Amiga Plus 1995 #2

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Amiga Plus 1995 #2 / Amiga Plus CD - 1995 - No. 2.iso / internet / faq / englisch / tolkien < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1995-04-11 | 81.5 KB | 1,674 lines

Archive-name: tolkien/lessfaq/part1 X-Last-Updated: 1994/03/28 Posting Frequency: 28 days The Tolkien Less Frequently Asked Questions List (LessFAQ), is the second of two informational files on J.R.R. Tolkien and his writings, the other being the Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ). The division of questions follows several general criteria. The FAQ leans towards questions of interest to people who have read only _The Lord of the Rings_ and _The Hobbit_, together with most questions on Tolkien himself and on topics which seem fundamental to his worldview (his linguistic games in particular). The LessFAQ contains questions of a more obscure nature, most questions arising from posthumous works, and in general aspects of the nature and history of Middle-earth which are important but tangential to _The Lord of the Rings_. There is also an element of personal arbitrariness. All available sources have been used for both lists. Criticisms, corrections, and suggestions are of course welcome. William D.B. Loos loos@frodo.mgh.harvard.edu ======================================================================== ======================================================================== TOLKIEN LESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST Questions numbered thusly: 1) are in their final form. Questions numbered thusly: 1] remain unrevised. Sections/questions marked: * have been revised since the last release. ** are new since the last release. Table of Contents I. Changes Since the Last Release (*) II. Acknowledgements III. Note on References and Conversion Table (*) IV. Commonly Used Abbreviations V. Less Frequently Asked Questions A) Tolkien And His Work 1] Was there a change of tone between Book I and the rest of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? 2] Why did Tolkien fail to publish _The Silmarillion_ during the eighteen years which followed the publication of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? B) General History Of Middle-earth 1] What exactly happened at the end of the First Age? 2] In terms of the larger worldview, what exactly took place at the Fall of Numenor? C) Hobbits 1] Did Frodo and the others (Bilbo, Sam, and Gimli) who passed over the Sea eventually die, or had they become immortal? 2) In _The Hobbit_, Bilbo called the spiders Attercop, Lazy Lob, Crazy Cob, and Old Tomnoddy. What do the words mean? D) Elves 1] Were Elves reincarnated after they were slain? (*) 2) Was Glorfindel of Rivendell (whom Frodo met) the same as Glorfindel of Gondolin, who was slain fighting a Balrog? (*) 3) How were Eldar in Valinor named? E) Humans 1] What brought on the sinking of Numenor? 2] How could Ar-Pharazon of Numenor defeat Sauron while Sauron wielded the One Ring? 3] What happened to the Ring when Numenor was destroyed? 4] Where did the Southrons come from? Were they part of the Atani? F) Dwarves 1] What were the origins of the Dwarves? 2] If, as has been told, only Seven Fathers of the Dwarves were created, how did the race procreate? G) Enemies 1] What was the origin of the Orcs? 2] What was the origin of Trolls? H) Miscellaneous 1] Who was Queen Beruthiel (who was mentioned by Aragorn during the journey through Moria)? ======================================================================== ======================================================================== CHANGES SINCE THE LAST RELEASE Starting with this release the Less Frequently Asked Questions List is abbreviated as "LessFAQ" rather than "LFAQ". The desire is that its abbreviation should match its archive name, which was chosen for the sake of clarity. The changes indicated in the Contents were those needed to bring various sections to their final form. Unless otherwise noted, questions marked as revised were changed by the addition of references and of contributors (and stylistically: some were to some extent re-written) but not in content. -- Question D (2) (on the two Glorfindels) was substantially expanded. -- Question D (3) (How Eldar were named) was somewhat expanded. ======================================================================== ======================================================================== ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals made suggestions and contributions to these FAQ lists: Wayne.G.Hammond@williams.edu (Wayne Hammond Jr) carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter) paul@ERC.MsState.Edu (Paul Adams) wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) cpresson@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) simen.gaure@usit.uio.no (Simen Gaure) abalje47@uther.Calvin.EDU (Alan Baljeu) sahdra@ecf.toronto.edu (SAHDRA KULDIP) sherman@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Bill Sherman) markg@mistral.rice.edu (Mark Gordon) hunt@oils.ozy.dec.com (Peter Hunt) rrosen@cesl.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenbaum) ======================================================================== ======================================================================== NOTE ON REFERENCES There is a certain amount of cross-referencing among the questions on both the FAQ and the LessFAQ lists. Any questions so referred to are specified by the list, section, and question number. Thus, the first question in the Hobbit section of the FAQ, "Were Hobbits a sub-group of Humans?" would be referenced as (FAQ, Hobbits, 1). Note that the section "Tolkien And His Work" is referred to merely as "Tolkien" and the section "General History of Middle-earth" is referred to merely as "General". E.g. the question "Who was J.R.R. Tolkien anyway?" is (FAQ, Tolkien, 1) and the question "What exactly happened at the end of the First Age?" is (LessFAQ, General, 1). Sources for quotations have been provided in the form of volume and page numbers; the specific editions utilized are listed in the next paragraph. For those occasions when the proper edition is not available (and the conversion table below is not applicable) the page numbers have been roughly located according to chapter, sub-section, or appendix, whichever is appropriate. For example, RK, 57-59 (V, 2) refers to pages 57-59 of Return of the King and further locates the pages in chapter 2 of Book V. PLEASE NOTE the distinction in the case of _Lord of the Rings_ between *Volumes* and *Books*. LotR is comprised of three Volumes (FR, TT, and RK) and of six Books (I - VI), which are the more natural divisions of the story into six roughly equal parts. There are two Books in each of the Volumes. Other sample references are below. References to _The Hobbit_ are from the Ballantine paperback (the pagination has been the same since the 60's. All other references are to the HM hardcovers. Sample references follow: Hobbit, 83 (Ch V) == Hobbit, chapter V RK, 408 (App F, I, "Of Men", "Of Hobbits") == p 408 in Part I of Appendix F, the sections entitled "Of Men" and "Of Hobbits" Silm, 57 (Ch V) == Silmarillion, chapter V (BoLT and _The Annotated Hobbit_ treated similarly) UT, 351 (Three, IV, iii) == Unfinished Tales, Part Three, Chapter IV, sub-section iii (the Biography treated similarly) Letters, 230 (#178) == letter number 178. RtMe, 53-54 (3, "Creative anachronisms") == The Road to Middle-earth, in Chapter 3, sub-section "Creative anachronisms" CONVERSION TABLE In _The Atlas of Middle-earth_, Karen Wynn Fonstad provided a Houghton-Mifflin-to-Ballantine conversion table, which is reproduced below. The "table" is actually a set of formulae by which HM page numbers may be converted to Ballantine page numbers via arithmetic involving some empirically determined constants. Since these are discrete rather than continuous functions the results may be off by a page or so. [NOTE: in the Fall of 1993, Ballantine issued a new edition of the mass market paperback of LotR in which the text has been re-set, thereby changing the page on which any given quote is located. Thus, the following table will no longer work with the latest printings, which may be identified by the change in the color of the covers (the pictures are unaltered): in the previous set of printings all the covers were black; in the new set FR is green, TT is purple, and RK is red.] HM Page Subtract Divide By Add ------------- -------- --------- ------- FR 10 to 423 9 .818 18 TT 15 to 352 14 .778 16 RK 19 to 311 18 .797 18 RK 313 to 416 312 .781 386 H 9 to 317 8 1.140 14 Silm 15 to 365 14 .773 2 Reference: Atlas, p. 191 (first edtion), p. 192 (revised edtion) ======================================================================== ======================================================================== COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS General: JRRT J.R.R. Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien CT, CJRT Christopher Tolkien (son; editor of most posthumous works) A&U, AU George Allen & Unwin (original British publisher) UH Unwin Hyman (new name for A&U c. 1987(?)) HC HarperCollins (purchased UH c. 1992; current British publisher) HM Houghton Mifflin (American publisher) M-e Middle-earth SA Second Age TA Third Age SR Shire Reckoning Middle-earth Works: H The Hobbit LR, LotR The Lord of the Rings FR, FotR The Fellowship of the Ring TT, TTT The Two Towers RK, RotK The Return of the King TB, ATB The Adventures of Tom Bombadil RGEO The Road Goes Ever On Silm The Silmarillion UT Unfinished Tales Letters The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien HoMe History of Middle-earth BLT,BoLT Book of Lost Tales Lays The Lays of Beleriand Treason The Treason of Isengard Guide The Guide to the Names in the Lord of the Rings (published in _A Tolkien Compass_) Other Works: FGH Farmer Giles of Ham TL Tree and Leaf OFS On Fairy-Stories LbN Leaf by Niggle HBBS The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son SWM Smith of Wootton Major SGPO Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, Sir Orfeo FCL The Father Christmas Letters Reference Works: Biography J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography; by Humphrey Carpenter (published in the US as Tolkien: A Biography) Inklings The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and Their Friends; by Humphrey Carpenter RtMe The Road to Middle-earth; by T.A. Shippey Scholar J.R.R. Tolkien, Scholar and Storyteller: Essays in Memoriam; edited by Mary Salu and Robert T. Farrell Atlas The Atlas of Middle-earth; by Karen Wynn Fonstad ======================================================================== ======================================================================== TOLKIEN AND HIS WORK 1) Was there a change of tone between Book I and the rest of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? Yes. Originally, the world of the Hobbit was not the same as the world of the Silmarillion (Tolkien threw in a few names from it, like Gondolin and Elrond, for effect, but there was no explicit connection). Thus, when he began LotR, he thought he was writing a sequel to _The Hobbit, and the tone of the early chapters, especially Ch 1, reflect this (it has the same "children's story" ambience as _The Hobbit_). With the coming of the Black Riders and Gandalf's discussion of Middle-earth history and the Ring a change began towards a loftier tone and a darker mood, though much less serious elements remained (e.g. Tom Bombadil). After the Council of Elrond LotR was overtly a sequel to the Silmarillion. Oddly, Tolkien added new details but never changed the overall tone of Book I. He later claimed that the change in tone was intentional, that it was meant to reflect the changing perceptions of the hobbits as they became educated about the Wide World. This was certainly not his intention as he was writing. On the other hand, the tone of "The Scouring of the Shire" is very different from that of "A Long-expected Party", possibly indicating the altered perspective of the observers. ---------- 2) Why did Tolkien fail to publish _The Silmarillion_ during the eighteen years which followed the publication of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? No definitive answer is possible, but a several serious obstacles can be listed. They included: a) Technical difficulties. Tolkien's unmethodical habits of revision had made the manuscripts chaotic; it seemed impossible to make everything consistent. Characters introduced in LotR had to be worked in. Beyond these detailed questions, he contemplated many alterations, even to fundamental features of his mythology. b) The problem of depth. In LotR, his references to the older legends of the First Age helped produce the strong sense of historical reality. In the Silmarillion, which told the legends themselves, this method wouldn't be available. c) The problem of presentation. LotR had been basically novelistic, presenting the story sequentially from one character or another's point of view. But the Silmarillion was and was meant to be a bundle of tales which had more in common with the ancient legends he studied than with LotR. He feared that if he presented it as an annotated study of ancient manuscripts that probably many readers would have difficulty enjoying the tales as stories. d) No Hobbits. He feared (correctly) that many people expected another _Lord of the Rings_, which the Silmarillion could never be. ---------- GENERAL HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH 1) What exactly happened at the end of the First Age? The Noldorin Elves had made war on Morgoth (referred to as "the Great Enemy" by Aragorn in "A Knife in the Dark") to recover the three Silmarils, which he had stolen, and had been totally defeated. The Valar then used their full power against Morgoth. In the resulting cataclysm Beleriand, the land in which the tales of the Silmarillion took place, was destroyed and sank under the Sea. There are thus various references to "lands under the waves". On the LotR map, Beleriand would have been far to the west, beyond the Blue Mountains (Ered Luin), which also appear at the far right of the Silm map. It is difficult to make an exact correlation because the mountain range was much altered, having been split when the Gulf of Lune created. Nogrod and Belegost, the ancient dwarf-cities, are located on the Silm map, and existed as ruins in the Third Age, but where they fall on the LotR map is not known (they were said to be "near Nenuail", which is only slightly helpful). Lindon was definitely the same land as Ossiriand, where Beren and Luthien once dwelt. [_The Atlas of Middle-earth_ includes a map showing how Eriador and Beleriand lay relative to each other.] ---------- 2) In terms of the larger worldview, what exactly took place at the Fall of Numenor? The world was changed from a flat medieval world to the round world of today. Middle-earth was meant to be our own world (see FAQ, Tolkien, 6), and Tolkien's overall conception was of a progression, with "Mythological Time" changing into "Historical Time". The events accompanying the Fall of Numenor were a major step in the process. Originally, the "fashion" of Middle-earth was the flat world of the medieval universe. Valinor (the equivalent of Heaven in that the "gods" dwelt there) was physically connected to the rest of the world and could be reached by ship. When Numenor sank (see LFAQ, Humans, 1) "the fashion of the world was changed": the flat world was bent into a round one, with new lands also being created; and Valinor was removed "from the circles of the World", and could no longer be reached by ordinary physical means. The Elves alone were still allowed to make a one-way journey to Valinor along "the Straight Road". (An elven ship on such a journey would grow smaller and smaller with distance until if vanished rather than sinking over the horizon as a human ships do.) References to "bent seas", "bent skies", "the straight road", "straight sight", "the World Made Round", and the like all refer to the change in the world's "fashion". (The palantir at Emyn Beriad "looked only to the Sea. Elendil set it there so that he could look back with 'straight sight' and see Eressea in the vanished West; but the bent seas below covered Numenor for ever." (RK, p. 322) ---------- HOBBITS 1) Did Frodo and the others (Bilbo, Sam, and Gimli) who passed over the Sea eventually die, or had they become immortal? They remained mortal. Tolkien's conception was that a creature's natural lifespan was intrinsic to its spiritual and biological nature, and that this could not be altered save by a direct intervention of the Creator. There were three occasions when this did happen (Luthien, Tuor, Arwen), but it did not in the cases of Frodo & Co. Tolkien stated explicitly in more than one letter that Frodo's journey over the Sea was only a *temporary* healing, and that when the time came he and the others would die of their own free will. ---------- 2) In _The Hobbit_, Bilbo called the spiders Attercop, Lazy Lob, Crazy Cob, and Old Tomnoddy. What do the words mean? Notes in _The Annotated Hobbit_ identify Attercop, Lob, and Cob as being taken from similar words in Old and Middle English for "spider" (indeed, the word for "spider" in modern Norwegian is "edderkopp"). The Oxford English Dictionary definition of Tomnoddy is given as "a foolish or stupid person." (Annotated Hobbit, 170-171) As is well known, Tolkien used "Lob" again later. During the writing of Book IV he wrote to Christopher: "Do you think Shelob is a good name for a monstrous spider creature? It is of course only 'she + lob' ( == 'spider' ), but written as one, it seems to be quite noisome... Letters, 81 (#70) References: Hobbit, Ch VIII; Annotated Hobbit, 170-171 (Ch VIII, notes 8,9,10); Letters, 81 (#70). Contributors: WDBL, Paul Adams, Simen Gaure ---------- ELVES 1) Were Elves reincarnated after they were slain? Yes. In addition to a number of general statements to this effect at least two Elves are specifically said to have been "re-embodied" after being slain: Finrod Felagund and Glorfindel (see LFAQ, Elves, 2). ("Re-embodied" is used rather than "reincarnated" because in the case of Elves (unlike what's usually meant in a human context) the spirit was reborn in a body resembling the original and furthermore all its former memories would be substantially intact). ---------- 2) Was Glorfindel of Rivendell (whom Frodo met) the same as Glorfindel of Gondolin, who was slain fighting a Balrog? This has been a matter of great controversy. It was unplanned by Tolkien, and therefore was something he had to decide after the fact. The only direct information in any of the books is a comment by Christopher in _The Return of the Shadow_ (HoMe VI): Some notes that were scribbled down at Sidmouth in Devon in the late summer of 1938 (see Carpenter, _Biography_, p. 187) on a page of doodles evidently represent my father's thoughts for the next stages of the story at this time: Consultation. Over M[isty] M[ountains]. Down Great River to Mordor. Dark Tower. Beyond(?) which is the Fiery Hill. Story of Gilgalald told by Elrond? Who is Trotter? Glorfindel tells of his ancestry in Gondolin. ... Very notable is "Glorfindel tells of his ancestry in Gondolin". Years later, long after the publication of _The Lord of the Rings_, my father gave a great deal of thought to the matter of Glorfindel, and at that time he wrote: "[The use of Glorfindel] in LotR is one of the cases of the somewhat random use of the names found in the older legends, now referred to as The Silmarillion, which escaped reconsideration in the final published form of _The Lord of the Rings_." He came to the conclusion that Glorfindel of Gondolin, who fell to his death in combat with a Balrog after the sack of the city (II. 192-4, IV.145), and Glorfindel of Rivendell were one and the same: he was released from Mandos and returned to Middle-earth in the Second Age. The Return of the Shadow, 214-215 ["Trotter" was the original name of the mysterious stranger later called "Strider" (who at this stage of the composition was a hobbit); II and IV refer to other volumes in the HoMe series.] A number of reasons have been advanced for not taking this at face value. Since Christopher's report of Tolkien's conclusion was not part of the rough drafts, the question of whether rough drafts can be canonical does not arise in this case. The suggestion that lack of premeditation is grounds for rejection also seems inadequate, since many elements were introduced with little thought of future conse- quences yet later became important parts of the mythos. It is true that we have no examples of any other elf journeying eastwards *to* Middle-earth during the Second Age (though some did visit Numenor), but this is not enough to disprove the possibility of Glorfindel's having done so. There were in fact no direct statements either way, which means that Tolkien could have established whatever background he wanted to any story he might have written. The previous lack of specific information on this matter was no constraint. The strongest objection is that the way Christopher presents this insprires less confidence than it might because he doesn't provide any direct quotes -- rather, he merely describes a "conclusion" that his father eventually "came to". Evidently, Tolkien never actually wrote his conclusion down. The matter therefore reduces to a question of how much one trusts Christopher, and whether one supposes that he might attach too much importance to a casual statement. The majority of readers appear to accept that this was indeed a thoughtful conclusion that Tolkien reached only after long deliberation (we do know that he and Christopher discussed the matter of Middle-earth often). A significant minority continue to reject it. In the last analysis, of course, certainty either way is impos- sible, since no evidence beyond the above exists. On the one hand, we can at least say that Tolkien apparently saw no objection to the idea that a re-embodied Glorfindel could have returned. On the other hand, the usual caveats concerning unpublished material are even stronger than usual in this case, since he not only might have changed his mind before publishing but also might have done so before he wrote the story, or while he wrote it (not an unusual occurrence). Still, there seems a good chance that he would have stuck to the one Glorfindel idea, since he seems not to have come to the decision lightly. References: Return of the Shadow (HoMe VI), 214-215 (First Phase, XII). Contributors: WDBL, Robert Rosenbaum ---------- 3) How were Eldar in Valinor named? They had two given names ('essi'), one bestowed at birth by the father, the other later by the mother: ... and these mother-names had great significance, for the mothers of the Eldar had insight into the characters and abilities of their children, and many also had the gift of prophetic foresight. In addition, any of the Eldar might acquire epesse ('after-name'), not necessarily given by their own kin, a nickname -- mostly given as a title of admiration or honour; and an epesse might become the name generally used and recognised in later song and history (as was the case, for instance, with Ereinion, always known by his epesse Gil-galad). UT, 266 On why 'Ereinion' ('Scion of Kings' (UT, 436)) was given this epesse: It is recorded that Ereinion was given the name Gil-galad 'Star of Radiance' 'because his helm and mail, and his shield overlaid with silver and set with a device of white stars, shone from afar like a star in sunlight or moonlight, and could be seen by Elvish eyes at a great distance if he stood upon a height'. UT, 217 [ Gil-galad's "device of white stars" is shown in entry 47 of Pictures.] The other epesse most familiar to readers of LotR was 'Galadriel', whose father-name was 'Artanis' ('noble woman') and mother-name 'Nerwen' ('man-maiden') (UT 229, 231). As for 'Galadriel', which was the Sindarin form of 'Altariel' (Quenya) and 'Alatariel' (Telerin) (UT, 266): In the High-elven speech her name was Al(a)tariel, derived from _alata_ 'radience' (Sindarin _galad_) and _riel_ 'garlanded maiden' (from a root rig- 'twine, wreathe'): the whole meaning 'maiden crowned with a radiant garland', referring to her hair. Silm, 360 References: UT, 217, 229, 231, 266 (all Two, II), 436 (Index); Silm, 360 (Appendix, root -kal); Pictures, entry 47. Contributors: WDBL, Paul Adams ---------- HUMANS 1) What brought on the sinking of Numenor? The Numenor story was Tolkien's re-telling of the Atlantis legend (the tale publshed in _The Silmarillion_ was entitled "The Akalabeth", which may be translated as "Downfallen"). Numenor was an island far to the West, a "land apart" given to the heroic Edain (humans) of the First Age who had aided the Noldor in the wars against Morgoth (see LFAQ, General, 1). [The Line of Kings of Numenor was descended from Elrond's brother Elros, who chose to be mortal; it led indirectly to Elendil the Tall, first King of Arnor and Gondor, and thus eventually to Aragorn son of Arathorn.] The theological situation was the "standard" one of a Ban and a Fall. The Numenoreans, despite having been granted a longer lifespan than other, humans, nevertheless had to remain mortal. They had also been ordered not to sail West to the Undying Lands (Valinor). After awhile (perhaps inevitably, as their power and wealth grew) the Numenoreans began to envy the Elves and to yearn for immortality themselves (so as to enjoy their situation longer). They managed to convince themselves that physical control of the Undying Lands would somehow produce this result (it would not have); however, they also retained sufficient wisdom not to attempt any such foolish action. Significantly, the more obsessed they became with death the more quickly it came as their lifespans steadily waned. Near the end of the Second Age King Ar-Pharazon the Golden pridefully challenged Sauron for the mastery of Middle-earth. The Numenoreans won the confrontation (see LFAQ, Humans, 2) and took Sauron to Numenor as a prisoner. Still wielding the One Ring, he swiftly gained control over most of the Numenoreans (except for the Faithful and their leaders, Amandil and his son Elendil). As King Ar-Pharazon's death approached ("he felt the waning of his days and was besotted by fear of death"; RK, p. 317) Sauron finally convinced him by deception to attack Valinor. This was a mistake. A great chasm opened in the Sea and Numenor toppled into the abyss. (Tolkien had a recurrent dream about this event; in LotR he gave it to Faramir, who described it in "The Steward and the King".) (See also LFAQ, General, 2). ---------- 2) How could Ar-Pharazon of Numenor defeat Sauron while Sauron wielded the One Ring? He did not actually defeat Sauron himself. The invasion fleet of the Numenoreans was so powerful that Sauron's *armies* deserted him. Sauron merely pretended to humble himself; to be carried back to Numenor as a supposed hostage was exactly what he wanted. His plan was to weaken Numenor as a war power by maneuvering them into sending a fleet to attack Valinor, where it would presumably be destroyed. He succeeded up to a point, but the result was disastrously more violent than he foresaw, and he was caught in the Fall of Numenor. Only his physical body perished since by nature he was of the spiritual order. Tolkien: "That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. The indestructibility of *spirits* with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story." (Letters, p. 280). ---------- 3) What happened to the Ring when Numenor was destroyed? Nothing. Sauron carried it back to Middle-earth, though there might be some question as to how he managed it. Tolkien said he did, and Tolkien should know: "Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended." (Letters, p. 280). In fact, as far as we know all the spiritual beings (Valar and Maiar) were perfectly capable of manipulating physical objects. ---------- 4) Where did the Southrons come from? Were they part of the Atani? Yes. All humans, East, West, North, or South, were. Humans first appeared in the east and spread westwards, with some eventually crossing the Blue Mountains into Beleriand. The entry for Atani in the Silmarillion index reads: Atani 'The Second People', Men (singular Atan). Since in Beleriand for a long time the only Men known to the Noldor and Sindar were those of the Three Houses of the Elf-friends, this name (in the Sindarin form Adan, plural Edain) became specially associated with them, so that it was seldom applied to other Men who came later to Beleriand, or who were reported to be dwelling beyond the Mountains. But in the speech of Iluvatar the meaning is 'Men (in general)'. [Humans were 'the second people' because Elves were the Firstborn.] ---------- DWARVES 1) What were the origins of the Dwarves? They were made by Aule, the smith and craftmaster of the Valar. This was against Eru's Plan: Aule had neither the authority nor indeed the power to create other souls (the result of his efforts was a group of what amounted to puppets). However, because he repented his folly at once and because his motives had been good (he desired children to teach, not slaves to command) Eru gave the Dwarves life and made them part of the Plan. The Elves were still to be the "Firstborn", though, so the Dwarves had to sleep until after the Elves awoke. ---------- 2) If, as has been told, only Seven Fathers of the Dwarves were created, how did the race procreate? In the _Silmarillion_ account of the making of the Dwarves, only the Seven Fathers are mentioned. In Letter no. 212 (p 287), however, Tolkien speaks of thirteen dwarves being initially created: "One, the eldest, alone, and six more with six mates." Thus, it seems that Durin really did "walk alone" as Gimli's song said. ---------- ENEMIES 1) What was the origin of the Orcs? A fundamental concept for Tolkien (and the other Inklings) was that Evil cannot create, only corrupt (the Boethian, as opposed to the Manichean, concept of evil). In Letter 153 he explained that to a first approximation, Treebeard was wrong ("Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves." TT, p. 89) and Frodo was right ("The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to Orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them ..." RK, p. 190). (Tolkien: "Treebeard is a *character* in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand." Letters, p. 190; "Suffering and experience (and possibly the Ring itself) gave Frodo more insight ..." Letters, p. 191.) ("To the first approximation" [above] because in that same letter Tolkien made some subtle distinctions between "creating" and "making", which cannot be gone into here.) Tolkien stated explicitly in that letter (and several other places) that the Orcs are indeed "a race of rational incarnate creatures, though horribly corrupted". Also that "In the legends of the Elder Days it is suggested that the Diabolus subjugated and corrupted some of the earliest Elves, before they had ever heard of the 'gods', let alone of God." (Letters, p. 191). In fact, _The Silmarillion_ does state that Orcs were Avari (Dark Elves) captured by Morgoth (p. 50, 94), though strictly speaking, the idea is presented as the best guess of the Eldar, no more. Some have rejected the statements on those grounds, that the Elvish compilers of _The Silmarillion_ didn't actually *know* the truth but were merely speculating. But since Tolkien himself, speaking as author and sub-creator, more-or-less verified this idea, it's probably safe to accept it, as far as it goes. It has been widely noted that this conception leaves several questions unresolved. 1) Re: procreation, _The Silmarillion_ says that "the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar" (p. 50), but nevertheless people continue to raise questions. For one thing, there was never any hint that female Orcs exist (there were two apparent references to Orc children, but both were from _The Hobbit_ , and therefore may be considered suspect). 2) There is the question of why, if Orcs were corrupted Elves, their offspring would also be Orcs (rather than Elves -- a somewhat horrifying thought). This question leads to discussions of brainwashing vs. genetics, which are not altogether appropriate to the world of Middle-earth. 3) Finally there is the question of whether Orcs, being fundamentally Elves, go to the Halls of Mandos when they are slain, and whether, like Elves, they are reincarnated. (This last would explain how they managed to replenish their numbers so quickly all the time.) There is also some reason to think that Orcs, like Elves, are immortal. (Gorbag and Shagrat, during the conver- sation which Sam overheard, mention the "Great Seige", which presumably refers to the Last Alliance; it is possible to interpret this reference to mean that they were there and actually remembered it themselves.) ---------- 2) What was the origin of Trolls? No one seems to know. Apparently, though, they were "made" (as opposed to "created" -- see LFAQ, Enemies, 1) by Melkor. Said Tolkien: "I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence ... they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls, beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested." (Letters, p. 191) "Counterfeits" here means more-or-less that the Trolls have no independant life of their own but are puppets animated in some way by an external Evil Will. As for the other kind of Troll, the Olog-hai, no reference to their origin has been found, except for Appendix F: "That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known." However, they were definitely true Trolls, not large Orcs. The Troll adventure in _The Hobbit_ should probably not be taken too literally as a source of Troll-lore -- it seems clear that it was much modified by the translator's desire to create familiarity. Thus, it seems unlikely that Trolls in Middle-earth spoke with Cockney accents, just as it seems unlikely that one of them would have been named "William". ---------- MISCELLANEOUS 1) Who was Queen Beruthiel? (Aragorn mentioned her during the journey through Moria.) The reference is to Book II, Ch 4 "A Journey in the Dark": " 'Do not be afraid!' said Aragorn. There was a pause longer than usual, and Gandalf and Gimli were whispering together; ... 'Do not be afraid! I have been with him on many a journey, if never on one so dark; ... He is surer of finding the way home in a blind night than the cats of Queen Beruthiel.' " (FR p. 325). This is a striking case of Tolkien's creative process. It seems that the name meant nothing when it first appeared: it just "came" as he was writing the first draft of the chapter. Later, however, he "found out" whom she "actually" was, his conclusions being reported in UT. She was the wife of King Tarannon of Gondor (Third Age 830-913), and was described as "nefarious, solitary, and loveless" (Tarannon's childlessness was mentioned without explanation in the annals). "She had nine black cats and one white, her slaves, with whom she conversed, or read their memories, setting them to discover all the dark secrets of Gondor,... setting the white cat to spy upon the black, and tormenting them. No man in Gondor dared touch them; all were afraid of them, and cursed when they saw them pass." Her eventual fate was to be set adrift in a boat with her cats: "The ship was last seen flying past Umbar under a sickle moon, with a cat at the masthead and another as a figure-head on the prow." It is also told that "her name was erased from the Book of the Kings (`but the memory of men is not wholly shut in books, and the cats of Queen Beruthiel never passed wholly out of men's speech')." (UT, pp 401-402) Archive-name: tolkien/faq/part2 X-Last-Updated: 1994/03/28 Posting Frequency: 28 days -----8<--------8<--------8<---- cut here ----8<--------8<--------8<----- ---------- 7) Was the northwest of Middle-earth, where the story took place, meant to actually be Europe? Yes, but a qualified yes. There is no question that Tolkien had northwestern Europe in mind when he described the terrain, weather, flora, and landscapes of Middle-earth. This was no doubt partially because NW Europe was his home and therefore most familiar to him and partially because of his love for the "Northern tradition". As he said himself: "The North-west of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man's home should. I love its atmosphere, and know more of its histories and languages than I do of other parts; ..." (Letters 376 (#294)). Thus, the environment of Middle-earth will seem familiar to dwellers of that region of Europe (see the second letter excerpted in FAQ, Tolkien, 6 (#183)). However, the geographies simply don't match. This was the result not so much of a deliberate decision on Tolkien's part to have things so but rather a side-effect of the history of the composition: the question did not occur to him until the story was too far advanced and the map too fixed to allow much alteration: ... if it were 'history', it would be difficult to fit the lands and events (or 'cultures') into such evidence as we possess, archaeo- logical or geological, concerning the nearer or remoter part of what is now called Europe; though the Shire, for instance, is expressly stated to have been in this region [FR, 11]. I could have fitted things in with greater versimilitude, if the story had not become too far developed, before the question ever occurred to me. I doubt if there would have been much gain; ... Letters, 283 (#211) ... As for the shape of the world of the Third Age, I am afraid that was devised 'dramatically' rather than geologically, or paleonto- logically. I do sometimes wish that I had made some sort of agree- ment between the imaginations or theories of the geologists and my map a little more possible. But that would only have made more trouble with human history. Letters, 224 (#169) The remark that there probably would not "have been much gain" is characteristic and perhaps indicates Tolkien's own approach, which would seem to have been to focus on the environmental familiarity at the "local" level (in the sense that any particular scene might have come from somewhere in Europe) and to simply overlook the lack of "global" identity. On the other hand, he made some attempt to address the difficulty in the quote from the Prologue (FR, 11), where it was said: "Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed...". The conclusion is that it is a matter for each individual reader as to how important is the lack of geographical fit and where one comes down on the continuum between "Middle-earth was northwestern Europe" and "Middle-earth might as well have been northwestern Europe" (or, as Tolkien might have said, "Middle-earth 'imaginatively' was northwestern Europe"). [Thus, recent attempts to force the M-e map to fit the map of the Eurasian land mass, such as in _Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia_ by David Day, should be discounted.] In one letter he provided indications to help in visualizing the circumstances of various locales, but this does not help in resolving the above matter, since again northwestern Europe was used for comparison rather than equation: The action of the story takes place in the North-west of 'Middle- earth', equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. ... If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy. Letters, 375-376 (#294) References: FR, 11 (Prologue); Letters, 376 (#294), 239 (#183), 283 (#211), 224 (#169). Contributors: WDBL, Carl F. Hostetter ---------- 8) Was the Shire meant to be England? In this case, the balance between "actually *was*" and "was based upon" is entirely tipped towards the latter. There is no hint that the Shire was in any sense supposed the be the country now called England in an ancient state. On the other hand, there is plainly a very strong resemblance between the Shire and the rural England of about a century ago. More precisely, the Shire plainly could not *be* England in any literal sense: England is an island, and even changes in "the shape of all lands" (FR, 11) is insufficient to explain such a discrepancy (especially since even the westernmost part of the Shire was some 200 miles from the Sea). Nevertheless, the Shire was more exactly based on England than any other part of Middle-earth was based on any part of our world: the climate, place-names, flora and fauna, terrain, food, customs, and the inhabitants themselves, were all English. In effect the Shire was an idealized version of the rural England of Tolkien's childhood. Some of his comments on the matter were: [The Shire] is in fact more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee ... Letters, 230 (#178) But, of course, if we drop the 'fiction' of long ago, 'The Shire' is based on rural England and not any other country in the world... [Later in the same letter he implied that the Shire was "an imag- inary mirror" of England.] Letters, 250 (#190) There is no special reference to England in the 'Shire' -- except of course that as an Englishman brought up in an 'almost rural' village of Warwickshire on the edge of the prosperous bourgeoisie of Birmingham (about the time of the Diamond Jubilee!) I take my models like anyone else -- from such 'life' as I know. Letters, 235 (#181) See also RtMe 31-33 for a fascinating suggestion that certain compo- nents of Tolkien's early philological studies may have contributed to his later conception of the Shire. Shippey has also suggested that Tolkien's motivation in changing Gandalf's supper request in ch 1 of _The Hobbit_ from "cold chicken and tomatoes" in the first edition to "cold chicken and pickles" in the revised edition was linguistic: that to Tolkien's extraordinarily sensitive ear "tomato" sounded out of place in a country that was a mirror of English, since tomato only entered the language in the sixteenth century and moreover originally came from some Caribbean language. Likewise, tobacco, used in _The Hobbit_, was changed to "pipeweed", and "potatos" were usually spoken of only by Sam, who called them "taters" (RtMe, 53-54; Annotated Hobbit, 19). * * * Finally, great care must be taken not to confound the idea of the Shire's having been based on England with a concept found in Tolkien's earliest writings, that Tol Eressea (Elvenhome) eventually *became* England. This appeared during his early work on the Book of Lost Tales (which eventually evolved into the Silm). Very probably it had been supplanted even before he stopped work on the Lost Tales (1920) (BoLT I, 22-27). In any case, it had long since been abandoned by the time LoTR was begun in 1937, and plays no part in the 'history' of Middle-earth as presented in LotR, Silm, _The Hobbit_, etc. References: FR, 11 (Prologue); Letters, 230 (#178), 235 (#181), 250 (#190); RtMe, 31-33 (2, "Survivals in the West"), 53-54 (3, "Creative anachronisms"); BoLT I, 22-27 (I, "Commentary on _The Cottage of Lost Play_"); Annotated Hobbit, 19 (ch 1, note 7). Contributors: WDBL, Wayne Hammond Jr, Bill Taylor ---------- 9) What were the changes made to _The Hobbit_ after _The Lord of the Rings_ was written, and what motivated them? [This question refers to the major revisions made to the Gollum chapter, "Riddles in the Dark", not to the multitude of minor changes made elsewhere.] In the original 1937 edition of _The Hobbit_ Gollum was genuinely willing to bet his ring on the riddle game, the deal being that Bilbo would receive a "present" if he won. Gollum in fact was dismayed when he couldn't keep his promise because the ring was missing. He showed Bilbo the way out as an alternative, and they parted courteously. As the writing of LotR progressed the nature of the Ring changed. No longer a "convenient magical device", it had become an irresistable power object, and Gollum's behavior now seemed inexplicable, indeed, impossible. In the rough drafts of the "Shadow of the Past" chapter Gandalf was made to perform much squirming in an attempt to make it appear credible, not wholly successfully. Tolkien resolved the difficulty by re-writing the chapter into its present form, in which Gollum had no intention whatsoever of giving up the Ring but rather would show Bilbo the way out if he lost. Also, Gollum was made far more wretched, as befitted one enslaved and tor- mented by the Ruling Ring. At the same time, however, Bilbo's claim to the Ring was seriously undercut. [ Care must be taken when noting this last point. There are two issues involved, well summarized in the Prologue: "The Authorities, it is true, differ whether this last question was a mere 'question' and not a 'riddle' ... but all agree that, after accepting it and trying to guess the answer, Gollum was bound by his promise" (FR, 21). Thus, it was Bilbo's winning of the game that was questionable. Given that he had in fact won, albeit on a technicality, he was fully entitled to the prize, which, in the old version, was the ring. In the new version, however, he had no claim to the Ring at all, whether he had won or not, because the Ring was not the stake of the game. ] The textual situation thus reached was that there now existed two versions of the episode. Tolkien deftly made this circumstance part of the story by suggesting that the first time around **Bilbo was lying** (under the influence of the Ring) to strengthen his claim. (Bilbo had written this version in his diary, which was "translated" by Tolkien and published as "The Hobbit"; hence the error in the early editions, later "corrected".) This new sequence of events inside the story is laid out clearly in "Of the Finding of the Ring" (Prologue) and is taken for granted thereafter for the rest of the story (e.g. in "The Shadow of the Past" and at the Council of Elrond). _The Hobbit_ as now presented fits the new scenario remarkably well, even though Tolkien, for quite sound literary reasons, left this entire matter of Bilbo's dishonesty out (it was an entirely irrelevant complication which would have thrown everything out of balance). The present attempt to step back and view the entire picture is made more involved by the fact that there were two separate pieces of dishonesty perpetrated by Bilbo. The first, made explicit, was that when he initially told his story to Gandalf and the Dwarves he left the ring out entirely -- this no doubt was what inspired Gandalf to give Bilbo the "queer look from under his bushy eyebrows" (H, 99). Later, (after the spider episode) he revealed that he had the Ring, and it must have been at this point that he invented the rigamarole about "winning a present" (an incred- ible action, given the circumstances). There is, however, no hint in the text of this second piece of dishonesty (as noted above, it would have been a grave literary mistake). Readers are therefore given no indication that when "Balin ... insisted on having the Gollum story ... told all over again, with the ring in its proper place" (H, 163) that Bilbo didn't respond with the "true" story, exactly as described in Ch V. In this regard, "Of the Finding of the Ring" in the Prologue is a necessary prelude to LotR. References: Hobbit, 99 (Ch VI), 163 (Ch VIII), "Riddles in the Dark" (Ch V); Annotated Hobbit, 104 (Ch VI, note 2), 176 (Ch VIII, note 11), 325-327 (Appendix A: the original version is given here); FR, "Of the Finding of the Ring" (Prologue); Biography, 203 (V, 2); RtMe, 59-60 (3, "The Ring as 'Equalizer'"); The Return of the Shadow (HoMe VI), 75, 79-81, 84-87 (First Phase, III), 261-265 (Second Phase, XV). Contributors: WDBL, Wayne Hammond Jr ---------- HOBBITS 1) Were Hobbits a sub-group of Humans? Yes, beyond question. There were three statements to this effect. The first, from the Prologue, is probably less definite because it was intended to be the editor speaking. It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. FR, 11 (Prologue) The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically *human* race (not Elves or Dwarves) -- hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth. Letters, 158 (footnote) (#131) Firstborn, The. Title of the Elves. Translate. ('Firstborn', since the Elves appeared in the world before all other 'speaking peoples', not only Men, but also Dwarves, of independent origin. Hobbits are of course meant to be a special variety of the human race). Guide, entry for "The Firstborn" References: FR, 11 (Prologue, "On Hobbits"); Letters, 158 (footnote) (#131); Guide, entry for "The Firstborn". Contributors: WDBL, Paul Adams ---------- 2) Did Hobbits have pointed ears? Only slightly. Tolkien described Bilbo thusly for purposes of illustration in a letter to Houghton Mifflin (c. 1938): I picture a fairly human figure, not a kind of 'fairy' rabbit as some of my British reviewers seem to fancy: fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur. Clothing: green velvet breeches; red or yellow waistcoat; brown or green jacket; gold (or brass) buttons; a dark green hood and cloak (belonging to a dwarf). Letters, 35 (#27) The Annotated Hobbit cites this letter and includes a reasonable illustration based upon it. [Note that Tolkien's use of the word "elvish" here refers to the elfs of popular folklore, who were often pictured with pointed ears. The Elves of Middle-earth (except for the Silvan Elves in The Hobbit) were at the time of this letter known to only a few people.] References: Letters, 35 (#27); Annotated Hobbit, 10 (Ch I, note 2). Contributor: WDBL ---------- 3) When was Bilbo and Frodo's Birthday? To what date on our own calendar does it correspond? The date on the Shire calendar was September 22 (FR, 29). Both the different definitions of the months and the different correlation of their calendar with the seasons (the summer solstice fell on Mid- year's Day, the day between June and July, not on June 21 as on our calendar (RK, 388 -- Appendix D)) must be Taken into account. The discrepancy in September is found to be 10 days, giving September 12 on our calendar as the equivalent date. (This result has some signi- ficance for the story. Events occur ten days earlier in terms of the seasons than the dates would suggest to us: when sleeping outdoors in autumn, ten days can make a large difference.) [In Appendix D Tolkien gives detailed information about long-term inaccuracies in the Shire Reckoning, which they dealt with differently than we do. Based on this, it is possible to conclude that the SR at the time of the story had accumulated either two days or four days of error, depending on how careful the Hobbits were about making long- term corrections, which we aren't told. This result would make the equivalent date either September 14 or September 16, but other consi- derations raise questions about the accuracy of such calculations, so September 12 is probably the most straightforward choice.] References: FR, 29 (I,1); RK, Appendix D. Contributors: WDBL, Paul Adams ---------- 4) Was Gollum a hobbit? Yes, beyond all doubt. Gandalf's opinion alone: "I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors" (FR, 62) should be sufficient to settle this, but it is confirmed in several other places. The Tale of Years (RK, Appendix B) has the following entry for the year TA 2463: "About this time Deagol the Stoor finds the One Ring, and is murdered by Smeagol." (RK, p. 368). Since it was explained in the Prologue that Stoors were one of the three branches of hobbits (FR, 12), it is clear that the compiler of this entry, evidently either Merry and/or Pippin's heirs (FR, 24-25), accepted this conclusion. In "The Hunt for the Ring" (UT, Three, IV) it is told that Sauron concluded from his interrogation of Gollum that Bilbo must have been the same sort of creature (UT, 342) (indeed, Gandalf concluded the same thing from his talks with Bilbo (FR, 63)). The following passing reference shows that the author of "The Hunt for the Ring" accepts Gollum's hobbit origin: "Ultimately indomitable [Gollum] was, except by death, as Sauron guessed, both from his halfling nature, and from a cause which Sauron did not fully comprehend ..." (UT, 337). Perhaps Gandalf's archaic diction contributed to the uncertainty. When a reader suggested that perhaps '(1) Smeagol's people were *not* "of hobbit-kind" as suggested by Gandalf', Tolkien dismissed the suggestion. He added: With regard to (1) Gandalf certainly says at first 'I guess' (FR, 62); but that is in accordance with his character and wisdom. In more modern language he would have said 'I deduce', referring to matters that had not come under his direct observation, but on which he had formed a conclusion based on study. ...But he did not in fact doubt his conclusion: 'It is true all the same, etc.' (FR, 63). Letters, 289-290 (#214) References: FR, 12, (Prologue), 24-25 (Prologue, "Note on the Shire Records"), 62-63 (I,2); RK, Appendix B; UT, 337 (Three, IV, i), 342 (Three, IV, ii); Letters, 289-290 (#214). Contributors: WDBL, Craig Presson ---------- ELVES 1) Did Elves have pointed ears? They were evidently somewhat pointed; more so that human ears, at any rate. The only place this matter is addressed directly is in The Etymologies, published in _The Lost Road_. There, the following two entries for the element 'las' are given [Q == Quenya, N == Noldorin]: Las (1) *lasse 'leaf': Q lasse, N lhass; Q lasselanta 'leaf-fall, autumn', N lhasbelin (*lassekwelene), cf. Q Narquelion [ KWEL ]. Lhasgalen 'Greenleaf' (Gnome name of Laurelin). (Some think this is related to the next and *lasse 'ear'. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than [human].) Las (2) 'listen'. N lhaw 'ears' (of one person), old dual *lasu -- whence singular lhewig. Q lar, lasta- 'listen'; lasta 'listening, hearing' -- Lastalaika 'sharp-ears', a name, cf. N Lhathleg. N lhathron 'hearer, listener, eavesdropper' ( < *la(n)sro-ndo ) ; lhathro or lhathrando 'listen in, eavesdrop'. (The Lost Road, 367) Some have rejected the conclusion on the grounds that these entries were written before LotR was begun and therefore may not apply to it. It is thus significant that the element 'las' retained both its meanings, as is shown by examples in LotR itself, such as Legolas ('Green leaf') (TT, 106, 154), 'lassi' (== "leaves") in Galadriel's Lament (FR, 394), and Amon Lhaw (Hill of Hearing) (FR, 410). References: FR, 394, (II, 8), 410 (II,9); TT, 106 (III,5), 154 (III,8); Letters, 282 (#211); The Lost Road (HoMe V), 367 ("The Etymologies"). Contributor: WDBL ---------- DWARVES 1) Did Dwarf women have beards? It seems they did. In the note on Dwarf women in Appendix A it was told: It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart. RK, 360 (App A) Since beards were part of the appearance, not the garb, of dwarf-men, we must conclude that dwarf-women did in fact have beards. The question has been raised as to whether all dwarf *men* neces- sarily had beards (the above conclusion depends upon this premise). Insofar as the matter was mentioned at all, it was shown through either direct statements or casual references that at least Thorin, Dwalin, Balin, Fili, Kili, Gloin, Bombur, and Gimli all definitely had beards (Hobbit, 20-22, 159, 186, 198; FR, 240; RK, 148); it is natural to assume that the others did as well. While no definite statement about the beard status of dwarf-men in general was ever presented as a matter of lore, a thought which reflects the assumed view was given to Bilbo early in _The Hobbit_ : [as Bilbo rode along wearing Dwalin's hood] "His only comfort was that he couldn't be mistaken for a dwarf, as he had no beard." (Hobbit, 42) In any event, the notion of bearded dwarves seems an assumption with fairly firm foundations. References: Hobbit, 20-22 (Ch I), 42 (Ch II), 159 (Ch VIII), 186 (Ch X), 198 (Ch XI); FR, 240 (II, 1); RK, 148 (V, 9), 153 (V, 9), 360 (Appendix A, III). Contributors: WDBL, Peter Hunt ---------- ISTARI (Wizards) 1) Who were the Istari (Wizards)? The Wizards were Maiar (spiritual beings of lower "rank" than the Valar) sent to Middle-earth by the Valar in human form as Messengers to help in the struggle against Sauron: the term "incarnate angel" is approximately correct. Being incarnated limited their power, and intentionally so, because their mission was to organize the resitance and to inspire the peoples of Middle- earth to help themselves, not to do the job for them. Their main temptation, then, was to try to speed up the process by dominating other free wills -- a principle reason for their mission was to prevent such actions by Sauron. It was said that there were Five Wizards in the Order, but only three came into the story: -- Saruman ('Man of Skill') the White [Sindarin: Curunir ('Man of Skill'); Quenya: Curumo] -- Gandalf ('Elf of the wand') the Grey (later the White) [Sindarin: Mithrandir ('Grey Pilgrim'); Quenya: Olorin] -- Radagast the Brown [Quenya: Aiwendel] Gandalf was the only one who remained true to his missison, and in the end succeeded in bringing about Sauron's defeat. He was also the keeper of the Elven Ring Narya, the Red Ring (the Ring of Fire). ---------- 2) Of the Five Wizards, only three came into the story. Was anything known about the other two? Very little. No names given them in Middle-earth are recorded, just the title Ithryn Luin, 'The Blue Wizards' (for they were clad in sea-blue) (their names in Valinor were Alatar and Pallando). When the Istari first arrived in Middle-earth, Saruman and the Blue Wizards journeyed into the east, but only Saruman returned. The Essay on the Istari says: "whether they remained in the East, pursuing there the purposes for which they were sent; or perished; or as some hold were ensnared by Sauron and became his servants, is not not known." (UT, p. 390) Tolkien speaking as himself was only barely more explicit. In a letter he said that he knew "nothing clearly" about the other two: 'I think they went as emissaries to distant regions, East and South, far out of Numenorean range: missionaries to enemy-occupied lands, as it were. What success they had I do not know; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.' (Letters, p. 280). ---------- 3) What happened to Radagast? Radagast was said to also have failed his mission, but it's tempting to think that his "failure" was not as bad as that of the others. The Essay on the Istari: "Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures." (UT, p. 390) Radagast certainly never became evil. The above quote suggests, however, that his mission was not just to relate to wild creatures but also to build bridges between them and Elves and Men. He did, in fact, have his friends the birds gather much information, but since they were reporting to Saruman as the head of the Council that wasn't altogether helpful. On the other hand, it has often been suggested (though there is no direct textual evidence of any kind) that the way Eagles kept showing up at opportune times may have been partially his work. We know nothing of what happened to Radagast after the end of the Third Age. It seems conceivable, though, given the more ambiguous nature of his failing, that he might have been allowed back to Valinor eventually. ---------- ENEMIES 1) What was the relationship between Orcs and Goblins? They are different names for the same race of creatures. Of the two, "Orc" is the correct one. This has been a matter of widespread debate and misunderstanding, mostly resulting from the usage in _The Hobbit_ (Tolkien had changed his mind about it by LotR but the confusion in the earlier book was made worse by inconsistant backwards modifications). There are a couple of statements in _The Hobbit_ which, if taken literally, suggest that Orcs are a subset of goblins. If we are to believe the indications from all other areas of Tolkien's writing, this is not correct. These are: some fairly clear statements in letters, the evolution of his standard terminology (see next paragraph), and the actual usage in LotR, all of which suggest that "Orc" was the true name of the race. (The pedigrees in _Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia_ are thoroughly innaccurate and undependable.) What happened was this. The creatures so referred to were invented along with the rest of Tolkien's subcreation during the writing of the Book of Lost Tales (the "pre-Silmarillion"). His usage in the early writing is somewhat varied but the movement is away from "goblin" and towards "orc". It was part of a general trend away from the terminology of traditional folklore (he felt that the familiar words would call up the wrong associations in the readers' minds, since his creations were quite different in specific ways). For the same general reasons he began calling the Deep Elves "Noldor" rather than "Gnomes", and avoided "Faerie" altogether. (On the other hand, he was stuck with "Wizards", an "imperfect" translation of Istari ('the Wise'), "Elves", and "Dwarves"; he did say once that he would have preferred "dwarrow", which, so he said, was more historically and linguistically correct, if he'd thought of it in time ...) In _The Hobbit_, which originally was unconnected with the Silmarillion, he used the familiar term "goblin" for the benefit of modern readers. By the time of LotR, however, he'd decided that "goblin" wouldn't do -- Orcs were not storybook goblins (see above). (No doubt he also felt that "goblin", being Romance-derived, had no place in a work based so much on Anglo-Saxon and Northern traditions in general.) Thus, in LotR, the proper name of the race is "Orcs" (capital "O"), and that name is found in the index along with Ents, Men, etc., while "goblin" is not in the index at all. There are a handful of examples of "goblin" being used (always with a small "g") but it seems in these cases to be a kind of slang for Orcs. Tolkien's explanation inside the story was that the "true" name of the creatures was Orc (an anglicized version of Sindarin *Orch* , pl. *Yrch*). As the "translator" of the ancient manuscripts, he "substituted" "Goblin" for "Orch" when he translated Bilbo's diary, but for The Red Book he reverted to a form of the ancient word. [The actual source of the word "orc" is Beowulf: "orc-nass", translated as "death-corpses". It has nothing to do with cetaceans.] ---------- MISCELLANEOUS 1) Who or what was Tom Bombadil? This question has been a widely debated, sometimes far too vehemantly. Part of the difficulty is the complexity of Tom's literary history. Tom was originally a doll (with blue jacket and yellow boots) owned by Tolkien's son Michael. The doll inspired a story fragment, such as he often invented for his children's amusement. That fragment was in turn the basis for the poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil", published in 1933, which also introduced Goldberry, the barrow wights, and Old Man Willow (the poem was the source of the events in Chapters 6 through 8 of Book I). In a contemporary letter (1937) Tolkien explained that Tom was meant to represent 'the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside'. (Letters, no 19) Tolkien introduced Tom into LotR at a very early stage, when he still thought of it as a sequel to _The Hobbit_, as opposed to _The Silmarillion_ (see LessFAQ, Tolkien, 1). Tom fit the original (slightly childish) tone of the early chapters (which resembled that of _The Hobbit_), but as the story progressed it became higher in tone and darker in nature. Tolkien later claimed that he left Tom in he decided that however portrayed Tom provided a necessary ingredient (see last paragraph). Some very cogent reasons are produced in a couple of wonderful letters (Letters, nos 144 & 153). As to Tom's nature, there are several schools of thought. a) He was a Maia (the most common notion). The reasoning here is plain: given the Middle-earth cast of characters as we know it, this is the most convenient pigeonhole in which to place him (and Goldberry as well) (most of the other individuals in LotR with "mysterious" origins: Gandalf, Sauron, Wizards, and Balrogs did in fact turn out to be Maiar). b) He was Iluvatar. The only support for this notion is on theological grounds: some have interpreted Goldberry's statement to Frodo (F: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" G: "He is.") as a form of the Christian "I am that am", which really could suggest the Creator. Tolkien rejected this inter- pretation quite firmly. c) T.A. Shippey (in _The Road to Middle-earth_) and others have suggested that Tom is a one-of-a-kind type. This notion received indirect support from Tolkien himself: "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there amust be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Letters, p. 174) There are scattered references to other entites which seem to fall outside the usual picture. Whichever of these is correct, Tom's function inside the story was evidently to demonstrate a particular attitude towards control and power. "The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless." (_Letters_, p. 178). Tom represented "Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality." (Letters, p. 179). ---------- 2) What became of the Entwives? No definite answer was given to this question within the story. However, Tolkien did comment on the matter in two letters, and while he was careful to say "I think" and "I do not know", nevertheless the tone of these comments was on the whole pessemistic. Moreover, he doesn't seem to have changed his mind over time. The following was written in 1954 (in fact before the publication of LotR): What happened to them is not resolved in this book. ... I think that in fact the Entwives had disappeared for good, being destroyed with their gardens in the War of the Last Alliance (Second Age 3429-3441) when Sauron pursued a scorched earth policy and burned their land against the advance of the Allies down the Anduin. They survived only in the 'agriculture' transmitted to Men (and Hobbits). Some, of course, may have fled east, or even have become enslaved: tyrants even in such tales must have an economic and agricultural background to their soldiers and metal-workers. If any survived so, they would indeed be far estranged from the Ents, and any rapprochement would be difficult -- unless experience of industrialized and militarized agriculture had made them a little more anarchic. I hope so. I don't know. Letters, 179 (#144) Note that the above reference to a "scorched earth policy" by Sauron makes the destruction of the Entwives' land seem a much more serious and deliberate affair than was apparent from the main story, in which Treebeard merely said that "war had passed over it" (TT, 79 (III, 4)). The following was written in 1972, the last year of Tolkien's life: As for the Entwives: I do not know. ... But I think in TT, 80-81 it is plain that there would be for the Ents no re-union in 'history' -- but Ents and their wives being rational creatures would find some 'earthly paradise' until the end of this world: beyond which the wisdom neither of Elves nor Ents could see. Though maybe they shared the hope of Aragorn that they were 'not bound for ever to the circles of the world and beyond them is more than memory.' .... Letters, 419 (#338) [ The reference to TT 80-81 is to the song of the Ent and the Ent-wife, as recited to Merry and Pippin by Treebeard; the speech by Aragorn which Tolkien quotes is from RK, 344 (Appendix A). ] While the above comments do not sound hopeful, there nevertheless remains the unresolved mystery of the conversation between Sam Gamgee and Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon. It took place during the second chapter of FR and has been pointed to by many as possible evidence of the Entwives' survival: 'All right', said Sam, laughing with the rest. 'But what about these Tree-men, these giants, as you might call them? They do say that one bigger than a tree was seen up away beyond the North Moors not long back.' 'Who's *they*?' 'My cousin Hal for one. He works for Mr. Boffin at Overhill and goes up to the Northfarthing for the hunting. He *saw* one.' 'Says he did, perhaps. Your Hal's always saying that he's seen things; and maybe he sees things that ain't there.' 'But this one was as big as an elm tree, and walking -- walking seven yards to a stride, if it was an inch.' 'Then I bet it wasn't an inch. What he saw *was* an elm tree, as like as not.' 'But this one was *walking*, I tell you; and there ain't no elm tree on the North Moors.' 'Then Hal can't have seen one', said Ted. FR 53-54 (I, 2) Now, this conversation takes place early in the story, when its tone was still the "children's story" ambience of _The Hobbit_ (see LessFAQ, Tolkien, 1). When it is first read the natural reaction is to accept it as "more of the same" (i.e. another miscellaneous "fairy- story" matter). However, once one has learned about the Ents it is impossible to reread it without thinking of them. This impression is strengthened by Treebeard's own words to Merry and Pippin: He made them describe the Shire and its country over and over again. He said an odd thing at this point. 'You never see any, hm, any Ents round there, do you?' he asked. 'Well, not Ents, *Entwives* I should really say.' '*Entwives*?' said Pippin. 'Are they like you at all?' 'Yes, hm, well no: I do not really know now', said Treebeard thoughtfully. 'But they would like your country, so I just wondered.' TT, 75 (III, 4) Taken together, these two conversations make the notion that what Halfast saw was an Entwife seem at least plausible. However, as far as can be determined Tolkien never explicitly connected the matter with the Entwives, indeed never mentioned it at all. So we are left to speculate. (The fact that a creature described as being "as big as an elm tree" couldn't be an Ent doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It could indicate that the story is just a fabrication by a fanciful hobbit, but it is equally possible that a fourteen foot tall Ent might look gigantic to an unprepared hobbit and that the story was exaggerated in the telling.) Nor is textual analysis helpful. Tolkien himself, in a discussion of his methods of invention, mentioned that the Treebeard adventure was wholly unplanned until he came to that place in the story: I have long ceased to *invent* ... : I wait till I seem to know what really happened. Or till it writes itself. Thus, though I knew for years that Frodo would run into a tree-adventure somewhere far down the Great River, I have no recollection of inventing Ents. I came at last to the point, and write the 'Treebeard' chapter without any recollection of any previous thought: just as it now is. And then I saw that, of course, it had not happened to Frodo at all. Letters, 231 (#180) The rough drafts in HoMe confirm that Sam and Ted's conversation was composed long before Ents ever entered the story (Return of the Shadow, 253-254; Treason, 411-414). Thus, Tolkien could not have had them in mind when he wrote it, and it must indeed have originally been a random, vaguely fantastic element. On the other hand, as he said of Tom Bombadil, who also entered the story early: "I would not have left him in if he did not have some kind of function." (Letters, 178) The implication is clear: everything in the early chapters which was allowed to remain was left in for a reason. When he did so with the Sam/Ted conversation he must have known how suggestive it would be. But how it fits in with the darker speculations expressed in his letters is not clear (unless he changed his mind later). This may be a case of Tolkien's emotions being in conflict with his thoughts. T.A. Shippey has noted that "he was in minor matters soft-hearted" (RtMe, 173). (Thus, Bill the pony escapes, Shadowfax is allowed to go into the West with Gandalf, and in the late-written narratives of UT Isildur is shown using the Ring far more reluctantly than the Council of Elrond would suggest (UT, 271-285) and a way is contrived so that Galadriel might be absolved from all guilt in the crimes of Feanor (UT, 231-233)). It may be that, lover of trees that he was, Tolkien wished to preserve at least the hope that the Ents and Entwives might find each other and the race continue. But the unwelcome conclusions from what he elsewhere called "the logic of the story" must have proven inescapable. References: Letters, 178-179 (# 144), 231 (#180), 419 (#338); FR 53-54 (I, 2); TT, 75 (III, 4), 79 (III, 4), 80-81 (III,4); RK, 344 (Appendix A, I, v, "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen"); UT, 271-285 (Three, I), 231-233 (Two, IV); Return of the Shadow (HoMe VI), 253-254 (Second Phase, XV); The Treason of Isengard, 411-414 (Ch XXII); RtMe, 173 (7, "The Dangers of Going on"). Contributors: WDBL, Paul Adams, Mark Gordon