleased theory with Silmarillion connections and another theory that is connected to non-European religion and mythology...
I think people these days are just too used to going to the expansive supplementary material for solutions.
Tolkien however expresses disappointment in his letters over how few people noticed Frodo's failure. It seems to me that the early letter-writing fans just didn't read very deeply at all, while many of the early critics read even less deeply. The passage of decades has certainly led to several industries' worth of Tolkien scholarship and commentary. And the publication of a vast amount of additional material by CJRT has helped increase both the breadth and depth. Personally, however, I don't feel earlier fans or critics were any less 'deep' in their analyses or insights. Admittedly, that's very subjective of me though, and I have nothing but my nose to go on there.
The initial fans writing letters wouldn't have had the time to read the book that many times and ponder about it. Back when I read LotR the first time I downright devoured it, totally engrossed, and then was surprised on the second reading to find some absolutely basic details I had somehow missed on my first read, which admittedly had much of it take place late at night. Also Tolkien in his letters complains about clueless professional reviewers.
Deep analyses take time to ripen, and this is especially true when the source material is also deep. Some fans probably reached pretty deep during Tolkien's lifetime, but the key here is the "early letter-writing fans".
Even though I haven't concluded, as you have, that murder is the explanation for the drowning of Frodo's parents - and therefore that there must be a murderer - I am fascinated by your idea of a water sprite being involved. The original Goldberry of the c. 1931 poem 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil' (published in 1934) does come across in the vein of a potentially dangerous entity that might just drown Tom Bombadil, if he doesn't act to turn things around. And, as you say, there's plenty of European folklore (and from around the world, for that matter) to draw on for this kind of motiff. I do wonder though whether the Goldberry of the 'pre-Middle-earth' c. 1931 poem and the Goldberry who first appears in a draft of LotR in c. 1938 and is then further developed over a number of years, are quite the same constructs. The same question could be asked of the character of Tom Bombadil, I realise. A case in point might be that the song Tom sings in LotR about how he first met Goldberry ('In the House of Tom Bombadil') only bears some resemblance to Tolkien's original poem and 'When Tommy Met Goldy' story. There is no mention of Goldberry attempting to drown Tom (encounter #1) nor of Tom seizing hold of Goldberry as a prelude to marriage (encounter #2). In LotR, at least in Tom's song, there is only one encounter and it features neither an attempted homicide nor grabbery. The main similarity is that, as in the original poem, the event takes place amidst rushes and water-lilies.
The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (the poem) was included in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (the book), which was incidentally included in Tales from the Perilous Realm (the collection). Now The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (the book) happens to have a foreword explaining how all these poems were taken from the Red Book of Westmarch. Therefore Goldberry (the poem character) should be fundamentally the same person as Goldberry (the book character), even if portrayed through a different lens.
I also note that the Brandybucks, at least as narrated by Merry ('A Conspiracy Unmasked'; 'The Old Forest') are acutely aware of the 'queerness' and indeed dangers on the borders of Buckland. At no point is it mentioned that hobbits go missing due to encountering supernatural risks related to the Brandywine River. The focus is very much on the Old Forest.
During the present of the story Goldberry is busy being a wife for Tom Bombadil and there is no mention of her sisters living in the area. I think the region of Buckland just currently happens to be empty of water spirits, probably because the Shire is being protected, and that's why there are no attacks.
And finally to Bilbo's hoard. I do love the idea of the Hill being a barrow, even if I don't reckon there's 'good reason' to conclude that it is. There's no narrative need for it to be one, nor a need for cursed treasure to explain the death of Bilbo's parents. It's the kind of stuff our gossipy hobbits would have loved to chew over with pint in hand but alas, it doesn't feature in the litany of 'queer' things about Bilbo and Frodo. And the only reference to what the area was like before the arrival of hobbit colonists under Marcho and Blanco was that it "had before been well-tilled, and there the king had once had many farms, cornlands, vineyards, and woods. It doesn't much sound like the countryside of Tyrn Gorthad. I think I'll stick with the Gaffer on this, even though his attempts to provide what I read as a reality check fails in the face of the "legend of Bilbo's wealth was now too firmly fixed in the minds of the younger generation of hobbits." ('A Long-Expected Party'). And with that, I conclude that I must be an older generation hobbit!
Explaining the deaths of Bilbo's parents is only a side benefit here. I think far more important is that the Hill being a barrow:
a) gives a reason for the Hill's unusual geology, which gives the impression that ancient people had made an artificial mound for some reason, and
b) explains why some of the hobbits were convinced the Hill had tunnels full of treasure that could be found by digging.
The Hill would presumably be a very old barrow, so old that its builders had been forgotten and the Hill mistaken for a natural hill.
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
May 14, 12:15am
Post #24 of 28
(1023 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Goldberry's literary and secondary world journey
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (the poem) was included in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (the book), which was incidentally included in Tales from the Perilous Realm (the collection). Now The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (the book) happens to have a foreword explaining how all these poems were taken from the Red Book of Westmarch. Therefore Goldberry (the poem character) should be fundamentally the same person as Goldberry (the book character), even if portrayed through a different lens.
Fundamentally the same Goldberry, I agree, in the sense that Goldberry and Tom Bombadil get married after an encounter by the rushes. Beyond that, I still reckon no. To put that into context: original Goldberry (poem, c. 1931) predates Tolkien's secondary world; she is later transposed, over years of drafting, into that secondary world (along with Tom B) and emerges at the other end, in a book published in 1954. Her appearance in that first volume of LotR is accompanied by a song that describes how she and Tom B met that is significantly different to the c. 1931 poem. And then we get to 1962, when Tolkien, for the first time, integrates that original poem into his secondary world, via his usual instrument of choice, the Red Book of Westmarch. In that context, the contents of the poem are described as "various hobbit-versions of legends concerning Tom Bombadil", also featuring talking, dancing badgers and Tom being able to hold a conversation underwater. And in that vein, the 'Bombadil Goes Boating' poem, which was written specifically for the 1962 collection, features a talking otter and a talking kingfisher.
I'd infer from the descriptor "various hobbit-versions of legends concerning Tom Bombadil" that the hobbit authors weren't simply making stuff up from scratch. Indeed, they were drawing on and interpreting legends. Was there hobbitish embellishment and/or content that was not meant to be taken literally and was meant to entertain its audience. I suspect so (dancing badgers, anyone?). Were the legends that formed the source material possibly already in the realm of the fantastical to begin with? Again, I suspect so (the legend of the dancing badger, anyone?). Does the poem in question pass the bar for biography, containing accurate feigned historical data about how two peripheral characters first met? In my view, no.
Whether concerning the sequencing of Tolkien's writing of this material over the course of 30+ years or the in-universe provenance and evolution of the poem's contents, once inserted into Middle-earth, I reckon the textual transmission does not make for a Goldberry that is interchangeable up and down that line of transmission.
During the present of the story Goldberry is busy being a wife for Tom Bombadil and there is no mention of her sisters living in the area. I think the region of Buckland just currently happens to be empty of water spirits, probably because the Shire is being protected, and that's why there are no attacks.
With the above, I wasn't sure if you were speculating that she had sisters or is this mentioned in the text somewhere? She's described by Tom as the River-daughter, which I've always interpreted as making her singular.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
May 14, 1:53am
Post #25 of 28
(1021 views)
Shortcut
|
Fundamentally the same Goldberry, I agree, in the sense that Goldberry and Tom Bombadil get married after an encounter by the rushes. Beyond that, I still reckon no. To put that into context: original Goldberry (poem, c. 1931) predates Tolkien's secondary world; she is later transposed, over years of drafting, into that secondary world (along with Tom B) and emerges at the other end, in a book published in 1954. Her appearance in that first volume of LotR is accompanied by a song that describes how she and Tom B met that is significantly different to the c. 1931 poem. And then we get to 1962, when Tolkien, for the first time, integrates that original poem into his secondary world, via his usual instrument of choice, the Red Book of Westmarch. In that context, the contents of the poem are described as "various hobbit-versions of legends concerning Tom Bombadil", also featuring talking, dancing badgers and Tom being able to hold a conversation underwater. And in that vein, the 'Bombadil Goes Boating' poem, which was written specifically for the 1962 collection, features a talking otter and a talking kingfisher.
This poem passage?
By that pool long ago I found the River-daughter,
fair young Goldberry sitting in the rushes.
Sweet was her singing then, and her heart was beating!
I think that poem doesn't really contradict the other poem. The other poem merely has a lot more detail. This poem really only mentions that Goldberry was sitting in the rushes, and based on the information from the other poem we can conclude that Goldberry was sitting in the rushes, underwater.
I think Tom Bombadil being able to talk underwater should not be dismissed as impossible but taken as a sign that he is a supernatural being that has no need for air. We already know he is immortal, has a powerful magical voice that monsters have to obey, and can see through the Ring's invisibility. He doesn't appear to belong to any of the normal mortal or immortal races either. (I think he's Morgoth keeping a low profile.)
And the unusual badgers are mentioned in LotR too:
Tom was telling an absurd story about badgers and their queer ways
You may also remember the talking fox in the Shire.
I'd infer from the descriptor "various hobbit-versions of legends concerning Tom Bombadil" that the hobbit authors weren't simply making stuff up from scratch. Indeed, they were drawing on and interpreting legends. Was there hobbitish embellishment and/or content that was not meant to be taken literally and was meant to entertain its audience. I suspect so (dancing badgers, anyone?). Were the legends that formed the source material possibly already in the realm of the fantastical to begin with? Again, I suspect so (the legend of the dancing badger, anyone?). Does the poem in question pass the bar for biography, containing accurate feigned historical data about how two peripheral characters first met? In my view, no.
I think the poem could have been derived from the stories Tom Bombadil told to the hobbits and surprisingly literally too. Middle-earth is that kind of place, though the poem makes light of what are really dangerous monsters that attack people.
During the present of the story Goldberry is busy being a wife for Tom Bombadil and there is no mention of her sisters living in the area. I think the region of Buckland just currently happens to be empty of water spirits, probably because the Shire is being protected, and that's why there are no attacks. With the above, I wasn't sure if you were speculating that she had sisters or is this mentioned in the text somewhere? She's described by Tom as the River-daughter, which I've always interpreted as making her singular.
The water spirits of folklore are considered a category consisting of multiple individuals. I wasn't really thinking anything deeper than that. I think there is nothing to suggest that Goldberry is a unique type of being even if there are no others like her (sisters, cousins, etc.) appearing on the page.
|
|
|
|
|
1
