# A Favorite Passage



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 7, 2018)

A couple of members have challenged me to post on some subjects I've mentioned in passing. They are going to take some digging around, both in LOTR and other references. Plus more serious thought than I'm normally capable of!

Unfortunately, I'm about to start a couple of weeks of heavy work: tree-cutting, vehicle- hauling, furniture-moving. . .you don't want to know. If I don't have a heart attack, I should be able to get back to those topics next month.

Meanwhile, I thought I'd leave you with this idea, sparked by a remark from new member Ithilethiel:

One of my favorite passages in LOTR is a short two-page section from "A Knife in the Dark". The hobbits have set off from Bree, accompanied by the mysterious Man from the Wilderland known as "Strider", who is leading them to a place he calls Weathertop.
The part I refer to runs from "The hills drew nearer" through "Do not speak that name so loudly!".

I've always thought that, if I ever participated in a read-aloud session of favorite passages, this is the one I would choose.

The question I'll ask you to consider is, why? Why would someone pick a passage in which, really, nothing much is happening? Any guesses?

(This is _not_ a trick question, BTW.)


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Jun 7, 2018)

My guess would be that it's just a passage that moves you somehow or affects you just by the wording. I'm sure there have been passages like this in LOTR and other books I've read where nothing huge happens but it sticks out to me because of the wording the author chose to use.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 7, 2018)

That's true to an extent, Erestor, but that's not really what I had in mind; there are many passages I find much more moving, in fact I mentioned a couple of "cinematic" ones in the thread I referred to, here:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/introductions.23560/#post-516800

Perhaps I was less than clear; what I meant was, not why would someone pick such a passage (though I see that's what I said--oops!), but what is it about _this _particular section that would be of interest?

It's a sort of poll, you see. I'm inviting interested people to have a close read of a very small passage, to see what lies in there.


----------



## Rilien (Jun 7, 2018)

hmm, the alliteration?


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Jun 8, 2018)

Personally, I think that what sets this text apart is how those naïve childish hobbits who saw and knew nothing else than the Shire start to sense how great the world really is and that important deeds occurred in a past of which they hadn’t had the slightest notion before.

That was just my interpretation – how a reader feels about a given text is sometimes quite personal.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 8, 2018)

Good, Meroe -- that's one thing.

And Rilien has a clue, also.

Anything else?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Jun 8, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> That's true to an extent, Erestor, but that's not really what I had in mind; there are many passages I find much more moving, in fact I mentioned a couple of "cinematic" ones in the thread I referred to, here:
> 
> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/introductions.23560/#post-516800
> 
> ...



My apologies for misunderstanding. Meroe and Rilien seem to make some good points.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 8, 2018)

Thanks, Erestor, but not necessary -- as I said, it was my fault for not being clear about what I was asking; probably because half my mind was occupied with thoughts of being crushed under a tree!

One hint: the passage was picked more or less at random, but not quite; in fact, it was _because _of the absence of important narrative action that I chose it. It allows us to examine Tolkien's technique at work without the "distractions" of exciting bits.

There. I've probably said too much; I didn’t want to point readers in a particular direction, but I would like to hear what other minds can find in a specific passage that displays the author's qualities.


----------



## Rilien (Jun 8, 2018)

I have the feeling it might have something to do with the meter or cadence of his writing, which perhaps is offset in an interesting way by the more tightly-structured verse in the passage. Maybe he incorporated some technical elements of his poetry writing? Including alliterative effects? But that's just a hunch...I haven't sat down to analyze the meter of this passage, if it indeed has any consistent meter.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 8, 2018)

Good ideas, Rilien -- though you've hit on an aspect I thought would be the least likely noticed!

I don't think I'd look for a consistency in meter, or other techniques, for that matter; not from the man who Shippey described as knowing more about the English language than anyone alive. For one thing, a regular meter would tend to turn prose into verse.

Tolkien was able to pick up and drop literary devices at will. An example: notice the limited and judicious use of onomatopoeia in the description of the path at the foot of the Weather Hills:

_It dived into dells, and hugged steep banks.
_
Or listen to the rhythm of the first line:

_The hills drew nearer.
_
Metrically, an iamb, a truncated foot (I forget the technical term), and a trochee. Doesn't it give a feeling of plodding feet?

_The hills, drew, nearer._

That may seem a stretch, but compare the much more elaborated description in the original drafts (sorry, but I'm too beat to drag them out for a long quote), condensed down to that one short line: "the hills drew nearer". Looking closely at examples like this can enable us to take seriously the author's statement that he "labored over every sentence, almost every word".

But again, the use of specific devices like this can be found throughout the work; there are other aspects of Tolkien's approach that can also be seen, in microcosm, so to speak, in one short passage like this one. To repeat, I'm not posing a trick question or puzzle, but presenting a small section of the text for examination, to see what elements can be found there, that can then be followed into the larger work.

What, for example, are the implications of these lines at the end?

_'Going to Mordor!' cried Pippin. 'I hope it won't come to that!'
'Do not speak that name so loudly!' said Strider._


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Jun 9, 2018)

You certainly know how to keep us busy, Squint-eyed Southerner! Small wonder your eyes are getting a bit squint! 

But all right I'll give it another go.

I want to refer to the small conversation. Each participant expresses his thoughts in a manner that is very characteristic for their individual personality. Simple good-natured Sam, young impulsive Pipin, thoughtful Aragorn, ... each of their individual expressions helped to further "typify" them. That includes your last two lines, I would say.

Now do tell us what was on your mind before you get under a falling tree and disappear in the abyss...!


----------



## st0rmb0rn (Jun 9, 2018)

Can the passage be from the hobbit? and how long does it have to be?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 9, 2018)

Welcome to the forum, St0rmb0rn. I was actually hoping to get more thoughts on this particular passage. In fact, I believe there's a fairly recent thread on favorite parts of The Hobbit. I'll have to look.

Another good observation, Meroe. But again , despite my poorly framed OP, I'm not really asking you to guess what's in _my _mind (little enough, I can assure you), but what's in _yours -- _or rather, what _you _ see in the passage that shows _Tolkien's _ mind at work.

Ah, here it is , St0rmb0rn:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/favorite-part-of-the-hobbit.1382/

Been going for 17 years, I see!


----------



## Rilien (Jun 9, 2018)

Hobbits are contractions of Men?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 11, 2018)

Never thought of it in those terms, Rilien! 

So, no takers on those last lines?


----------



## Rilien (Jun 15, 2018)

OK, squint-eyed southerner, I'm curious to know what _you_ find in this passage!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 16, 2018)

I find my own thoughts boring!

I'm much more interested in yours. I'll add some things at some point, if there's anything left to say. But I hope more people will take a look at the passage, and have a go. And maybe then carry what they find into their understanding and appreciation of _their _favorite passages.

What do you think Aragorn means by those last words? Think he was afraid Sauron might suddenly pop up?


----------



## Rilien (Jun 16, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I find my own thoughts boring!
> 
> I'm much more interested in yours. I'll add some things at some point, if there's anything left to say. But I hope more people will take a look at the passage, and have a go. And maybe then carry what they find into their understanding and appreciation of _their _favorite passages.
> 
> What do you think Aragorn means by those last words? Think he was afraid Sauron might suddenly pop up?



I had always assumed, I suppose, that he was worried about attracting any Nazgul nearby, who might be sensitive to such words. It's almost as if the name of something itself has some kind of power and shouldn't be used casually. I can think of other instances, as when someone cries "Elbereth!" that the utterance of a name has an effect. Maybe it's like a prayer? And uttering words or names associated with the Enemy, or with Evil in general would be like a "negative prayer" or a prayer to the other side. And if so, then perhaps it has "invocational" powers which Aragorn hopes not to arouse. (This also makes me remember the effect that Black Speech apparently has on people.)

Complete tangent: this makes me think of something I've noticed over the last several years--certain words seem to have lost much of their potency due to overuse and casual usage. When I was a kid, four-letter swear words were powerful indeed. Maybe it's because I was just a kid, but whenever I heard them or even saw them written or printed they had a pronounced arresting effect on me. They were words of consequence. Now they are much more commonplace, and seem to have lost much of their meaning and force. So, comparatively, they are no big deal anymore. Another word is "awesome" which through overuse has become essentially meaningless (now it just indicates something as vaguely positive, as opposed to something grand and terrible--awe-inspiring). I'm actually kind of sad about the demise of this word. 

Is there a connection here? I don't know. Maybe for Tolkien words and names are more than just noises we use to communicate. Maybe they are potent symbols of entities, ideas, forces, or other things. 

Hey, I've read several of your posts...boring they are not!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 16, 2018)

Good points, Rilien.

That first one is the kind of thing I'm sort of after, as I indicated; there are elements in the passage representative of themes and devices that appear throughout the work. Close examination of a small section can reveal some of them.

Your follow-on isn't a tangent at all, IMO. Tolkien was "professionally interested" in words, to quote Gandalf, and his involvement with their history and significance was very deep, deeper than most of us probably appreciate. Shippey investigated this in his two books (see his discussion of the possible origins of the concepts of_ warg_ and _wraith_, for example), and the fairly recent book about Tolkien's time working on the OED, The Ring of Words, brings this out as well.

Indeed, as you note, Shippey emphasizes that is not the _meaning _of the Ring inscription that causes such pain and dismay, when Gandalf recites it at Rivendell, but the _language:

The change in the wizard's voice was astounding. Suddenly it became menacing, powerful, harsh as stone. A shadow seemed to pass over the high sun, and the porch for a moment grew dark. All trembled, and the Elves stopped their ears.

'Never before has any voice dared to utter words of that tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the Grey,' said Elrond, as the shadow passed and the company breathed once more.
_
Given Tolkien's fascination with words and language, it should come as no surprise that he would construct a world in which they have an almost physical force.

If you've never seen the film "Hope and Glory", there's a scene in which a boy is taken to task by his fellows for using a word they consider so special and powerful, that it must be reserved for almost "sacred" occasions. Of course, the film is set during and right after WWII.

I share your regret on the seeming demise of language. In part, it may be due to the fading out of the study of rhetoric in the twentieth century, and in part, perhaps as a consequence, an increase, even among the educated, of a looseness and imprecision in the use of words. I think of the conflating of "enormity" and "enormousness", for example, leading to a state in which the former seems to have lost its original meaning completely.

And this regret was shared by Tolkien, I'm sure; it was happening in his day as well, as he indicates in the section "On Translation" in the Appendices.

PS: I'd "like" your post, if not for the feeling that it's a little unseemly to do so on one that pays you a compliment.

I do like it, though!


----------



## gentleDrift (Jun 19, 2018)

My thoughts: There is a lot to be found in this short passage, but I think Merroe has hit the nail on the head: At least on first reading I mostly like the interactions between the Hobbits and Strider, and the Hobbits becoming exposed to the whole wide world. Up until now, their adventures have been mostly 'Hobbit adventures', both in the sense that they have been rather episodic like Bilbo's adventures in 'The Hobbit', and in the sense that it is conceivable other Hobbits may have had similar adventures: expeditions into the Old Forest certainly, maybe meeting Tom Bombadil, possibly also being attacked by barrow-wights, and again certainly visiting Bree. But now the Hobbits are really leaving the familiar behind and experience the world outside their little bubble (would this area beyond Bree still be on any Hobbit maps?).

On a closer reading I keep finding stuff to like about the passage however, so here goes:

1) The personification of the landscape itself: This happens several times in this passage, here are some examples: 'The hills drew nearer', '[the track] ran cunningly, taking a line that seemed chosen so as to keep as much hidden as possible from the view', 'hewn stones that screened the travellers', 'a rough crown on the old hill's head'. Such personifications make Middle-Earth really more than just a setting of the story, and rather like an actual character with it's own agenda. This is of course found over and over in the books, and it is often seen that the land remembers its inhabitants and takes on some of their character. This area having been part of Arnor then unsurprisingly seems quite helpful to the Hobbits traveling in companionship with Elendil's heir.

2) Aragorn's description of Weathertop seems almost symbolic of the fate of his own line:
_It was burned and broken, and nothing remains of it now but a tumbled ring, like a rough crown on the old hill's head. Yet once it was tall and fair. It is told that Elendil stood there [...]'_​Note both the mention of a crown and the explicit connection to Elendil.

3) It also hinted at that Strider already knows much more about Frodo and the Hobbits than he let on before. Previously he seemed to know of their business only from Gandalf and just seemed to have general knowledge of the Shire and it's inhabitants. But on the Fall of Gil-Galad he says here that
_Bilbo must have translated it. I never knew that._​That seems to imply that this is something Strider could have known, i.e. that he knows Bilbo personally, and probably quite closely to normally know about Bilbo's poetry and other writings. This is the case, of course, as we learn later. But if Strider knows Bilbo closely enough to share in his poetry, then surely he has also heard all about Frodo and to some extent his friends. This then throws a new light on his first meeting with Frodo & friends in the Prancing Pony.

4) In general this passage contains many themes that are also to be found in the larger story: Theses themes include but are not limited to:

The interaction of land and inhabitants with the overgrown walls and remains of Arnorian buildings,
The Hobbits being put out of their comfort zone into the wide world,
The sense of decline with the ruined watch tower and mention of the Last Alliance and Gil-Galad,
'Historic depth' with the hinting at the conflict of Arnor and Angmar,
'Textual depth' with the hinting at the full 'Fall of Gil-Galad' as is found in so many places where Tolkien had written some longer version, often in poetry, of some event only mentioned briefly in the text,
The notion of the narrative frame as the reader is reminded that what we read here was 'in the story' actually written by some of the characters we know,
Mention of the 'ancient tongues'
I agree that it is a great passage, and maybe this is why for me: It contains so many elements that intrigue me about the Lord of the Rings as a whole.

On the last lines: I agree with Rilien. Some words seem to carry power in themselves, and (at least Aragorn seems to think) it is not wise to utter them carelessly. I'll just throw in this quote from the previous chapter, where the word 'Mordor' comes up as well:
_[Frodo:] These Black Riders: I am not sure, but I think, I fear they come from -'
'They come from Mordor,' said Strider in a low voice. 'From Mordor, Barliman, if that means anything to you.'
[...]
'I am,' said Mr. Butterbur. 'More than ever. Though I don't know what the likes of me can do against, against -' he faltered.
'Against the Shadow in the East,' said Strider quietly._​Note how both Frodo and Butterbur don't want to or can't quite utter the name, and even Strider says it 'in a low voice' and then uses some other term. Now is this restriction self-imposed, like the 'You-know-who' in Harry Potter, or is there some deeper reason for not using the word casually?
Drifting completely into speculation, I could also imagine a combination of both, where saying 'Mordor' actually does have some power, maybe the Ringwraiths are particularly sensitive to that word and can hear it over greater distances, and therefore usage of the word was 'banned' in ancient Arnor during their struggle with Angmar. This 'ban' is now only remembered in the Shire and the Breeland as some kind of societal inhibition that Frodo and Butterbur display above. Who knows? I certainly don't...

Anyways, it is always fun to delve into some short passage like this. Thanks for the assignment


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 19, 2018)

Excellent post, gentleDrift, and cogently set out! You suggested some things I hadn't even considered, which is exactly what I was hoping for!

My service is out (again!), but I hope to get back soon to continue this interesting discussion.

I have time for just two comments:

Apt observations about the sense of history. I'd add that many average fantasy writers make at least an attempt to portray this; but Tolkien goes further: as can be seen in this passage, he shows us deep _layers _of history, going, yes, far back even sometimes, to the formation of the landscape, or at least to a time when the land was "unmarred". This is, I believe, what the Encyclopedia of Fantasy calls "a sense of _time abyss_".

The "crown" connection with Aragorn is one of the things that hadn't occurred to me. Thanks very much for that insight.

I _had _previously noticed the contrast between that and the imagery used to describe the stones atop the barrow: "like broken teeth in green gums".

There is more to explore in this image of "teeth" -- it appears in numerous places, and I believe it to be a significant symbol. But that will have to wait, probably for inclusion in another thread.


----------



## Ithilethiel (Jun 22, 2018)

Ok SeS here are my two cents. This narrative text you highlighted wherein no apparent heroics or theatrics are taking place interests me in many diverse but related ways.

Firstly, for the stamp my own imagination puts upon it. Tolkien gives us much but also is legendary for leaving room in the narrative for the reader's own vision and interpretation. His descriptions are so thoughtful and descriptive they evoke a full-fleshed running image in my mind. It is true, one reason I have always been drawn to Tolkien and other English, and UK writers is bc they choose their words so carefully. All, but especially Tolkien bring their poet’s sensibilities, language, rhyme and meter to their not so “ordinary” prose. As a poet I react at a gut level to such sparse but lush writings.

As well, the passage you reference is a sort of invitation. _“Come with us,”_ it encourages the reader. _“Join us on the road. We know not what lies ahead, perhaps injury and danger. But under our feet and before us lies the road, the road!”_ (a familiar theme in Tolkien's writings)

Within the passage we also bear witness to the influence and legend of Tolkien's own, _The Silmarillion._ Just as we are harkened ahead to the road we too are harkened to look back at what has come before. Of the interplay within the environment as backdrop of the past and present. Strider knows much of legend we are told and that speaks to his knowledge of what may await the company. If Strider fears the dark things who are we not to?

Just as importantly to me (I'm with Rilien here) is the magic of the words in combination. The Brits (Dickens, Tolkien, Trollope) Welsh (Thomas, Dahl, Russell), Scots (Scott, Burns, Stevenson) and Irish (Wilde, Joyce, Yeats) have such a magical touch, an innate ability to conjure up something from literally nothing. The words take on a life of their own in sound and cadence so similar to verse as I read but especially recite them.

From _The Tale of Beren and Lúthien_:

_There Beren came from mountains cold, And lost he wandered under leaves, And where the Elven-river rolled He walked alone and sorrowing. He peered between the hemlock-leaves And saw in wonder flowers of gold Upon her mantle and her sleeves, And her hair like shadow following.
_
Magic!

From Yeats’s,_ Easter 1916:

The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range 
From cloud to tumbling cloud, 
Minute by minute they change; 
...
A horse-hoof slides on the brim, 
And a horse plashes within it; 
The long-legged moor-hens dive, 
And hens to moor-cocks call; 
Minute by minute they live: 
The stone's in the midst of all.
_
and,
_
Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart. 
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven's part, our part 
To murmur name upon name, 
As a mother names her child 
When sleep at last has come 
On limbs that had run wild._

Ofc, it is poetry so we draw near with a different expectation but in the finality of it, it is the words, the words that come twisting and tumbling over one another, off the tongue like the musical sound of water spilling over rocks in the highland that bring such thrill.

And though the poem is a lament the language is so rich I as a reader cannot help but be enamored of it momentarily losing sight of the poems purpose. So this style of writing can present thrills but not also without reactions opposite to its cause.

Sorry SeS, had to squeeze those in but merely as examples to justify my point. Peace…


----------



## Halasían (Jun 22, 2018)

Ithilethiel said:


> Ok SeS here are my two cents. This narrative text you highlighted wherein no apparent heroics or theatrics are taking place interests me in many diverse but related ways.
> 
> Firstly, for the stamp my own imagination puts upon it. Tolkien gives us much but also is legendary for leaving room in the narrative for the reader's own vision and interpretation. His descriptions are so thoughtful and descriptive they evoke a full-fleshed running image in my mind. It is true, one reason I have always been drawn to Tolkien and other English, and UK writers is bc they choose their words so carefully. All, but especially Tolkien bring their poet’s sensibilities, language, rhyme and meter to their not so “ordinary” prose. As a poet I react at a gut level to such sparse but lush writings.
> 
> ...



I was thinking of a reply to Sqinty's post, but after reading Lady Ithilethiel's beautifully-written post, need I say more?

I am glad I went with J.R.R. Tolkien, taking the road into the unknown lands of Middle Earth.


----------



## Barliman (Aug 24, 2018)

Merroe said:


> You certainly know how to keep us busy, Squint-eyed Southerner! Small wonder your eyes are getting a bit squint!


I'm not going to try to figure out SES, I gave up on that many years ago. LOL

But I will ask if you meant what I quoted as a pun.
Forgive me if I'm stating common knowledge.
Tolkien used "squint eyed" in an older English sense, not how it's thought of in the US (I don't know what it means in Luxembourg).
In England it means, or at least used to, a physical defect causing someone's eyes to look off to the side (strabismus), or someone who intentionally does that.
In the US it generally means to have your eyes only partly open, which is how I took it for years after reading LoTR.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 24, 2018)

Barliman said:


> I'm not going to try to figure out SES, I gave up on that many years ago. LOL



Likewise!


----------



## Aramarien (Sep 12, 2018)

Wonderful discussion!!

What I like about this passage is that it seems all the best of Tolkien is wrapped up in a short space. I have always loved the poetic way he often wrote, especially in the description of the land. " Eastward the Barrow-downs rose, ridge beyond ridge into the morning, and vanished out of eyesight into a guess: it was no more than a guess of blue and a remote white glimmer blending with the hem of the sky, but it spoke to them, out of memory and old tales, of the high and distant mountains." (FOTR, Fog on the Barrow-Downs)

In the passage from "A Knife in the Dark", Tolkien displays his wonderful use of descriptive language, but also his gift of dialogue that helps reveal the characters. The passage also reveals the history of the land around them and how the past is still affecting the present day. 

It also ties important works of Tolkien, from the Sil, The Hobbit and LOTR. Bilbo from the Hobbit, and the history of ME. It reveals more about Aragorn and his knowledge and gives an indication that he knows Bilbo. 

In a short space, Tolkien has tied many elements about the history of ME, revealing more about the characters, and ending it with the present danger and a foreshadowing of the future, "Going to Mordor!"


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 17, 2018)

Several good points there, Aramarien, but I'll comment on only one: the dialogue.

I suspect many readers don't really think about how difficult it is to write dialogue convincingly, unless they come across an author who doesn't do well with it -- Lovecraft, for example.

The problems would be compounded for Tolkien, who had to face the challenge, not simply of conveying a sense of character, but of characters from widely differing cultures and modes of thought, and then "translating" their languages and speech patterns into an English comprehensible to the reader, without resorting to what an early correspondent called "tushery".

I admit I had only a vague sense of this, which may have been all Tolkien hoped for; many elements in his writing seem to work on an unconscious or semiconscious level.

But my eyes were really opened to the careful thought, stemming from years of language study, that went into his dialogue writing, when I read Shippey's perceptive analysis of the Council of Elrond chapter, in "Author of the Century". I've mentioned it before, but I recommend it again, for anyone wanting to delve more deeply into Tolkien's use of dialogue.


----------



## Aramarien (Sep 17, 2018)

I haven't gotten a chance to read Shippey's work, I've always intended to. I'll have to pick up it up one of these days. Tolkien does have a discussion about the use of "The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age" in Appendix F at the end of LOTR, especially Part II "On Translation". Tolkien talks about how he "translated" certain languages to make them seem more formal in the dialogue. For example when Eowyn is parting from Aragorn in "The Passing of the Grey Company", "...... they would not be parted from THEE - because they love THEE."

Tolkien had a fine gift for dialogue as you have said.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 20, 2018)

The loss in English of a differentiation between formal and familiar speech posed a difficult problem, which Tolkien admitted he could not solve satisfactorily.

The "normal" usage of _you, _for instance, in Gondor and Rohan generally represents formal, or as Tolkien calls it, "deferential" usage, which is one reason why the people of Gondor thought Pippin must be "of very high lineage": Hobbits, being avatars of Edwardian English country people, had also lost the formal language, so Pippin used the, to him, natural familiar forms -- even with the Steward. This goes unremarked in the main text, I suppose because of the difficulty of working it in without a long excursus.

The problem must have been vexing, since Tolkien had to use the limitations of English to represent, not only formal and familiar language, but "ceremonious" forms as well. It's worth reproducing his note on this:

_In one or two places an attempt has been made to hint at these distinctions by an inconsistent use of "thou". Since this pronoun is now unusual and archaic it is employed mainly  to represent the use of ceremonious language; but a change from "you" to "thou, thee" is sometimes  meant to show, there being no other means of doing so, a significant change from the deferential, or between men and women normal, forms to the familiar._

I underlined parts of this because I believe the speech by Eowyn to be one of these instances: up to this point, she and Aragorn have been using "correct" forms, when addressing one another; it is only at the end of their exchange, when she is about to "vanish into the night" that she breaks this protocol, switching to the familiar form, which I assume would be "normal" only between siblings, married people, and lovers. I think she is subtly making a declaration.

She continues the same usage the next day, and openly. It is notable that Aragorn at no point departs from formal language:

_'Farewell, Lady of Rohan! I drink to the fortune of  your House, and of  you, and of all your  people. Say to your brother: beyond the shadows we may meet again!'

But she said: 'Aragorn, wilt thou go?'
'I will,' he said.
'Then wilt thou not let me ride with this company, as I have asked?'
'I will not, lady,' he said. 'For that I could not grant without leave of the king and of your brother. . .'

Then she fell on her knees, saying: 'I beg thee!'_

Apart from her desire to accompany Aragorn on what, to her and the Rohirrim, was a journey to certain death, she must have hoped that he would at least bend enough to reply in the same familiar language; that would show a similar feeling on his side. But this he refuses to do, or even acknowledge, though he well knows what it means:

_Only those who knew him well and were near to him saw the pain that he bore._

That would, to Eowyn, appear deliberately cold and distant; every _you _and _your _would be a dagger in her heart. No wonder then that she wept; that she "stood still as a figure carved in stone, her hands clenched at her sides"; that "she turned, stumbling as one that is blind". Aragorn has rejected, not only her plea, but quite clearly _her, _herself, and her love.


----------



## Aramarien (Sep 22, 2018)

I never thought of it the way you just pointed out. I have read that text from Tolkien, but I don't think I actually fully grasped the full meaning before. The usage of "thee and thou" as being used as "familiar" adds more depth and poignancy to Eowyn and Aragorn's departing moments.

I also was thinking about Tolkien's discussion about Pippin being called " Ernil i Pheriannath" as he went about Gondor from not only the rumors of him being Gandalf's companion, but also because of his speech. 

There were also many times that it was mentioned that the hobbits were "courteous folk" which was a remark that Faramir said also. 

Use of language was important, such as using the High Elven tongue and Frodo being named "Elf Friend" when he met Gildor Inglorion in Woody End.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 13, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> The loss in English of a differentiation between formal and familiar speech posed a difficult problem, which Tolkien admitted he could not solve satisfactorily.
> 
> The "normal" usage of _you, _for instance, in Gondor and Rohan generally represents formal, or as Tolkien calls it, "deferential" usage, which is one reason why the people of Gondor thought Pippin must be "of very high lineage": Hobbits, being avatars of Edwardian English country people, had also lost the formal language, so Pippin used the, to him, natural familiar forms -- even with the Steward. This goes unremarked in the main text, I suppose because of the difficulty of working it in without a long excursus.
> 
> ...




The differences in the language that was used, the more formal or polite versions of it, were not that easy - for me at least - to detect when I first read LoTR in English. But when I read it in its fantastic translation to my native language, that offers distinctive ways of addressing people formally or with politeness and also has three four different older versions, the ways the characters were addressing each other made more sense. Only in the translation was clear how Aragorn interacted with Eowyn. She was talking to him intimately, and he replied to her formally. 

The part that literally surprised me though and I really enjoyed it in the translated version was Isildur's writings about the Ring. The language that was used to translate it was both old and formal making clear that Isildur wrote about his experience of the Ring in a very distant past and also that Isildur was a King.

Regarding the passage. To me this passage indicates more than anything else the vast amount of history that precedes the current events for which the hobbits are almost unaware. They don't have a clue about how old is the world around them and how much more than just their guide towards Rivendel, is Aragorn.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 14, 2018)

Gilgaearel said:


> The differences in the language that was used, the more formal or polite versions of it, were not that easy - for me at least - to detect when I first read LoTR in English



As you can see from the above, it's not easy for us English speakers either! I didn't catch it on first reading; only after reading the appendices did I grasp the misunderstanding of the Gondorians about Pippin's status. And it took several rereadings before I tumbled to the contrast between Eowyn's and Aragorn's modes of speech.

I'm glad this was brought up -- it helps highlight the subtlies in Tolkien's language, which he used to convey much more than simply an "adventure story".

May I ask what translation you read? I'm always curious about Tolkien in other languages, and readers' experience of them.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 14, 2018)

The Greek one.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 14, 2018)

Oh interesting -- I haven't heard anyone talk about the Greek translation. I take it this is from 1978? Or is there a newer one?

If you don't mind telling us, did you find it accurate, or were changes made to make it more culturally familiar?

Anything you may want to tell us about the translation of names would be especially interesting.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 15, 2018)

There were two translations in Greek and I have read two different editions in English two.
The first Greek translation was from 1978-1980 and the second came from the publisher who bought the publishing rights of the book around 2000.
The first English edition that I read was the 1978 one that had as a cover some scenes of the animated movie.
The second one was an ebook from Harper Collins.
The names were translated as they are pronounced in English except some names that had a particular meaning, as for instance Mr. Underhill that was translated in its equivalent in Greek.
Generally speaking both the first and the second Greek translations were very good but the second one was closer to Tolkien's intentions. As Greek language has both formal and politeness plural and many different older versions, Ancient, Hellenistic, Medieval, and Modern in Katharevousa and Demotiki, it was easier for the translator to depict how the different characters were addressing the one the other. Aragorn for instance addressed formally King Theoden, with Medieval politeness Eowyn, ( he calls her Kyra that is the way to address a Byzantine lady, he actually calls her my lady) and when Eowyn became more intimate towards him he becomes formal and distant towards her and calls her Kyria/Despoina that is a very formal way to address a Lady, something like "your grace" " your highness' "madam".. something similar. Very formal.

Isildur's writings about the ring, those that Gandalf found in Minas Tirith, were translated in Hellenistic Koine and I have to say that this made Isildur's archive to look both old and somehow solemn. ( the Bible is written in Hellenistic Koine after all). The language that someone would use in an official document.

All the poems and songs were translated in Greek too, as poems. The translated poems or songs retained their rhyme and could stand alone as poems or lyrics. I assume that it is very difficult to translate poems into poems without losing the rhyme and honestly I still wonder how the translator managed to do that.
The/any Quenya or Sindarin dialogs were left untranslated written with English characters with a translation in Greek ( if there wasn't one given from the characters) at the footnotes.
And finally all the maps were edited and the locations were written in Greek too.

Here is the Hellenistic Koine trancription of Isildur's records from the Elord's Council chapter.

Ο Μέγας Δακτύλιος κειμήλιον θέλει γενέσθαι του Βασιλείου του Βορρά, γράφεται δεν τόδε, ίνα μη η μνήμη αυτού εκλείψη εν Γκόντορ, ένθα η γενεά το ελέντιλ οικεί, ίνα μη τω χρόνω ταυα εξίτηλα γένηται.

The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of these great matters shall grow dim.

Έκαιεν ότε το πρώτον έλαβον τούτον, έκαιεν ως τηκόμενον μεαλλον και η χειρ μου περικαυστος εγένετο και ου ποτε απαλλαγώ του πόνου. Νυν ήδη ψύχεται και ρινείσθαι δοκεί ουδόλως αποβάλλων το κάλλος ουδέ το σχήμα. Νυν δη η το πριν ευανάνγωστος ως ερυθρά φλοξ επιγραφή ημαύρωται και μόλις αναγιγνωσκεται. Γέγραπτα δεν γράμμασιν αρχαίοις της γης Ερέγκιον, επεί ουκ εισί γράμματα εν Μόρντορ προς έργον τούτον λεπτόν αλλ' η γλώσσά μου άγνωστος εστί.

It was hot when I first took it, hot as a glede, and my hand was scorched, so that I doubt if ever again I shall be free of the pain of it. Yet even as I write it is cooled, and it seemeth to shrink, though it loseth neither its beauty nor its shape. Already the writing upon it, which at first was as clear as red flame, fadeth and is now only barely to be read. It is fashioned in an elven-script of Eregion, for they have no letters in Mordor for such subtle work; but the language is unknown to me.

Δοκεί μοι από της Μελαίνης Γης κατάγεσθαι αυτήν δια το άσημον και βάρβαρον. Τι δηλοί ουκ οιδα, αλλ' απογράφων τούτου λήψομαι, ει πως όλως εξίτηλος γένηται. Εστέρηται ίσως ο Δακτύλιος του θερμού της Σάουρον χειρός, της μελαίνης, πυρί φλέγούσης ως και τον Γκιλ-γκάλαντ αποκτείνται` δοκώ μοι, ει γε ο χρυσός εις πυρ βληθήσεται, την γραφήν φανεράν γενέσθαι. Έγωγε ου ποιήσω τούτο` εκ πάντων γαρ του Σάουρον ποιημάτων τούτο δη μόνον άριστον. Πολύτιμον γε μοι, ει και αντί πολλού ωνούμαι τούτο.

I deem it to be a tongue of the Black Land, since it is foul and uncouth. What evil it saith I do not know; but I trace here a copy of it, lest it fade beyond recall. The Ring misseth, maybe, the heat of Sauron’s hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed; and maybe were the gold made hot again, the writing would be refreshed. But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing: of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain.


----------



## Aramarien (Oct 15, 2018)

Thank you for sharing this, Gilgaearel. This is such a subtlety that I've completely overlooked. The use of the formal and intimate use of language, especially in the exchange of Aragorn and Eowyn adds a lot of depth to the scene.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 16, 2018)

Yes, thanks again for the interesting observations.

Unfortunately for English speakers, we have lost, not only formal/familiar forms, but also almost all ability to "reach back" into the past forms of our language. We can grasp King James style (though we miss some meanings), and the same is true of Shakespeare; we can, with some cribs, follow Chaucer's Middle English -- but the Northern version requires study. And Old English is out of reach to all but the dedicated.

So an author is as limited in what he can do to convey archaic modes, as he is with differentiating formal, familiar, and ceremonious forms.

Shippey, who I referred to above, discusses various ways Tolkien went about overcoming these problems. His two books are worth seeking out, for those with an interest in the subject.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 17, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Yes, thanks again for the interesting observations.
> 
> Unfortunately for English speakers, we have lost, not only formal/familiar forms, but also almost all ability to "reach back" into the past forms of our language. We can grasp King James style (though we miss some meanings), and the same is true of Shakespeare; we can, with some cribs, follow Chaucer's Middle English -- but the Northern version requires study. And Old English is out of reach to all but the dedicated.
> 
> ...



I don't know if English language had these forms in order to lose them, but the fact is that it is rather difficult for me to get over them - as I'm used to use them in Greek -and so switch easily or understand immediately the manner that a native English speaker is addressing other people in a discussion. 
It is a mystery for me how you do know whether someone is addressing you with politeness or formally or with any other way. I can't tell if there are any lingual/syntax/grammatical differences, if there are any at all, on the supposed different ways of addressing others in English language. 
How do you figure this out? ( this is a serious question. Not a rhetoric one  )


----------



## Alcuin (Oct 17, 2018)

Yes, all the old Indo-European inflected forms were present in English, but they have been mostly lost. Both Christopher Tolkien and his father as well as other commentators (Hammond and Scull in _Reader’s Companion_, for instance) discuss the lack of them. Modern English is neither terse nor precise in the way that Koine Greek was precise, and Koine Greek (I understand) was sloppy compared to the Classic Greek that Plato used, Attic Greek. (And yes, I know there were regional dialects. There are regional dialects of English. I cannot understand Scotsmen or Scots-Irish, and no one but the Irish can understand an inebriated Irishman or Bostonian.) 

English is a compound language. Its base is a German tongue, Anglo-Saxon, with loan-words and phrases from Welsh, itself a compound language constructed from Latinized Celtic (Brittonic), or Celticized Latin: I can never tell. Then the Danes (and Norwegians) conquered northern and eastern England and brought Norse with them. 

On top of this is layered Norman French, a Romantic language with lots of Norse stuff left over from the Vikings that settled northeastern France from the mouth of the Seine to the Atlantic coast, speaking a regional dialect of Old French, a mixture of Latinized Gaelic, Frankish (German again), and Norse (from the Vikings under Rollo two centuries earlier, whom the Frankish rulers could not dislodge). From this English is blessed with weird pairs of words describing the same thing: _beef_ is the meat the Normans ate from _cows_, the animals the conquered Anglo-Saxons kept for the Norman masters. (Also _pork_ from _pigs_, _mutton_ from _sheep_, _venison_ from _deer_.) None of the kings of England is believed to have spoken English as his first language until Henry IV usurped Richard II in 1399. King Edward III, their grandfather, passed a law that Normans had to conduct trials in English because most of the inhabitants of England couldn’t speak French. And the first acknowledged English work, _Canterbury Tales_, was written by Geoffrey Chaucer, who served Edward III and Richard II. Chaucer was a lawyer, which might explain why he wrote in Middle (medieval) English: it was Edward III who required the lawyers to use that language. 

During the Renaissance, there was a rebirth of literacy in Latin, and scholarly Latin (and Greek!) re-entered the language. 

Anglo-Saxon used German syntax; this was replaced with Romantic syntax during the Middle Ages, but with enormous flexibility in word placement and arrangement. Because the language has been written for a long time but undergone enormous erosion in pronunciation, spelling no longer matches pronunciation in many instances, and we have all sorts of arcane rules for pronunciation and archaic spellings and words. (Tolkien used these to great effect.) 

Sometime after Shakespeare and the King James Bible (they belong to the same period, and because they use similar language and phrasing, are often confused by even reasonably well-educated English speakers, at least by modern standards), we mostly lost the second person singular: _thou, thee, thine_. 

_Ye_ is second person plural: _ye/ge, eow/gu, eower/gur_ > (“>” means “became”) _you, you, your_. And if that isn’t confusing enough, _thee_ was often written _þe_, where “þ”, the letter “_thorn_”, is pronounced “th” as in “thorn”; and it was often written “*y*” instead of “þ”, so that well-educated English speakers think a sign that reads “*Y*e Olde Coffee Shoppe” is second person singular, when in fact it is old-fashioned spelling for “_Th_e Olde Coffee Shoppe”. But well into the twentieth century, Quakers (the Christian sect) still addressed one another as “thou/thee”; and so do my wife and I on occasion, and it’s – where’s my calendar? – AD 2018. 

Ain’t English grand?

But it _would_ be nice to hear the various distinctions in dialect available in the Greek translation! 

In Appendix F, part II, “On Translation”, Tolkien comments on this matter:


> …Some attempt has been made to represent these varieties by variations in the kind of English used; but the divergence between the pronunciation and idiom of the Shire and the Westron tongue in the mouths of the Elves or of the high men of Gondor was greater than has been shown in this book. Hobbits indeed spoke for the most part a rustic dialect, whereas in Gondor and Rohan a more antique language was used, more formal and more terse.
> 
> One point in the divergence may here be noted, since, though often important, it has proved impossible to represent. The Westron tongue made in the pronouns of the second person (and often also in those of the third) a distinction, independent of number, between “familiar” and “deferential” forms. It was, however, one of the peculiarities of Shire-usage that the deferential forms had gone out of colloquial use. [Alcuin: like modern English] They lingered only among the villagers, especially of the Westfarthing, who used them as endearments. [Alcuin: like modern Quakers and some long-married couples] This was one of the things referred to when people of Gondor spoke of the strangeness of Hobbit-speech. Peregrin Took, for instance, in his first few days in Minas Tirith used the familiar forms to people of all ranks, including the Lord Denethor himself. This may have amused the aged Steward, but it must have astonished his servants. No doubt this free use of the familiar forms helped to spread the popular rumor that Peregrin was a person of very high rank in his own country.





Gilgaearel said:


> It is a mystery for me how you do know whether someone is addressing you with politeness or formally or with any other way. I can't tell if there are any lingual/syntax/grammatical differences, if there are any at all, on the supposed different ways of addressing others in English language.
> How do you figure this out? ( this is a serious question. Not a rhetoric one  )


Intonation is first: is the speaker respectful or not? Is he direct or indirect? Direct is generally but not always less respectful: sometimes indirect is less respectful, depending upon context. _Context_ is critical: a compliment in one setting can be used as a rude insult in another. English has grown into a difficult, intricate language precisely _because_ it has lost its Indo-European inflections. Bilbo’s “I know half of you half as well as I would like,” _etc_, is not only a linguistic puzzle, but also a less-than-subtle commentary on modern English: did that speaker (or writer) just praise you or insult you? If you can’t hear his voice and intonation, it can be extremely difficult, maybe even impossible to tell.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 18, 2018)

Great and very informative post. 

Regarding Bilbo Baggins phrase. 

I think that the phrase is half complimenting and half insulting. " _I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like;_" was an attempt to compliment those who appreciated and the "_I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve_” was a straight forward insult to those that he didn't appreciate. 

The matter for me, regarding this particular phrase, is why he did bother to say something like this at his party? Was there any chance to like them all that much anyway? It was just a party .. he didn't have to be fond of each and everyone there.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 18, 2018)

This thread has gone somewhat astray from my original question, but that's OK; here's an old one on yours that recently got necro'd:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/biblos-insult-read-and-answer.14568/

I'd still like to hear any further thoughts on the passage I first posted about, though!


----------

