|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 2 2009, 11:50pm
Post #1 of 44
(3911 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Appendix C – Family Trees
|
Can't Post
|
|
Summary
This is the shortest of the appendices. It begins with two paragraphs of introduction, which are followed by six family-tree diagrams. For many years, there were only four family trees in this appendix: the genealogies for the Bolger and Boffin families were added in 2004. Tolkien had meant them for inclusion in 1955, but they were cut for want of space. (They were also published in The Peoples of Middle-earth in 1996.) The introduction explains that the appendix shows the ancestry of guests at Bilbo’s party, whose names are underlined, as well as the history of the “later famous and influential” family of Gardner, founded by Sam.
The first family tree is “Baggins of Hobbiton”, showing six generations from Balbo Baggins, b. 1167, to Minto Burrows, b. 1396. Minto’s name, as for all characters whose family name differs from the tree in question, is placed in square brackets. Fifty-nine names appear, more than on the other trees. Both Balbo and his eldest son, Mungo, had five children.
Next is “Bolger of Budgeford”, which begins with Gundolpho Bolger, b. 1131, and runs through seven generations to Estella Bolger, b. 1385. There are 40 names: this chart has more white space than the previous one. As with the trees for Baggins and Boffin, the left half of this chart is filled by descendants of the eldest son of the first listed member. Here there is an emphasis on three: Gundolpho had three children, and so did his grandson, Adalgar, whose descendants are shown in three parallel generations; Wilibald Bolger also had three children.
This is followed by “Boffin of the Yale”, also with 40 names in seven generations, from Buffo Boffin, whose date of birth isn’t shown, to Tosto Boffin, b. 1388. Buffo had four children, and so did his grandson, Otto, who is nicknamed “the Fat”.
Thre family tree for “Took of Great Smials” looks rather different from those preceding: it is bottom-heavy, because from Isengrim II, b. 1020, the line branches only once for five generations, when the twelve children of the Old Took and their descendants fill out the bottom of the page. The earlier split is for the second son of Isumbras III, Bandobras the Bullroarer. In all, there are ten generations listed, down to Faramir I, b. 1430, the youngest of some 52 entrants. As with the Boffin tree, some names include explanatory notes, as for hobbits who went “to sea” in their youth. Isengrim is noted as the tenth Thain from this family; the Thains are indicated with an asterisk, though I don’t think Tolkien ever explains this.
The family tree for “Brandybuck of Buckland” is headed with a note that repeats what we were told in the first paragraphs of “A Conspiracy Unmasked” about the founding of the family by Gorhendad Oldbuck almost 700 years before the events of LOTR. The tree itself shows seven generations, from Gormadoc, b. 1134, to Celandine, b. 1394, with 43 members listed. The diagram’s shape blends that of the Took and Bolger trees: Gormadoc has three children, but the descendants of the two younger siblings are shown only for one generation, while it is four generations down the elder line before the names spread. All the Masters of Brandy Hall have nicknames.
The last family tree is the “Longfather Tree of Master Samwise”, which shows the intermingling of three different clans: the descendants of Hamfast of Gamwich, b. 1160; of Holman (the greenhanded) of Hobbiton, b. 1210; and of Cottar, b. 1220, whose home isn’t identified. As those examples indicate, many of these hobbits, particularly in the earlier generations, don’t have family names. Addtionally, where there are last names, they often change from generation to generation: when Wiseman, son of Hamfast of Gamwich, moved to Tighfield, he became known as Wiseman Gamwich. His son Hob was known by the slighly corrupted last name, Gammidge, later casually pronounced as Gammidgy. Because he and his eldest descendants are ropers by trade, his offspring become known variously by the family names Roper or Gamgee. From the original Hamfast, there are nine generations with 53 names running down to Harding, b. 1501, the grandson of Samwise. Two notable familes are said to arise from Samwise’s descendants: the Gardners of the Hill, and the Fairbairns of the Towers. The latter family “inherited the Red Book, and made several copies with notes and later additions”.
Frodo appears on five of the family trees, Merry on four, and Bilbo, Drogo, Estella, Fredegar, Pippin and Primula on three (Pippin appears four times if you count a reference to him on Samwise’s tree). Forty-five hobbits appear on two trees. There are 224 names in all. There are dates listed for 190 of these names, but 117 are only the date of birth. Of the 73 names showing years of birth and death, 27 hobbits lived to be 100 or more; 36 died in their nineties; 7 died in their eighties; and three died younger. The average age at death is 95.8 years, ranging from 55 for Lotho Sackville-Baggins to 130 for Gerontius Took. Setting aside three hobbits we know to have died violently, here are the average ages at death by family, with sample size in parentheses: Boffin 93.4 (7); Baggins 94.9 (12); Bolger 97.2 (9); Brandybuck 97.8 (10); and Took 99.7 (23). If we take the Old Took out, the Tooks still lead at 98.3 (22). Note that the charts don’t give the year of death for Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, or Sam. The average family size is 2.2 children, ranging from 1.6 for the Bolgers to 2.8 for the Gamgee-Cottons, but here I am particularly wary of the data, given that Tolkien has explicitly simplified the genealogies. Another project might be to compare the average age of husband and wife at time of marriage; I leave that to someone else.
In all the trees identify 69 party guests. Baggins: Angelica, Bilbo, Dora, Dudo, Frodo, Gilly (neé Brownlock), Ponto and Porto. Boffin: Daisy (neé Baggins), Folco, Griffo, Tosto and Vigo. Bolger: Estella (later Brandybuck), Filibert, Fredegar, Gerda (neé Boffin), Heribald, Nora, Odovacar, Poppy (neé Chubb-Baggins), Prisca (neé Baggins), Rosamunda (neé Took), and Wilimar. Bracegirdle: Bruno and Hugo. Brandybuck: Berilac, Celandine, Dinodas, Doderic, Esmerelda (neé Took), Hilda (neé Bracegirdle), Ilberic, Marmadas, Melilot, Mentha, Meriadoc, Merimac, Merimas, Rorimac, Saradas, Saradoc and Seredic. Burrows: Asphodel (neé Brandybuck), Milo, Minto, Moro, Mosco, Myrtle, Peony (neé Baggins) and Rufus. Proudfoots: Odo, Olo and Sancho. Sackville-Baggins: Lobelia (neé Bracegirdle), Lotho and Otho. Tooks: Adelard, Eglantine (neé Banks), Everard, Ferdibrand, Ferdinand, Ferumbras, Paladin, Pearl, Peregrin, Pervinca, Pimpernel and Reginard.
Questions
In addition to answering any or none of the following, feel free to make your own points on this appendix.
Why the emphasis on party guests? As opposed to say, the ancestors of Merry, Pippin, Frodo, Sam and Bilbo, whose names are written in capital letters wherever they appear?
Speaking of which, why are the names of Sam’s father, wife, and three of his children (Elanor, Frodo and Goldilocks) printed in all caps?
Why are no Gamgees underlined – weren’t they at the party? Sam had reported that “everyone’s going to be invited”. Or are the underlined names only taken from the 144 guests who sat under the tent?
If the genealogies were meant to focus on party guests, why are there no underlined Brockhouses, Chubbs, Goodbodies, Grubbs, or Hornblowers, all mentioned in Bilbo’s speech?
Why does Tolkien bother to underline “[various Goodbodies]” on the Baggins tree, “(various descendants)” of Fastolph Bolger, “(various descendants)” of Rollo Boffin, and “2 daughters” of Adelard Took as party guests?
Who does Tolkien mean us to think underlined the names: the hobbit genealogists, or himself as editor?
Bilbo’s grandparents were born with the surnames Baggins, Chubb, Grubb, and Took: why do we only hear about the first and last as aspects of Bilbo’s personality in The Hobbit and “The Quest of Erebor”? Why didn’t Lobelia try to insult Frodo’s non-Baggins heritage by calling him a Bolger or a Took?
Why does Tolkien include a “q.v.” note for just two names: Adalbert Bolger on the Boffin tree, and Gorbadoc Brandybuck on the Took tree?
Is Gundolpho Bolger’s wife, Alfrida of the Yale, a lower-class hobbit who married up? Why does she have no family name?
Does the “heru” in Herugar Bolger’s have the same meaning as in Théoden’s sword, Herugrim? Does the “isen” in Isengrim and Isengar Took have the same meaning as in Isengard?
Why was it Bandobras and not his older brother Ferumbras who repelled the orc attack at Greenfields?
Is Diamond of Long Cleeve, who marries Pippin, descended from Bandobras?
What explains the nicknames of the Brandybucks: Deepdelver, Proudneck, Masterful, Broadbelt, Goldfather, Scattergold, and Magnificent?
Just for fun: in what way is Sam like Spiderman?
Do the Gamgees know the ancestry of their last name? Sam’s father apparently couldn’t read – do the lower hobbit classes trace their genealogies with the same passion as the upper? Do they memorize all the names and dates? When was Sam’s “longfather tree” assembled?
What causes a family to accept a name bestowed on them? Why wouldn’t “Old Gammidgy”and his son insist that the family name is “Gamwich” not “Gamgee”? Does Sam dislike his last name? His daughter Goldilocks is listed as “daughter of Master Samwise” rather than “Gamgee” on the Took tree. Do most of Sam’s descendants keep “Gamgee” or like his eldest son, Frodo, are they “Gardners”? Why is Sam’s great-grandson, Harding, “of the Hill” rather than “Gardner”?
What does the ending “ing” mean in the names Erling, Hending, and Harding?
Is the Encyclopedia of Arda correct to say, in its entry on Hending (the son of Holman, the greenhanded), that “from the evidence we have it seems likely that he died childless”?
Why do the Cotton men all have nicknames? Of the three hobbits named Tolman, all with a parenthetical note indicating a nickname of “Tom”, why is only the first instance in quotation marks? And what kind of a nickname is Nibs?
The traditional homes of all the upper-class families –Hobbiton, Budgeford, the Yale, Great Smials, and Brandy Hall– all lie within ten miles of the East-West road, neither far north or far south in the Shire. Why?
Dreamdeer has just observed the oddness of Sam inheriting Bag End from Frodo – which is all the more odd because there is in fact a male Baggins living. How was Sam’s inheritance arranged?
Here are some questions from the 2004 discussion. Altaira asked: are Hobbit marriages ever arranged? Corwynne wondered : why are Merry and Pippin, Sam’s children, not named Meriadoc and Peregrin? Gullygilly pondered: could a lower-born male Hobbit marry above his station as Sam’s daughter Goldilocks does in marrying Peregrin’s son, Faramir? Kimi mused: is Goldilocks named for Galadriel?
Finally, a new question from Beren IV: The genealogies of the Hobbits appear far more complete than those of the Elves or Men in Tolkien’s other books, based on realistic numbers of children and an approximately equal sex ratio. Why did Tolkien focus on making the Hobbits’ genealogies more complete than his other peoples?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Mar. 2-8 for Family Trees, Calendars, and Writing and Spelling.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Mar 3 2009, 2:44am
Post #2 of 44
(3321 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Posh Hobbitish Naming Conventions...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I really enjoy regarding the Hobbitish geneologies is the 'wealth' of ornate names bequeathed to scions of the more socially conscious Hobbit families. We have scholary references in Gerontius (perhaps from Cardinal Newman's 'Dream of Gerontius'), Isengrim (from the Latin Ysengrimus, a wolf of early European tales like Reynard the Fox), Adelard (Adelard of Bath, a scholastic philosopher), Odovacar (a Gothic king) and Heribald (mentioned in Bede's 'Historiam Ecclesiasticam Gentis Anglorum'); Latinate forms such as Belladonna, Hugo and Gundolpho; Frankish or Norman forms in Odo, Otho, Otto and Fredegar; from Spain, Esmerelda, Ferdinand and Sancho; from the Welsh, Meriadoc, Gorbadoc, Gormodoc, etc.; and a scattering of Germanic names like Filibert and Gerda.
Putting on 'airs' seems to be the impression one gets from the naming conventions.
Why did Tolkien focus on making the Hobbits’ genealogies more complete than his other peoples?
Because Hobbits wrote the book (let the arguments commence), and because the story is infused with the Hobbits near interminable love of rattling off a laborious list of their ancestors to anyone in earshot.
Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Mar 3 2009, 2:50am)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Mar 3 2009, 5:16am
Post #3 of 44
(3298 views)
Shortcut
|
There's editions out there that have Bolger and Boffin family trees? There's a hobbit named Vigo?
As for who traced Sam's family tree when his family was mostly illiterate, he or his children (who I assume he would teach to read) probably pieced it all together from court records and the like. Since hobbits like things neat and tidy and require, for example, signatures from seven witnesses in red ink for an adoption (did they all stand in the red ink tub at once while passing the document between them to sign, or did they take turns stepping in and out?  ) Someone somewhere must document marriages, at least, as well as deeds to land or else rental agreements.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
(This post was edited by Dreamdeer on Mar 3 2009, 5:18am)
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 3 2009, 9:39am
Post #4 of 44
(3268 views)
Shortcut
|
Why the emphasis on party guests? As opposed to say, the ancestors of Merry, Pippin, Frodo, Sam and Bilbo, whose names are written in capital letters wherever they appear?
As far as I can see, the emphasis is mostly on the families of our heroes, with the underlining just a guide to let us see how other hobbits mentioned briefly in the story (i.e. the party guests) are related to the heroes.
Speaking of which, why are the names of Sam’s father, wife, and three of his children (Elanor, Frodo and Goldilocks) printed in all caps?
It looks like a convention for marking the people whose line is further developed. Elanor, Frodo and Goldilocks have a further history that is recorded; Elanor with her husband founded the line of the Fairbairns, Frodo's line led to Harding of the Hill, and Goldilocks married Thain Peregrin. It looks as if this chart was drawn up by these educated and influential descendants of Sam's family.
Why are no Gamgees underlined – weren’t they at the party? Sam had reported that “everyone’s going to be invited”. Or are the underlined names only taken from the 144 guests who sat under the tent?
The underlined names must indeed be just those who were in the tent - "those invited to the special family dinner-party. This was held in the great pavilion..." Only a very few unrelated friends were in the tent, one of whom was Gandalf. The Gamgees would surely not have been invited to sit with the "quality", nor would they have felt comfortable there, I'm sure.
If the genealogies were meant to focus on party guests, why are there no underlined Brockhouses, Chubbs, Goodbodies, Grubbs, or Hornblowers, all mentioned in Bilbo’s speech?
As I said above, I don't think the focus is on the party guests. The guests are just underlined almost as an afterthought to show how they are related to Bilbo and Frodo. Any guests who don't figure conveniently on the direct line of descent of the hero hobbits probably just get left out. The underlining is a great way of illustrating who was alive at the time of the Party, thanks for pointing it out!
Why does Tolkien bother to underline “[various Goodbodies]” on the Baggins tree, “(various descendants)” of Fastolph Bolger, “(various descendants)” of Rollo Boffin, and “2 daughters” of Adelard Took as party guests?
I suppose it's a handy way "to fill up the required number" of One Gross.
Who does Tolkien mean us to think underlined the names: the hobbit genealogists, or himself as editor?
I think he doesn't want us to know who underlined the names. This entire document has passed through so many hands, that it could have been anyone. And the editor/translator (not necessarily Tolkien himself in his own persona, I think) would have surely felt entitled to clean up anything that wasn't consistent in the "original". He takes a lot of liberties, as he makes clear in other parts of the Appendices. Basically, we have to take the document as we find it, and accept that we can't know the answer to questions like these.
Just for fun: in what way is Sam like Spiderman?
I can think of a way Frodo is like Spiderman - he gets bitten by a spider! As for Sam, maybe something to do with the rope-weaving? I'll look forward to hearing the answer to your riddle!
Do the Gamgees know the ancestry of their last name? Sam’s father apparently couldn’t read – do the lower hobbit classes trace their genealogies with the same passion as the upper? Do they memorize all the names and dates? When was Sam’s “longfather tree” assembled?
From evidence in the story, the working-class hobbits have a strong sense of their family connections. Sam certainly likes to talk about his uncles and cousins anyway. So I can certainly imagine them having a mental list of all their relatives. Pre-literate societies were apparently capable of prodigious feats of memory. Whenever I hear people complaining about the loss of reading skills because of the rise of the more complex, interlinked knowledge available in newer media, I remember how much loss the printing press brought, in terms of our memory skills. In fact, perhaps the interlinked, fluid approach to knowledge of preliterate societies is rather like the one our children are absorbing from the internet. The linear, hard-and-fast, centrally-approved view of knowledge that came with books may be on its way out, and it may not be entirely a bad thing.
What causes a family to accept a name bestowed on them? Why wouldn’t “Old Gammidgy”and his son insist that the family name is “Gamwich” not “Gamgee”?
I imagine that the family themselves, along with their neighbours, gradually change the sound of their own name. Without writing to fix them, sounds evolve naturally from generation to generation. That's probably why so many English places have names whose written forms no longer match their pronunciation - the traditions that formed the spoken names were not constrained by the written language.
Does Sam dislike his last name? His daughter Goldilocks is listed as “daughter of Master Samwise” rather than “Gamgee” on the Took tree.
Interesting question! Sam sounds very settled in his own name, judging by the unselfconscious way he likes to call himself by it ("Steady now, Sam Gamgee!"; "Fried fish and chips served by S. Gamgee"). It rather sounds as if a little snobbery crept into Sam's family once they began to go up in the world! (It's reminding me of Curious' complaint about the Fallohide blood that's retroactively discovered in Sam's family after the quest.) I recall that Tolkien himself wasn't satisfied with the name Gamgee for Sam, and wanted to change it to Goodchild. I guess with 'Fairbairn' he sort of got that change eventually.
Do most of Sam’s descendants keep “Gamgee” or like his eldest son, Frodo, are they “Gardners”?
I think Sam's family name changes to "Gardner", so presumably all his descendants would be entitled to that name. It looks as if they find "Gamgee" a bit common, but with "Gardner" they are still keeping a link to their humble roots (as Aragorn does with the name Telcontar). Of course, that can be a form of snobbery too, with some of the great English families having names that show their beginnings (the Butlers, for example. Or the Scottish Stewarts/stewards).
Why is Sam’s great-grandson, Harding, “of the Hill” rather than “Gardner”?
It sounds rather like a title. Which would mean that he has both the family name and the title, but would normally be known by the title. Like Arthur Wellesley, better known as the Duke of Wellington, or the Churchills, Dukes of Marlborough.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Mar 3 2009, 9:45am)
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Mar 3 2009, 9:57pm
Post #5 of 44
(3232 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I never noticed before, but ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Gundolpho (Bolger) bears quite a resemblance to Gandalf. Only the vowels are different. Wasn't it Voltaire who called etymology "a science in which the consonants are of very little importance, and the vowels of none at all"?
Interesting coincidence (if coincidence it is). But we don't know enough to say any more.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
The Lord of the Rings discussion 2007-2008 – The Two Towers – III.4 “Treebeard” – Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
“On Fairy-stories” discussion 2008 – “Origins” – Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Mar 3 2009, 10:33pm
Post #6 of 44
(3256 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It certainly seems there should be more children. And more infant mortality.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Maybe Sam's thirteen is on the large size, but it shouldn't be that much larger than normal. But of course if everyone had, say eight to ten children, the family trees would soon grow too large for the space available -- and so, by the way would the population of the Shire, especially considering an average age of over 90 years. There's something very unrealistic about these family trees, glossing over the population explosion the Shire would experience if everyone had large families and everyone lived for an average of 90 years each. In just a few generations the population of the Shire could go from tens of thousands to millions -- yet Tolkien implies that the Shire has remained fairly stable for hundreds of years, and will expand only mildly in the future. Tolkien also loved inventing names, and rarely used the same name twice, which I find unrealistic.
In his Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien explains that Cotton "is a place-name in origin (as are many modern surnames), from cot, a cottage or humble dwelling, and -ton, the usual shortening of 'town' in place-names (Old English t?n 'village')." It "is a common English surname and has, of course, in origin no connection with cotton the textile material." The humble genealogy of the Gamgees and Cottons does present a contrast with the others.
The family trees also reveal that Merry and Pippin and Frodo and Bilbo are all cousins. Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more family connections, since the better families are likely to intermarry quite a bit.
The whole obsession with family trees seems alien to me. Is it a matter of awareness of class, or a matter of growing up in a small town, where everyone keeps track of everyone's else's family? Maybe it's a bit of both. The hobbit family trees are fuller than those of the royal families Tolkien invented elsewhere, because they do not focus on a royal line. But we can still see that the better families were proud of their famous surnames, whereas common folk might not even have surnames.
The family trees do add to the text, and add depth to Tolkien's portrait of the Shire. In the early chapters we hear about Bilbo and Frodo's near and distant relations. Sam refers to various family members throughout the book. The family trees emphasize that Bilbo and Frodo are Tooks or Brandybucks on their maternal sides, while the Sackville-Baggins are not; that Merry and Pippin are not just members of prominent families, but the heirs to the leadership of those families, as close as the Shire gets to princes; and that Sam's daughter Elanor founds yet another aristocratic family, the Fairbairns, while Sam's daughter Goldilocks marries Pippin's heir. I'm not sure I like all the class distinctions, which the family trees emphasize, but I can't deny that Tolkien considered them important.
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Mithlond
Mar 3 2009, 10:54pm
Post #7 of 44
(3242 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien also loved inventing names, and rarely used the same name twice, which I find unrealistic.
Really, look at all the fuss over having either one or two Elves with the same rather normal name of 'golden haired'......
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Mar 4 2009, 9:30am
Post #8 of 44
(3494 views)
Shortcut
|
Twice I started answering this thread, and both times it crashed.
So I'll be now briefer than I intended to.
To begin with, I never knew there were two additional family trees. Fascinating!
I'll start with comments on your summary:
According to appendix F, the Bolgers were aristocracy, on par with the Tooks and Brandybucks. Apart of that, Fatty Bolger is an important figure, and Estella is Merry's wife. But how do the Boffins merit such distinction? Their names are mundane, like the Bagginses. And Folco simply does not seem to be on par with Fatty. Let's examine the differences between the two, and see if that could be seen as reflecting on their families.
Merry invited Fatty to join the conspiracy with Pippin, but not Folco. Why is that? Personal merit - was Fatty more observant of Frodo's moods, or more reliable and trustworthy? Or was it something else - personal liking, or even a prejudice of old aristocrats as opposed to new moneybags?
Another point was Fatty's being the only one known to actually lead a band of rebels. The Thain also opposed Lotho, but that was a different case - he was enclosed in the Great Smials with hundreds of family and vassals, while Fatty's band were virtual outlaws, a few hobbits hiding near Scary and persumably harrying the ruffians whenever they could. Shades of Barahir!
Was Fatty's inheritance a reason for his feeling responsible to stand up, virtually unsupported, against the ruffians? Could his family's authority have helped him recruit followers? Or did some of Frodo's aura rub off on him?
Of course, one could see a different asymetry between the Boffins and the Bolgers, if they are viewed from a different angle.
In the party, there are two lists of the families invited to the select, err, gross of important guests to the central dinner. There is a minor inconsistency between the list Tolkien gives, and the order in which Bilbo mentions them in his speech. A simple mistake? Possibly.
The Boffins are up in the top - being second to the Bagginses, even before the Tooks! Surely a sign of prominence. But the Bolgers hardly make the list - before them come the Brandybucks (naturally), the Grubbs (which Bilbo couldn't have remembered very fondly, you know), Chubbs, Burrows, and (in Bilbo's speech, but not in Tolkien's list) Hornblowers. Why were the Bolgers so low on the list? After all, they were one of the three aristocratic families! Could they have been in a decline, while the Boffins were on the rise?
And by the way - is there any conncetion between Tolkien's Boffins and Dickens'? Could the first-time reader be expected to remember Folco from the third chapter, by the time he reached the appendix? I'm sure the average educated Englishman would think of Noddy first. What does that mean?
I used to think the Boffins were simply neighbours - the other wealthy family in the Hobbiton-Bywater vicinity, and therefore simply had the greatest number of guests in that party. Possibly, there business connections between the Bagginses and them, as two middle-class families on the rise.
But after reading your post, I consulted the map of the Shire - and noted the the Boffins came from Yale, quite near to Budgeford. Could the rise of the Boffin been at the Bolger's expense? Did it cause resentment? Did Fatty expect the Boffins to join his lead in resisting the ruffians, and did they refuse him as a scion of the old aristocracy trying to recover his family's glory by fighting against the forces of "progress"? After all, Lotho was a Baggins - another mercantile capitalist! In short, did they see Fatty as a Catilina?
Once again, one wonders about Fatty and Folco. Where they natural friends, or was this a case of Frodo being a peacemaker? Was Folco excluded from the conspiracy because of Fatty's insistence or sensitivities, or was he simply a blabber who could be trusted less than Pippin, or merely a pleasant nobody?
To sum this all up - was there "bad blood" between the Boffin and Bolger families? What was the life of Gerda Bolger (neé Boffin) like? By the way, the name 'Gerda' does not sound a lower-class names, more like Nora or Prisca (both born Bolgers) the like Daisy (the Baggins girl who became a Boffin). Did the Boffin begin to aspire at nobility? Seen in that sense, even Folco is more impressive than one might think at first glance - according to appendix F it was actually Folca, a royal name of Rohan!
As those examples indicate, many of these hobbits, particularly in the earlier generations, don’t have family names. Addtionally, where there are last names, they often change from generation to generation. Note that it isn't only in lower-class families, but also in middle-class ones:
As Tom Shippey notes, the name "Sackville" is a frenchified form of "Bag End". The Sackville-Bagginses were also changing their names on there way up the social rungs - I assume that had things run their natural course, the "Baggins" part would have been dropped.
The first Boffin we know of is Buffo Boffin, which sounds quite odd. Assuming he was a great hobbit in his way (which might have been speculative tater-growing, for all we know of Shire economy), I would venture a guess that his four children took the name 'Boffin' in his honour, pretty much like Holman Cotton was the son of the unsurnamed Cottman.
But then again. one must think of the Oldbuck-Brandybuck transition, and see how that is connected.
If we take the Old Took out, the Tooks still lead at 98.3 (22). Only about one year longer than the Bolgers and Brandybucks, and less than five years more than the Boffins.
Which reminds me of Gandalf's words in 'The Shadow of the Past':
Bilbo showed no signs of age. The shadow fell on me again. But I said to myself: “After all he comes of a long-lived family on his mother’s side. There is time yet. Wait!” Was Gandalf refering just to the Old Took, who was clearly an exception? I don't think the statistics you've brought are convincing enough to warrant such smugness on his side!
The average family size is 2.2 children, ranging from 1.6 for the Bolgers to 2.8 for the Gamgee-Cottons, but here I am particularly wary of the data, given that Tolkien has explicitly simplified the genealogies. Yes, one should be wary of making to much of this data. But it is suggestive - another hint that the Gamgee-Cotton are on the rise, and the Bolgers in a decline.
I'll send this now, before I lose it again. Sometime later today, I'll get around to your actual questions. There are so many of them! Though I say it as shouldn't, you may think.
"So Mr Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is...
...Mr Bilbo has learned him his letters - meaning no harm, mark you...
...there's going to be presents, mark you, presents for all - this very month as is."
Mark the Gaffer's words!
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Mar 4 2009, 1:16pm
Post #9 of 44
(3171 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A few answers, some to the point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Why the emphasis on party guests? As opposed to say, the ancestors of Merry, Pippin, Frodo, Sam and Bilbo, whose names are written in capital letters wherever they appear?
This is a kind of distinction. At least to us - these people were witnesses to the burth of the story.
Speaking of which, why are the names of Sam’s father, wife, and three of his children (Elanor, Frodo and Goldilocks) printed in all caps?
Another distinction. Sam's father, Rosie and Elanor are people we actually know. Frodo is Sam's heir (although it is Elanor who receives the Red Book), and Goldilocks marries Faramir Took - the sign of the Gamgee's social elevation.
Why are no Gamgees underlined – weren’t they at the party? Sam had reported that “everyone’s going to be invited”. Or are the underlined names only taken from the 144 guests who sat under the tent?
Yes. The Gamgees and Cottons weren't a part of the famous Gross; and everyone in Hobbiton and Bywater was invited, and even those who weren't showed up nevertheless. But the distinction was confered by being in the main tent. Sam probably overheard Bilbo's speech by excersising his eavesdropping skills.
If the genealogies were meant to focus on party guests, why are there no underlined Brockhouses, Chubbs, Goodbodies, Grubbs, or Hornblowers, all mentioned in Bilbo’s speech?
Probably no connections near enough to make it. There is a limit to how much Tolkien could indulge himself in including more people in the family trees.
But note that of the further relations - the Hornblowers were also part of the moneyed middle class (thriving on the pipeweed commerce, no doubt), as were the Bracegirdles (as Cotton mentioned in 'The Scouring of the Shire'). We know how the Grubbs made money from the end of The Hobbit; and I suspect names like 'Burrows' and 'Brockhouses' imply the bearers could actually afford living in holes - which sounds just like a software tycoon indulging himself with an aristocratic mansion.
That leaves us with the Proudfoots and Goodbodies (and Chubbs), which probably also had some sort of upper-middle-class distinction. Quite like a charity dinner, in which one has to pay a lot just for participating.
One wonders whether the Mayor actually attended. He wasn't mentioned specifically in Bilbo's speech, but neither were the Thain or Master of Buckland, which did attend. There is no mention of old Flourdumpling - but perhaps he wasn't mayor yet?
Why does Tolkien bother to underline “[various Goodbodies]” on the Baggins tree, “(various descendants)” of Fastolph Bolger, “(various descendants)” of Rollo Boffin, and “2 daughters” of Adelard Took as party guests?
To give us a sense that the family trees actually extended far further, and were cut by the publisher for practical reasons.
Who does Tolkien mean us to think underlined the names: the hobbit genealogists, or himself as editor?
That's the running argument about how serious he took this conceit.
I think style of the opening remarks imply that he, as the editor, takes responsibility for the underlining of names.
Bilbo’s grandparents were born with the surnames Baggins, Chubb, Grubb, and Took: why do we only hear about the first and last as aspects of Bilbo’s personality in The Hobbit and “The Quest of Erebor”? Why didn’t Lobelia try to insult Frodo’s non-Baggins heritage by calling him a Bolger or a Took?
Only these were marked traits: the epitome of the aristocracy, and the epitome of the burgeouis.
But both your questions are probably answered by the time-honoured assumption that the wife joins her husband's family, and therefore his parents' mothers are not so important. Same thing with poor Drogo and Primula's parents.
Why does Tolkien include a “q.v.” note for just two names: Adalbert Bolger on the Boffin tree, and Gorbadoc Brandybuck on the Took tree?
I can't answer that without studying the family trees in depth - which, alas, I have no time for doing at the moment.
I'll try to answer your other questions later.
"So Mr Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is...
...Mr Bilbo has learned him his letters - meaning no harm, mark you...
...there's going to be presents, mark you, presents for all - this very month as is."
Mark the Gaffer's words!
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Mithlond
Mar 4 2009, 1:39pm
Post #10 of 44
(3173 views)
Shortcut
|
Rather fascinating - espoecially for somebody (me) who has no interest in Hobbit Family trees.....
And almost totally UUT.
Certainly the part about the order Bilbo recites the families names at the farewell party, correct?
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Mar 4 2009, 1:53pm
Post #11 of 44
(3161 views)
Shortcut
|
I assume you were asking about the Bolger-Boffin question? Well yes, I was guessing of course. I tried to glean as much information from the book as possible (to the extent of king Folca), and to wonder what that might have meant. About as much a UUT as any educated guess by a history student, who found a new geneology line, and was wondering what this might mean.
But unlike the history student, I'm afraid there is not much to be uncovered by further research - so this will ever remain a UUT, rather than a working plan! 
"So Mr Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is...
...Mr Bilbo has learned him his letters - meaning no harm, mark you...
...there's going to be presents, mark you, presents for all - this very month as is."
Mark the Gaffer's words!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Mar 4 2009, 4:14pm
Post #12 of 44
(3165 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, we all know that "The Longfather Tree of Master Samwise" is a joke on his having many children, but what is the primary meaning of the title, before the joke? As for why he's called "Master Samwise" and not "Samwise Gamgee" didn't some of Tolkien's notes, allegedly penned by Gondor scholars, call him (post-ring) Samwise Gardner?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Mar 4 2009, 5:29pm
Post #13 of 44
(3193 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A few answers (second installment)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is Gundolpho Bolger’s wife, Alfrida of the Yale, a lower-class hobbit who married up? Why does she have no family name?
Lower-class hobbits have no family name.
But the Yale is the Boffin's home - do you think there is a connection? Alfrida lives at the same time as Buffo Boffin, about whom I've wondered in an earlier post.
Does the “heru” in Herugar Bolger’s have the same meaning as in Théoden’s sword, Herugrim? Does the “isen” in Isengrim and Isengar Took have the same meaning as in Isengard?
Not my speciality. I don't know.
Why was it Bandobras and not his older brother Ferumbras who repelled the orc attack at Greenfields?
I've asked about this, in question no. 9. Perhaps you will have better luck than me in getting an answer?
Anyway, my take is the Bullroarer's sheer size and brute force. Note that Merry and Pippin, the generals of the other hobbit-army we know of, were the only hobbits ever who were even larger than Bandrobas.
Is Diamond of Long Cleeve, who marries Pippin, descended from Bandobras?
Wikipedia says she is - I do not know on what authority; in my edition Bandrobas is mentioned as the forefather of the north-Tooks of Long Cleeve, which doesn't prove much - although it does seems likely.
If not, she might have come from one of the families which had no surname - in which case, Faramir Took wasn't the first to marry below him: his father did, too!
Anyway, so did the man he was named after - which also took a golden-haired wife of great renown.
What explains the nicknames of the Brandybucks: Deepdelver, Proudneck, Masterful, Broadbelt, Goldfather, Scattergold, and Magnificent?
I assume just personal traits. Better than the French, with the lovely nicknames they gave their kings!
Just for fun: in what way is Sam like Spiderman?
I hardly know anything about Spiderman. Sorry.
Do the Gamgees know the ancestry of their last name? Sam’s father apparently couldn’t read – do the lower hobbit classes trace their genealogies with the same passion as the upper? Do they memorize all the names and dates? When was Sam’s “longfather tree” assembled?
I agree with FarFromHome's answer. If I could, I would mod her post up - especially for the thoughts about the future of reading in the web-world! Something to think about!
What causes a family to accept a name bestowed on them? Why wouldn’t “Old Gammidgy”and his son insist that the family name is “Gamwich” not “Gamgee”? Does Sam dislike his last name? His daughter Goldilocks is listed as “daughter of Master Samwise” rather than “Gamgee” on the Took tree. Do most of Sam’s descendants keep “Gamgee” or like his eldest son, Frodo, are they “Gardners”? Why is Sam’s great-grandson, Harding, “of the Hill” rather than “Gardner”?
I guess they would settle for Gardener - that does commemorate their illustrious ancestor!
What does the ending “ing” mean in the names Erling, Hending, and Harding?
I don't know. But I'd love to learn.
Is the Encyclopedia of Arda correct to say, in its entry on Hending (the son of Holman, the greenhanded), that “from the evidence we have it seems likely that he died childless”?
I see no reason to suppose so; I don't think the family trees are necessarily complete.
Why do the Cotton men all have nicknames? Of the three hobbits named Tolman, all with a parenthetical note indicating a nickname of “Tom”, why is only the first instance in quotation marks? And what kind of a nickname is Nibs?
Probably those were the original names Tolkien gave them, and then he felt they were too foolish.
But answering from within the story - I would hazard a guess that being the most uppity family in the neighbourhood, people taunted the boys with the childish nicknames; and being wise, instead of getting provoked into scuffles, they cheerfully accepted the names. Just a guess; not even a UUT.
The traditional homes of all the upper-class families –Hobbiton, Budgeford, the Yale, Great Smials, and Brandy Hall– all lie within ten miles of the East-West road, neither far north or far south in the Shire. Why?
Ah, we return to the question asked in a previous discussion, about tolls.
But the Shire is built indeed on a East-West axis - Brandy Hall, probably Frogmorton, Budgeford and/or the Yale (assuming the two families were in a sort of competition), Hobbiton-Bywater, the Great Smials, Michel Delving, and the Towers.
The Bracegirdles and Hornblowers seem to have been rich families of an agricultural origins (that doesn't sound quite like correct English! Ah well, you'll understand what I mean).
I'll need another time to answer the questions you've borrowed from others.
"So Mr Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is...
...Mr Bilbo has learned him his letters - meaning no harm, mark you...
...there's going to be presents, mark you, presents for all - this very month as is."
Mark the Gaffer's words!
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 4 2009, 6:48pm
Post #14 of 44
(3189 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The importance of class distinctions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not sure I like all the class distinctions, which the family trees emphasize, but I can't deny that Tolkien considered them important.
The class distinctions are certainly an important part of the portrayal of hobbits. How could you have all that silly stuffiness and petty snobbery otherwise?
This kind of social comedy has a long history (I think you can find it in Chaucer), and it's still going strong - any US fans of PBS's Britcoms might remember Keeping Up Appearances. Or Fawlty Towers. The plays of Sheridan revel in it, and you'll find it in humorous interludes in 19th century novels such as those of George Eliot or Anthony Trollope. So I think Tolkien is just following a familiar tradition in his portrayal of these silly more-English-than-the-English hobbits.
In fact, I guess it all started when he decided to portray Bilbo as a stuffy little Englishman in The Hobbit. He was following tradition here too, as this kind of humorous depiction of bourgeois snobbery also has a history in children's stories - The Wind in the Willows, for example, or some of Beatrix Potter's tales.
There's a slightly more serious reason for the class distinctions as well, I think - they are there as an obstacle for the characters to overcome. Bilbo overcomes his middle-class snobbery and insecurity in The Hobbit. And in LotR, we see Sam the working-class stiff end up the hero. It certainly helps, if you want to depict the "exaltation of the humble", to have a system in which there are people who are humble, and a status to which they can be exalted.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Mar 4 2009, 7:23pm
Post #15 of 44
(3201 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien makes fun of middle-class pretensions and lower-class bias.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien makes fun of middle-class types like Bilbo before his Tookish nature came out, or the Sackville-Bagginses, who have no Took or Brandybuck in them. He makes fun of the Gaffer's distrust of the Brandybucks and Farmer Maggot's distrust of hobbits like the Gaffer, as well as Butterbur's distrust of anyone from the Shire. But does Tolkien make fun of the best families, the Brandybucks and the Tooks?
It matters to Tolkien that Bilbo is, indeed, half Took. It matters that Merry and Pippin are like princes in the Shire, the heirs to the very best families. It matters that Sam has a Fallohide strain in his family, and that one of his golden-haired daughters founds a new family with a title and land grant from the king, while the other marries Pippin's heir. And, from what I have read, it mattered to Tolkien that he was half Suffield, an old and distinguished name of which he was proud even though the family had cut off his mother when she converted to Roman Catholicism.
(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 4 2009, 7:25pm)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Mar 5 2009, 4:47am
Post #16 of 44
(3156 views)
Shortcut
|
Very astute of you to notice the geography of status in the Shire! Now that you mention it, it does seem logical to me. The most prominent families would congregate around the most cosmopolitan trade centers available, and in the Shire that would be the chief road, where travelers from afar pass through, and upon which imports and exports travel.. Such places offer the most opportunity to rise, and the most opportunity to show off one's status once one arrives at it.
Interestingly, Aragorn turning the Shire into a hobbit reservation would dry up the importance of the East-West road in hobbit society. I wonder what that would do to them socially and economically?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Mar 5 2009, 7:20am
Post #17 of 44
(3165 views)
Shortcut
|
Now I can finish with this:
Dreamdeer has just observed the oddness of Sam inheriting Bag End from Frodo – which is all the more odd because there is in fact a male Baggins living. How was Sam’s inheritance arranged?
Royal decree? At least, who would dare confront the King's friend, as well as the saviour of the Shire (let's forget these strange Fallohides, please) and son-in-law of Farmer Cotton?
Anyway, the Shire does have the institution of wills - witness Lobelia's giving her money away to charity! And it's not thatshe didn't have family.
Altaira asked: are Hobbit marriages ever arranged?
Nice question! But is there any evidence either way? If not, the amount of romance involved in such marriages is open to one's imagination. Most fan-fic authors assume it is pure romance, and that gives them a fertile ground for speculation about Bilbo and Frodo being bachelors.
Corwynne wondered : why are Merry and Pippin, Sam’s children, not named Meriadoc and Peregrin?
Possibly, Sam didn't feel arictocratic enough; or conversely, was not burdened with the silly Fallohide conventions. I'm sure the Gaffer's wisdom about naming girls applies to boys as well! However, one must note the Gaffer himself is not as good as his wisdom.
Gullygilly pondered: could a lower-born male Hobbit marry above his station as Sam’s daughter Goldilocks does in marrying Peregrin’s son, Faramir?
I actually answered that above. Once again: if Faramir Took was modelled after Faramir the Steward, he had a precedent.
(of course, if I wanted Curious to really hate me, I would say her golden hair proved the Fallohide strain in her, and made it legitimate; but I really prefer the previous answer)
Kimi mused: is Goldilocks named for Galadriel?
Now that's a real UUT for you! Brilliant, short and sweet - nothing like my long ramblings! I really like it, not the least because it fits so neatly with the approach I took in this thread.
Finally, a new question from Beren IV: The genealogies of the Hobbits appear far more complete than those of the Elves or Men in Tolkien’s other books, based on realistic numbers of children and an approximately equal sex ratio. Why did Tolkien focus on making the Hobbits’ genealogies more complete than his other peoples?
This is a story about Hobbits. The other books were not, strictly speaking, stories - so we focus only on the main characters.
But who could say what is a realistic number of children for immortals? And 'The Line of Elros' does seem quite realistic for men.
"So Mr Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is...
...Mr Bilbo has learned him his letters - meaning no harm, mark you...
...there's going to be presents, mark you, presents for all - this very month as is."
Mark the Gaffer's words!
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 5 2009, 6:30pm
Post #18 of 44
(3132 views)
Shortcut
|
But does Tolkien make fun of the best families, the Brandybucks and the Tooks?
I think he does - at least, he makes it clear that they are not above humorous criticism. The Took family is said to be given special respect mainly because "it remained both numerous and exceedingly wealthy, and was liable to produce in every generation strong characters of peculiar habits and even adventurous temperament. The latter qualities, however, were now rather tolerated (in the rich) than generally approved. "
Not a resounding endorsement of their nobility, really. More like a wry comment on the way money can compensate for a lot of things!
And we hear a fair bit of criticism of the way Brandy Hall is run, in relation to the way Frodo was brought up in his early days.
It matters to Tolkien that Bilbo is, indeed, half Took. It matters that Merry and Pippin are like princes in the Shire, the heirs to the very best families.
The Tookishness matters because it makes Bilbo peculiar and adventurous, which is certainly not considered a positive attribute in the Shire. So I'd say Tolkien is making a bit of fun here.
As for Merry and Pippin, they aren't treated like princes in the Shire, even if the Gondorians get that impression. And the reason it matters (if it does matter that much) that Merry and Pippin are higher-class than Frodo and (especially) Sam, is because they provide a benchmark above which the humbler hobbits can rise. If Merry and Pippin end up behaving like princes when they get back, that's mostly because of the glamour they brought back with them. And we readers know, of course, (and no doubt they'd admit it themselves) they're not really the greatest heroes at all. Appearances are deceiving.
I agree that after the quest, history tells us that the families of our heroes rose in stature. That's what really happened after the Norman conquest, for example. Tolkien is writing an alternative history based on that of medieval Europe. Kings and noble families are part of the fabric of that history. If you're looking for a republican fantasy, perhaps you're looking in the wrong place!
And, from what I have read, it mattered to Tolkien that he was half Suffield, an old and distinguished name of which he was proud
In his Letters, he seems to be attached to the name because it's a Midlands name and therefore makes him feel like a true Midlander. I don't know if it's a distinguished name, but it's old, and I think that's what matters. He's attached to his roots, and why not? Most British people are. I'm attached to my half-Celtic, half-Anglo-Saxon family name, from a village 10 miles or so from where I was born. The village seems to have predated the Norman conquest but disappeared long ago. It's not a distinguished name, but it's old, and having an old name from your region gives you a sense of belonging to the land. All the more so in Tolkien's case since he was born in South Africa, and had a German surname. His bond to his beloved English Midlands came through his mother.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Mar 5 2009, 6:44pm
Post #19 of 44
(3171 views)
Shortcut
|
who "tolerates" the Tooks and Brandybucks, it's the lower and middle class hobbits -- at least until after the Scouring, when the Fallohide families prove their worth. Tolkien is making fun of the lower and middle class hobbits who tolerate their betters, instead of giving the Thain and the Master of Buckland and their families the respect they deserve.
After the Scouring that changes, and Merry and Pippin are treated like lords, which is what they deserve. Their families do not rise in stature, their stature is restored to what it rightly should be. Sam's family does rise in stature, and therefore he is not treated like a lord but like a commoner made good, which is what he is and what he always will be -- but two of his daughters marry above their station, and gain a status he could not get no matter what he accomplished.
There are plenty of books which treat issues of class without implicitly approving of class distinctions. I don't think LotR is one of those books, although it comes out more clearly in the Appendices than in the text itself.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 5 2009, 7:26pm
Post #20 of 44
(3121 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien is making fun of the lower and middle class hobbits who tolerate their betters, instead of giving the Thain and the Master of Buckland and their families the respect they deserve.
I don't know what evidence there is for such a reading. I don't see anything in the text to suggest that Tooks and Brandybucks are actually better than everyone else.
After the Scouring that changes, and Merry and Pippin are treated like lords, which is what they deserve.
Again, I don't see anything that says this is what Merry and Pippin "deserve". I don't read it that way at all. To me, it seems like a wry comment on the fact that the hobbit who really does deserve to be honoured, is not.
There are plenty of books which treat issues of class without implicitly approving of class distinctions. I don't think LotR is one of those books, although it comes out more clearly in the Appendices than in the text itself.
The rise in the fortunes of the families of the hero hobbits does appear as a benefit. But then it would, wouldn't it, since they are the ones who wrote (or commissioned) the history found in the Appendices? If by "approving of class distinctions" you mean that Tolkien liked the British system of royalty and aristocracy, then no doubt you are right. The awarding of titles for services to the country is still an important element of British society, and I can't imagine that Tolkien disapproved of it. Still, when reading these Appendices I never get a sense that the social status of the heirs of our heroes is anywhere near as important or meaningful as the personal qualities of the heroes themselves.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Mar 5 2009, 8:03pm
Post #21 of 44
(3131 views)
Shortcut
|
The rise in the fortunes of the families of the hero hobbits does appear as a benefit. But then it would, wouldn't it, since they are the ones who wrote (or commissioned) the history found in the Appendices?
Argh, it's the unreliable narrators again!
Still, when reading these Appendices I never get a sense that the social status of the heirs of our heroes is anywhere near as important or meaningful as the personal qualities of the heroes themselves.
No, but in LotR there is a strong correlation between family and virtue. Not a perfect correlation -- some of the noble born like Denethor or Boromir turn bad, some of the common born like Sam rise above their station -- but still a strong correlation.
The Tooks and Brandybucks (as well as the royal dwarves, elves, and men) just tend to be more courageous and adventurous and capable than the usual members of their race. I'm glad Sam and Frodo are the real heroes of LotR -- I feel like I have more in common with them than with Merry and Pippin, let alone Gandalf and Aragorn -- but Tolkien felt compelled to make sure that even Sam and Frodo had strong Fallohide strains in their blood.
(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 5 2009, 8:07pm)
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 5 2009, 8:22pm
Post #22 of 44
(3114 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Are you better off than you were four threads ago? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Mar. 2-8 for Family Trees, Calendars, and Writing and Spelling.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 5 2009, 8:30pm
Post #23 of 44
(3130 views)
Shortcut
|
...assuming that everything Tolkien writes should be taken at face value! Don't you think he ever intends us to see the irony in some of the things he records - such as the way the highly-placed get all the honour while the real heroism lies elsewhere? As you say, plenty of characters who seem noble and courteous on the surface turn out to have feet of clay. Lots don't, of course. But it's only to be expected that there are a lot of kings, princes and nobles in these tales (especially the tales of the Elves), because they are legends, and legends always concern the Great.
Tolkien felt compelled to make sure that even Sam and Frodo had strong Fallohide strains in their blood.
Fair enough in terms of Frodo. He's definitely "officer class". But that Fallohide blood in Sam always strikes me as a red herring. Within LotR - indeed, within anything Tolkien wrote for publication at all - there's simply no mention of any Fallohide blood in Sam. The only evidence is a note for translators. For me, that note is evidence that Tolkien has hidden clues to the "unreliability" of the narrators' views - that is, he has planted a hint, in Marigold's name, that Galadriel's magic didn't have to be quite as magical as the hobbits believed - Elanor's golden hair might have a perfectly normal hereditary explanation.
But that's my bias showing. And I suggest that your way of reading the note might be a symptom of yours.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Mar 5 2009, 9:11pm
Post #24 of 44
(3142 views)
Shortcut
|
But that Fallohide blood in Sam always strikes me as a red herring.
Sam does not become a hero because he's a Fallohide. He becomes a Fallohide because he's a hero!
Like every usurper of a throne has an entirely legitimate bloodline after the genealogists get the appendices to his history worked up.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Mar 5 2009, 10:50pm
Post #25 of 44
(3159 views)
Shortcut
|
emphasize that Sam has two blond daughters who marry above their station, as well as a blond sister (who is mentioned in the text). As I said, this is not emphasized in the main text, and for that I am grateful. But it is emphasized in the appendices, just as the bloodlines of all the other main characters are emphasized in the appendices. Indeed, it seems to me one of the primary purposes of the appendices.
On the other hand, the main text does say lots of nice things about the Tooks and Brandybucks and the royal houses of various races. Just because class distinctions aren't emphasized in the main text doesn't mean they are absent.
I've almost given up on the argument about the unreliable narrator, but I do have a new thought for you. In Letter #153, in discussing Treebeard's statement that trolls were made in mockery of ents, Tolkien says that "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me... and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand." Now, why would Tolkien have to make this distinction if, indeed, everything in the story, whether explicitly attributed to a character or not, is the work of unreliable narrators?
And note that some parts of the Prologue and Appendices are explicitly attributed to other authors, while others, including the genealogies, are not. Again, why draw the distinction if everything is supposed to be the work of other authors?
|
|
|
|
|
1
