# Thief, thief! Baggins! We hates it for ever!



## TrackerOrc (May 12, 2020)

So, not to put too fine a point on things, did Bilbo actually steal the Ring?

He found it, for sure, but he knew that it wasn't his, and then fairly quickly knew (from Gollum's mutterings and cursing) that it was Golllum's. The fact that it wasn't Gollum's at all doesn't hold any relevance, as Bilbo didn't know about the slight unpleasantness with Deagol; that it was Sauron's was neither here nor there for the same reason - Bilbo only 'knew' the fact that it was Gollum's.

Obviously from the point of view of the story as a whole and especially in the specifics of getting Bilbo out of the tunnels alive, this doesn't matter, but I think it's quite interesting how much is made of Gandalf's reaction to Bilbo's story - he never believed it from the start, and when he finally got the real story out of Bilbo he was really disturbed as lying was so out of character for him.

Is Gandalf's being so upset Tolkien's way of letting us know that Bilbo wasn't entirely innocent here? And is this meant to be indicative of the horrible power of the Ring on someone straight away? This would certainly help to explain Smeagol's instant reaction to it?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 12, 2020)

In the first edition of The Hobbit, Gollum promised to give his ring to Bilbo, and "apologized many times" when he couldn't find it. Instead, he actually did show Bilbo the way out.

The revision came after the ring became the Ring. I recommend Douglas Anderson's The Annotated Hobbit for more on this.

I'd also recommend looking up some of Yay Gollum's old posts here. I think you'll enjoy them.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 13, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> In the first edition of The Hobbit, Gollum promised to give his ring to Bilbo, and "apologized many times" when he couldn't find it. Instead, he actually did show Bilbo the way out.
> 
> The revision came after the ring became the Ring. I recommend Douglas Anderson's The Annotated Hobbit for more on this.
> 
> I'd also recommend looking up some of Yay Gollum's old posts here. I think you'll enjoy them.


Well I'm afraid that if I open the floodgates and start buying more editions of the books, I'll never stop! I've even given some thought to re-buying HoME; good heavens


----------



## Alcuin (May 13, 2020)

I don’t think Bilbo was a thief, at least in the matter of obtaining the One Ring. Theft requires _mens rea_, the knowledge that you are doing something wrong. Bilbo happened upon the Ring in the dark after being whacked on the head and left behind by both Thorin & Co and the Orcs in pursuit of them. That isn’t theft. As for “What have I got in my pocket?” that seems more an absent-minded question: he had quite forgotten about the Ring while confronting and conversing with Gollum in what can only be described as a life-threatening encounter: I agree with Frodo’s observation that Gollum really meant to cheat, kill, and eat Bilbo all along. When Bilbo said that Gollum would have killed him had he not kept the Ring, Gandalf implicitly agreed, and gently reminded his halfling friend that he had never called him a thief. A thief Bilbo was not, at least not in the matter of the Ring. 

As I write this, I wonder if Gollum is not projecting his own sense of guilt, particularly in murdering his friend Déagol, onto Bilbo. Gandalf said his murdering and robbing Déagol “haunted” Gollum. 

Now later on, Bilbo takes the golden cup from Smaug’s hoard, and Smaug calls him a thief. Certainly Smaug saw it that way, but Smaug’s opinions can hardly be normative for anyone but Smaug. By all accounts, though Bilbo pilfered the Elf-king’s fortress; even Bilbo admitted it.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (May 13, 2020)

The finding of someone else's lost property does not give anyone the right of ownership. Had Bilbo known the Ring was Gollum's, he should have returned it. TrackerOrc does have a point there.

I also agree with Alcuin: by the time Bilbo realized he held something from Gollum, the latter had opened hostilities, was in hot pursuit and intended to kill Bilbo. Bilbo had no alternative but to save his life and the option of returning property was undone by Gollum himself.

So let us think kindly of Master Bilbo! 😇


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (May 13, 2020)

Merroe said:


> The finding of someone else's lost property does not give anyone the right of ownership. Had Bilbo known the Ring was Gollum's, he should have returned it. TrackerOrc does have a point there.



But from that point of view, the Ring didn't belong to Gollum, Deagol or Isildur either for that matter, did it? Technically it should have been returned to Sauron 😁.

💵

🎼


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (May 13, 2020)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Technically



Well, now this - since when have you become technical here, I wonder!? 🙃


----------



## Alice (May 13, 2020)

I guess, if someone was in Bilbo's situation, he would never return the Ring to Gollum willingly. Not only because of it's bad impact on it's owner, but also because of Gollum's reaction to his loss (which is pretty scary). Also this thing didn't look like Gollum's rightful possession (I think so)


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 13, 2020)

The relationship among first edition Hobbit, LOTR, and second edition Hobbit is complicated, and confused further by Tolkien's Prologue in LOTR. Rather than repeat quotes I've given on another thread, here's a link to it:









Does it seem that there was a lot left out in The Hobbit?


What wasn't said: 1.) What Gandalf hoped to gain by getting rid of Smaug. Some suggest that he didn't want Smaug to ally with Sauron, but that theory seems unlikely. Sauron was known as the Necromancer, and I don't think Gandalf outright suspected the Necromancer of being Sauron. I know...




www.thetolkienforum.com





I give quotes in post #8.


----------



## Alcuin (May 13, 2020)

Merroe said:


> The finding of someone else's lost property does not give anyone the right of ownership. Had Bilbo known the Ring was Gollum's, he should have returned it.





Erestor Arcamen said:


> But from that point of view, the Ring didn't belong to Gollum, Deagol or Isildur either for that matter, did it? Technically it should have been returned to Sauron 😁.


───◊───
...Around the inner surface was written something in a language unknown to Frito. “I can’t make out the words,” said Frito.​​“No, you cannot,” said Goodgulf.“ They are elvish, in the tongue of Fordor. A rough translation is:​_This Ring, no other, is made by the elves,_​_Who'd pawn their own mother to grab it themselves._​_Ruler of creeper, mortal, and scallop,_​_This is a sleeper that packs quite a wallop._​_The Power almighty rests in this Lone Ring._​_The Power, alrighty, for doing your Own Thing._​_If broken or busted, it cannot be remade_​_If found, send to Sorhed (the postage is prepaid).”_​_– Bored of the Rings_, Harvard Lampoon, 1969, Chapter 2: “Three’s Company, Four’s A Bore”​───◊───
“Then it belongs to you, and not to me at all!” cried Frodo in amazement, springing to his feet, as if he expected the Ring to be demanded at once.​​“It does not belong to either of us,” said Aragorn; “but it has been ordained that you should hold it for a while.”​_– Fellowship of the Ring_, “Many Meetings”​───◊───
Bilbo and Frodo were correct. Had he not kept the Ring, Gollum would have murdered Bilbo. He really had no choice; he did not know nor had he any way of knowing the Ring “belonged” to Gollum (it was in Gollum’s possession, just as the golden cup was in Smaug’s hoard and so, from Smaug’s point of view, belonged to him); and if we follow Gandalf’s logic in “Shadow of the Past”, it seems to be Gandalf’s opinion that the Ring itself deserted Gollum and lay in the goblin’s tunnel where Bilbo, of all people, found it rather than a goblin, which as Frodo observed “would[] have suited it better.” There was no ethical or moral ambiguity about Bilbo’s or Frodo’s actions regarding the Ring: this is one of the factors that preserved them from its worst effects.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 14, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> I don’t think Bilbo was a thief, at least in the matter of obtaining the One Ring. Theft requires _mens rea_, the knowledge that you are doing something wrong. Bilbo happened upon the Ring in the dark after being whacked on the head and left behind by both Thorin & Co and the Orcs in pursuit of them. That isn’t theft. As for “What have I got in my pocket?” that seems more an absent-minded question: he had quite forgotten about the Ring while confronting and conversing with Gollum in what can only be described as a life-threatening encounter: I agree with Frodo’s observation that Gollum really meant to cheat, kill, and eat Bilbo all along. When Bilbo said that Gollum would have killed him had he not kept the Ring, Gandalf implicitly agreed, and gently reminded his halfling friend that he had never called him a thief. A thief Bilbo was not, at least not in the matter of the Ring.
> 
> As I write this, I wonder if Gollum is not projecting his own sense of guilt, particularly in murdering his friend Déagol, onto Bilbo. Gandalf said his murdering and robbing Déagol “haunted” Gollum.
> 
> Now later on, Bilbo takes the golden cup from Smaug’s hoard, and Smaug calls him a thief. Certainly Smaug saw it that way, but Smaug’s opinions can hardly be normative for anyone but Smaug. By all accounts, though Bilbo pilfered the Elf-king’s fortress; even Bilbo admitted it.


I would still say that Bilbo can be seen as a thief (with any number of qualifications and the knowledge that almost anyone would act in exactly the same manner!), especially once he knew that the ring was Gollum's (actually Sauron's, but he didn't know that).
What really interests me here is the way in which Tolkien shows Bilbo lying as well - something which really disturbed Gandalf.
I've always seen this as Tolkien letting us see just how malign the ring was, almost instantaneously - look at the extreme actions of almost everyone who comes into contact with it: Isildur takes it as weregild, though he must know what a cosmically awful idea this is; Smeagol murders his friend; the upright Bilbo becomes a thief and a liar. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, won't touch the thing with a bargepole, leaving Frodo to take it on, at least somewhat forewarned and forearmed. 
This consistency really lets us know how bad an idea it would have been for the likes of Boromir or Denethor to take the ring, even though at first glance it could seem like a tool you could use to beat Sauron with.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 14, 2020)

Merroe said:


> The finding of someone else's lost property does not give anyone the right of ownership. Had Bilbo known the Ring was Gollum's, he should have returned it. TrackerOrc does have a point there.
> 
> I also agree with Alcuin: by the time Bilbo realized he held something from Gollum, the latter had opened hostilities, was in hot pursuit and intended to kill Bilbo. Bilbo had no alternative but to save his life and the option of returning property was undone by Gollum himself.
> 
> So let us think kindly of Master Bilbo! 😇


But not too kindly, perhaps? Once he was safe he had the option to confess all, and refused. Apparently he stuck to the fiction that Gollum promised him a present even after the Council of Elrond.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 14, 2020)

Not to get picky, but do you have a citation for this? I don't remember it at all.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 14, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Not to get picky, but do you have a citation for this? I don't remember it at all.


In the Prologue:
"Now it is a curious fact that this is not the story as Bilbo first told it to his companions. To them his account was that Gollum had promised to give him a _present_, if he won the game...this account Bilbo set down in his memoirs, and he seems never to have altered it himself, not even after the Council of Elrond. Evidently it still appeared in the original Red book"


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 14, 2020)

Oh, right. I always took that to mean he never got around to revision, rather than "sticking to the story". He had already told the truth about finding the ring, in "Flies and Spiders". It wouldn't be much use trying to keep up any kind of deception at the Council, with Gloin there.

As I said, the various accounts are a bit confused, and again, Anderson points out that "Bilbo's dishonesty, of great importance in _The Lord of the Rings, _is nowhere explicitly present in _The Hobbit". _

The real truth, of course, is that it allowed the author, in his guise as "translator" to reconcile the discrepancy between the two editions: he first got hold of the "unrevised" account, but later discovers a "corrected" copy.


----------



## Aramarien (May 15, 2020)

In the original The Hobbit, Gollum did promise to give Bilbo the ring if he won the riddle game. When there was an audience demand for more stories about hobbits, Tolkien tried to think of a way to tie the two stories and The Ring was the key he chose. Bilbo's rendition of the "true story" of Gollum and The Riddle Game was written before the revised version of The Hobbit that we are familiar with. 
According to the revised version and the story that Bilbo told at the Council of Elrond, is Bilbo a thief?
Bilbo did not know that the Ring he found in the tunnels belonged to Gollum. He was not even thinking about it when he played Riddles in the Dark. He was scared witless of Gollum and really believed Gollum would kill him. 
When Gollum went back to his island and Bilbo heard him screaming, it seems that Bilbo did not really know what was going on. I believe he started to put two and two together that perhaps the Ring that Bilbo found was what Gollum was looking for. At this point, Bilbo was in fear for his life. He was not going to call out to Gollum, "Is this what you're looking for?" Bilbo ran for his life. 
Technically, the "right" thing to do was to somehow give Gollum back his ring, but how was this to be done when the creature is running after you intent on killing you? Bilbo was not only escaping death, but needed to get out of the Orc tunnels. 
Of course, in Gollum's point of view, Bilbo was a thief. Bilbo had something of his and wasn't giving it back. It didn't matter the circumstances or that he was threatening to kill Bilbo or planning on using the Ring to kill Bilbo.


----------



## Alcuin (May 15, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> But not too kindly, perhaps? Once he was safe he had the option to confess all, and refused. Apparently he stuck to the fiction that Gollum promised him a present even after the Council of Elrond.


Bilbo told the truth at the Council of Elrond, not that Gollum had given him the Ring as a present.
“Isildur’s Bane is found, you say,” said Boromir. “…How do the Wise know that this ring is his? And how has it passed down the years, until it is brought hither by so strange a messenger?”

“That shall be told,” said Elrond. “…Come! Tell us your tale. …”

“Very well,” said Bilbo. “I will do as you bid. But I will now tell the true story, and if some here have heard me tell it otherwise” – he looked sidelong at Glóin – “I ask them to forget it and forgive me. I only wished to claim the treasure as my very own in those days, and to be rid of the name of thief that was put on me. …”​Two things here. First, Bilbo concocted the tale of the present “to be rid of the name of thief that was put on” him by Gollum. Second, _Boromir_ said the Ring was _Isildur’s_ – and so, by inheritance, Aragorn’s, as Frodo assumed. Now Isildur could and did claim the Ring both by conquest of Sauron and as weregild for Elendil and Anárion; but Aragorn set aside his forefather’s claim to the thing, though he maintained all the other rights, privileges, and inheritances of Isildur. “Possession is nine-tenths of the law,” is a well-known adage in English. The Ruling Ring was in the possession of Sauron, then Isildur, then Déagol, then Gollum who murdered Déagol to rob him, then Bilbo who found it, then Frodo who inherited it, and briefly in the possession of Bombadil, who returned it to Frodo. But Elrond said the Ring
belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength … is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. … If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron’s throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear.​


Aramarien said:


> In the original The Hobbit, Gollum did promise to give Bilbo the ring if he won the riddle game. When there was an audience demand for more stories about hobbits, Tolkien tried to think of a way to tie the two stories and The Ring was the key he chose. Bilbo's rendition of the "true story" of Gollum and The Riddle Game was written before the revised version of The Hobbit that we are familiar with.
> According to the revised version and the story that Bilbo told at the Council of Elrond, is Bilbo a thief?
> Bilbo did not know that the Ring he found in the tunnels belonged to Gollum. He was not even thinking about it when he played Riddles in the Dark. He was scared witless of Gollum and really believed Gollum would kill him.
> When Gollum went back to his island and Bilbo heard him screaming, it seems that Bilbo did not really know what was going on. I believe he started to put two and two together that perhaps the Ring that Bilbo found was what Gollum was looking for. At this point, Bilbo was in fear for his life. He was not going to call out to Gollum, "Is this what you're looking for?" Bilbo ran for his life.
> ...


Precisely the points of an earlier post.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 17, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Bilbo told the truth at the Council of Elrond, not that Gollum had given him the Ring as a present.
> ​“Isildur’s Bane is found, you say,” said Boromir. “…How do the Wise know that this ring is his? And how has it passed down the years, until it is brought hither by so strange a messenger?”​​“That shall be told,” said Elrond. “…Come! Tell us your tale. …”​​“Very well,” said Bilbo. “I will do as you bid. But I will now tell the true story, and if some here have heard me tell it otherwise” – he looked sidelong at Glóin – “I ask them to forget it and forgive me. I only wished to claim the treasure as my very own in those days, and to be rid of the name of thief that was put on me. …”​​Two things here. First, Bilbo concocted the tale of the present “to be rid of the name of thief that was put on” him by Gollum. Second, _Boromir_ said the Ring was _Isildur’s_ – and so, by inheritance, Aragorn’s, as Frodo assumed. Now Isildur could and did claim the Ring both by conquest of Sauron and as weregild for Elendil and Anárion; but Aragorn set aside his forefather’s claim to the thing, though he maintained all the other rights, privileges, and inheritances of Isildur. “Possession is nine-tenths of the law,” is a well-known adage in English. The Ruling Ring was in the possession of Sauron, then Isildur, then Déagol, then Gollum who murdered Déagol to rob him, then Bilbo who found it, then Frodo who inherited it, and briefly in the possession of Bombadil, who returned it to Frodo. But Elrond said the Ring
> ​belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength … is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. … If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron’s throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear.​​
> Precisely the points of an earlier post.


Bilbo told the truth at the Council, but he never seems to have written the truth when he had all the time in the world to do so; it seems that even Sam and Frodo never deleted anything that he wrote (as a mark of respect, I suppose), though they learned the true account and put it down in their various notes (Prologue). I can't help but see real similarities between Bilbo and Gollum here - they both cling to the idea of the ring being a present, when they both knew deep down that this was false. With Gollum, because he is presented as an evil character, we see this as a bad thing; with Bilbo, we excuse him as he is one of the good guys. It's a mark of how well written the story is that there can still be such depth of shading here.


----------



## Alcuin (May 17, 2020)

I certainly agree with that. In other threads, Squint-eyed Southerner has pointed out that Frodo and Gollum are in a way mirror images of one another. (I am no taking time to find them today, but I encourage you to look for them: he expresses it more clearly and succinctly that I.) Bilbo and Gollum have much the same relationship, and Tolkien points this out in _The Hobbit_ near the end of “Riddles in the Dark” when Gollum senses Bilbo’s invisible presence and tenses, crouched before the exit from the Goblins’ tunnels:
Bilbo … was desperate. … He must stab the foul thing, … kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo’s heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled.​So there is a strong connection between them. Gandalf also discusses it with Frodo in _FotR_’s “Shadow of the Past”:
“Gollum!” cried Frodo. …

“I think it is a sad story,” said the wizard, “and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.”

“I can’t believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits, however distantly,” said Frodo with some heat. “What an abominable notion!”

“It is true all the same,” replied Gandalf. “About their origins, at any rate, I know more than hobbits do themselves. And even Bilbo’s story suggests the kinship. There was a great deal in the background of their minds and memories that was very similar. They understood one another remarkably well, very much better than a hobbit would understand, say, a Dwarf, or an Orc, or even an Elf. …”​And in the Prologue part 4, “Of the Finding of the Ring”, Tolkien writes,
To [his companions] [Bilbo’s] account was that Gollum had promised to give him a _present_, if he won the game; but when Gollum went to fetch it from his island he found the treasure was gone: a magic ring, which had been given to him long ago on his birthday. Bilbo guessed that this was the very ring that he had found, and as he had won the game, it was already his by right. But being in a tight place, he said nothing about it, and made Gollum show him the way out, as a reward instead of a present. This account Bilbo set down in his memoirs, and he seems never to have altered it himself, not even after the Council of Elrond [where he publicly admitted the truth]. Evidently it still appeared in the original Red Book, as it did in several of the copies and abstracts. But many copies contain the true account (as an alternative), derived no doubt from notes by Frodo or Samwise, both of whom learned the truth, though they seem to have been unwilling to delete anything actually written by the old hobbit himself.

Gandalf, however, disbelieved Bilbo’s first story, as soon as he heard it, and he continued to be very curious about the ring. Eventually he got the true tale out of Bilbo after much questioning, which for a while strained their friendship; but the wizard seemed to think the truth important. Though he did not say so to Bilbo, he also thought it important, and disturbing, to find that the good hobbit had not told the truth from the first: quite contrary to his habit. The idea of a ‘present’ was not mere hobbitlike invention, all the same. It was suggested to Bilbo, as he confessed, by Gollum’s talk that he overheard; for Gollum did, in fact, call the ring his ‘birthday present’, many times. That also Gandalf thought strange and suspicious; but he did not discover the truth in this point for many more years…​


----------



## Aramarien (May 18, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> It was suggested to Bilbo, as he confessed, by Gollum’s talk that he overheard; for Gollum did, in fact, call the ring his ‘birthday present’, many times. That also Gandalf thought strange and suspicious; but he did not discover the truth in this point for many more years…


In the LOTR chapter "A Long-Expected Party" it says:
"Hobbits give presents to other people on their own birthdays. Not very expensive ones, as a rule, and not so lavishly as on this occasion, but it was not a bad system. Actually in Hobbiton and Bywater every day in the year was somebody's birthday, so that every hobbit in those parts had a fair chance of at least one present at least once a week. But they never got tired of them."

Also, many gifts were "mathoms" ,".....for anything that Hobbits had no immediate use for but were unwilling to throw away, they called a "mathom. Their dwellings were apt to become rather crowded with mathoms, and many of the presents that were passed from hand to hand were of that sort." [ LOTR, Prologue]
I wonder if this may be another reason that Gandalf may have thought that Gollum calling the ring his "birthday present" was strange and suspicious?


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 20, 2020)

Aramarien said:


> In the LOTR chapter "A Long-Expected Party" it says:
> "Hobbits give presents to other people on their own birthdays. Not very expensive ones, as a rule, and not so lavishly as on this occasion, but it was not a bad system. Actually in Hobbiton and Bywater every day in the year was somebody's birthday, so that every hobbit in those parts had a fair chance of at least one present at least once a week. But they never got tired of them."
> 
> Also, many gifts were "mathoms" ,".....for anything that Hobbits had no immediate use for but were unwilling to throw away, they called a "mathom. Their dwellings were apt to become rather crowded with mathoms, and many of the presents that were passed from hand to hand were of that sort." [ LOTR, Prologue]
> I wonder if this may be another reason that Gandalf may have thought that Gollum calling the ring his "birthday present" was strange and suspicious?


At the very least it would reinforce the similarities between the Hobbits of the Shire and Gollum, who we can perhaps see as a proto-Hobbit?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 20, 2020)

Why wouldn't he just be a hobbit?


----------



## Elthir (May 20, 2020)

I think he wouldn't not be a Hobbit . . . whether his toes went pro or not!

I apologize in advance.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 20, 2020)

Maybe he was a modo. Or part-modo.

A quasi, perhaps.

* No apologies.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 20, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Maybe he was a modo. Or part-modo.
> 
> A quasi, perhaps.
> 
> * No apologies.


Was the ring a Fro-llo?



I'm not sorry either.


CL


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 21, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Why wouldn't he just be a hobbit?


I've always thought of him as being of the original stock that the Hobbits of the Shire ended up as, as it were.
He's spent half a millenium hiding in the mountains, so that would make him an Elizabethan popping up in 21st century times; technically still the same, but surely there would be an awful lot of things having changed?

"there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors, for they loved the River" as Tolkien has put it, so much better than I have.

"clever-handed and quiet-footed little people" is just marvellous!



TrackerOrc said:


> "there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors, for they loved the River" as Tolkien has put it, so much better than I have.
> 
> "clever-handed and quiet-footed little people" is just marvellous!


Oops! Thats from "Shadow of the Past".


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 21, 2020)

Yes. I meant only that, as a "species" his people were hobbits, something that is easily missed, as The Hobbit makes it ambiguous. At the time of writing, Tolkien didn’t know what he was.

If you've ever seen the way Pauline Baynes depicted Gollum in her old map, it's clear just how confused his origins were, in the minds of many.


----------



## Olorgando (May 21, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> I've always thought of him as being of the original stock that the Hobbits of the Shire ended up as, as it were.
> He's spent half a millenium hiding in the mountains, so that would make him an Elizabethan popping up in 21st century times; technically still the same, but surely there would be an awful lot of things having changed?


Counting from 3019 TA, Gollum hid in the Misty mountains 549 years before, as of about 2470.
Our time 1470 puts us in the reign of Edward IV of the House of York, and "War of the Roses" territory of the civil war between the Houses of York and Lancaster. Edward IV was succeeded in 1483 for about two years by his brother Richard III, who had Edward's sons declared illegitimate. Richard was then defeated by Henry Tudor, in 1485, who became Henry VII, father of VIII and Elizabeth.
If you take Gollum's actual time of hiding under the mountains, about 2470 to 2944 TA, that's 474 years. Back from today, that's 1546. In January 1547 Henry VIII died, but was first succeeded on the throne by his young son by Jane Seymour, Edward VI, only 9 years old at accession, and ruling until 1553, when he died of an unspecified illness. Next came Henry VIII's daughter Mary I by Catherine of Aragorn, the one called "Bloody Mary", and Lizzie One doesn't ascend to the throne until 1558.

(Have I mentioned that I occasionally like to nitpick? …)

Back to M-e.
With the Hobbits settling in the Shire starting in 1601, that was well over 850 years until Déagol (temporarily) found the One Ring.
Whatever their mode of living may have been before settling there, the Shire Hobbits certainly became farmers with a vengeance. And with their innate conservatism in many things, things would have changed slowly, if at all. It's not until 2670 TA that pipe-weed is first mentioned - so Gollum would probably have been unfamiliar with it. But all in all, the change taking place in those 500 years was probably minimal.

I mean, however "speeded up" change in Middle-earth may have seemed to the "immortals" living in Valinor, changes in the Second and Third Ages were still probably at a snail's pace (I almost wrote "glacial") compared to our "Age". Changes in the half-millennia between Hastings in 1066 and Elizabeth I's reign, or between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and Hastings, or Julius Caesar and the fall of the Empire, would have seemed hectic to the Hobbits living between the late 25th and the early 31st century TA. And then things speeded up after 1492 our Age, then again after 1800, 1900, 1950, 1990 ...


----------



## Elthir (May 21, 2020)

_The Tale of Years_ includes a simpler mention: entry for the year TA 2463: _"About this time Deagol the Stoor finds the One Ring, and is murdered by Smeagol."_

At some point JRRT even addressed Gandalf's use of "I guess" . . .

"With regard to Gandalf certainly says at first 'I guess' (The Fellowship of the Ring, 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.' (The Fellowship of the Ring, 63)." JRRT The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #214

Sméagol and circumstances changed of course, but I think it's safe to call him a Hobbit/Stoor . . . not that Tracker Orc said otherwise!



Olorgando said:


> ( . . . ) Next came Henry VIII's daughter Mary I by Catherine of Aragorn, the one called "Bloody Mary", and Lizzie One doesn't ascend to the throne until 1558.
> 
> (Have I mentioned that I occasionally like to nitpick? … )




Ich auch 🐾


----------



## Olorgando (May 21, 2020)

Elthir said:


> Olorgando said:
> 
> 
> > ... Next came Henry VIII's daughter Mary I by Catherine of Aragorn, the one called "Bloody Mary", and Lizzie One doesn't ascend to the throne until 1558.
> ...


🤣 🤣 🤣
Oh lawdy!
Errrrr … I have inundated my spellchecker with so much JRRT stuff that it's become useless for normal English? 😅


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Counting from 3019 TA, Gollum hid in the Misty mountains 549 years before, as of about 2470.
> Our time 1470 puts us in the reign of Edward IV of the House of York, and "War of the Roses" territory of the civil war between the Houses of York and Lancaster. Edward IV was succeeded in 1483 for about two years by his brother Richard III, who had Edward's sons declared illegitimate. Richard was then defeated by Henry Tudor, in 1485, who became Henry VII, father of VIII and Elizabeth.
> If you take Gollum's actual time of hiding under the mountains, about 2470 to 2944 TA, that's 474 years. Back from today, that's 1546. In January 1547 Henry VIII died, but was first succeeded on the throne by his young son by Jane Seymour, Edward VI, only 9 years old at accession, and ruling until 1553, when he died of an unspecified illness. Next came Henry VIII's daughter Mary I by Catherine of Aragorn, the one called "Bloody Mary", and Lizzie One doesn't ascend to the throne until 1558.
> 
> ...


I can see I'm going to have to be a bit more precise!
One thing that did strike me as I was reading "The Shadow of the Past" again, is the mention of Deagol's family being ruled by a grandmother, stern and wise in old lore - I think this is one of the very few mentions of a matriarch that I can recall. The Shire Hobbits were definitely a traditionalist patriarchy, so can we see this as a development in their way of thinking? (Obviously, whether it's a good or bad development is a matter of opinion).


----------



## Olorgando (May 25, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> One thing that did strike me as I was reading "The Shadow of the Past" again, is the mention of Deagol's family being ruled by a grandmother, stern and wise in old lore - I think this is one of the very few mentions of a matriarch that I can recall. The Shire Hobbits were definitely a traditionalist patriarchy, so can we see this as a development in their way of thinking? (Obviously, whether it's a good or bad development is a matter of opinion).


The Hobbits were certainly patri*linear*. But then, any of them, say, being descended from The Old Took by a female "intermediary" (mother in Bilbo's case, maternal grandmother in Frodo's, etc.) certainly would not be hiding this aspect of their ancestry.
The most extensive (only?) writings on what one could term "Laws And Customs Among The Hobbits" is, as far as I know, to be found in Humphrey Carpenter's "Letters", specifically letter 214 to one A.C. Nunn, a draft. It runs to almost eight pages in my paperback.
"... But the government of a 'family', as of the real unit: the 'household', was not a monarchy (except by accident). It was a 'dyarchy', in which the master and mistress had equal status, if different functions. Either was held to be the proper representative of the other in case of absence (including death). There were no 'dowagers'. If the master died first, his place was taken by his wife, and this included (if he had held this position) the titular headship of a large family or clan. This title thus did not descend to the son, or other heir, while she lived, unless she voluntarily resigned."
I shorten JRRT' comments on an unusual constellation in the Took family, whose male head automatically became the Thain. Take a look at Appendix C "Family Trees", "Took of Great Smials". The grandson of The Old Took, Fortinbras II, SR 1278-1380, had married one Laila of the Clayhangers in SR 1314. Laila lived until SR 1402 (but was not at the Long-Expected Party due to "weighty" reasons - think Bombur). So she remained titular head of the Took Clan for 22 years after her husband's death. Their son Ferumbras III was Thain during this time (and until his death in SR 1415), But not head of the clan. He also never married, apparently because no Hobbit woman was willing to put up with that mother-in-law Laila. That is why upon Ferumbras III's death, both titles of head of the Took Clan and Thain shifted to Pippin's father Paladin II, The Old Took' oldest great-grandson (and in a male line of descent).


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 25, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> The Hobbits were certainly patri*linear*. But then, any of them, say, being descended from The Old Took by a female "intermediary" (mother in Bilbo's case, maternal grandmother in Frodo's, etc.) certainly would not be hiding this aspect of their ancestry.
> The most extensive (only?) writings on what one could term "Laws And Customs Among The Hobbits" is, as far as I know, to be found in Humphrey Carpenter's "Letters", specifically letter 214 to one A.C. Nunn, a draft. It runs to almost eight pages in my paperback.
> "... But the government of a 'family', as of the real unit: the 'household', was not a monarchy (except by accident). It was a 'dyarchy', in which the master and mistress had equal status, if different functions. Either was held to be the proper representative of the other in case of absence (including death). There were no 'dowagers'. If the master died first, his place was taken by his wife, and this included (if he had held this position) the titular headship of a large family or clan. This title thus did not descend to the son, or other heir, while she lived, unless she voluntarily resigned."
> I shorten JRRT' comments on an unusual constellation in the Took family, whose male head automatically became the Thain. Take a look at Appendix C "Family Trees", "Took of Great Smials". The grandson of The Old Took, Fortinbras II, SR 1278-1380, had married one Laila of the Clayhangers in SR 1314. Laila lived until SR 1402 (but was not at the Long-Expected Party due to "weighty" reasons - think Bombur). So she remained titular head of the Took Clan for 22 years after her husband's death. Their son Ferumbras III was Thain during this time (and until his death in SR 1415), But not head of the clan. He also never married, apparently because no Hobbit woman was willing to put up with that mother-in-law Laila. That is why upon Ferumbras III's death, both titles of head of the Took Clan and Thain shifted to Pippin's father Paladin II, The Old Took' oldest great-grandson (and in a male line of descent).


I'd actually still see the Shire as more patriarchal than not. I don't know of any female Mayors or Thains, or a Mistresss of Buckland. I'd say that the only strong female figure in the Shire was Lobelia, and she seems to be there largely for comic effect. It just seems almost unwritten that the authority figures will be male, and fairly well-off - perhaps a rather idealized Edwardian Squireocracy than anything else?


----------



## Olorgando (May 26, 2020)

No question about that. And I've voiced my skepticism on pressing statements JRRT made in the published letters too hard.
But as far as I know, JRRT never broached this topic elsewhere, never wrote a Hobbit equivalent of "Laws and Customs among the Eldar" found in "Morgoth's Ring", Part Three, II "The Second Phase". It's a different matter from comments JRRT made on say his concept of Galadriel, which was still in an unresolved state of flux at his death, where (much) later writings to be found in HoMe could contradict statements in letters.

As to the matter of being Thain, or Master of Buckland, I mentioned the "fact" that Ferumbras III became Thain upon his father's death in SR 1380, but not head of the Took clan until the death of his mother Laila. But Laila is not mentioned in any of my lexicons, and if you look at the Took family tree in Appendix C, Fortinbras II's wife is not named. So she seems to be a spontaneous creation by JRRT for this letter, to emphasize the concept of what he called the 'dyarchy' (is that in the OED?), and that eldest sons did *not* ascend to the title of head of a clan or family upon their father's death, unless their mothers voluntarily resigned the title, not even in the preeminent Took clan. Now I would guess that the "different functions" JRRT mentions could roughly be divided into "external affairs" and "internal affairs", but with plenty of overlap. To an outsider, this would very likely have appeared to be a patriarchy (interestingly, JRRT does not use this term, he uses "monarchy"). It would not necessarily be a contradiction to an "Edwardian Squireocracy", where the running of the household - which could be quite large! - could very well have been handled by the "materfamilias", daddy being too preoccupied with business matters to have much time (and often inclination) to do so.


----------

