# Samwise Gamgee



## Ingwë (Jun 7, 2005)

Probably Sam was born on 6 April 2983. 'Samwise' means 'half-wise' (i.e. simple or foolish). 

Sam Gamgee is a servant of Frodo the Ring-bearer. Samwise is a gardener and he loves trees and plants. He left the Shire with his master and then went to Rivendell. Later he went to the great journey to destroy the One Ring with The Fellowshi of the Ring. After breaking the Fellowship he remained with Frodo . He helped the Bearer from the beginnig to the End. Sanwise himself was Ring-Bearer for a while. 
After the War of the Ring he wed Rose Cotton and he has 13 children and some are gardeners.  

Is he clever or he isn't? Mustn't he remain in Rivendell? He is a loyal servant. What do you think about Sam?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 7, 2005)

I don't think that he should be considered less than clever:

(pasting this examples from the thread the discussion initially started)
- Sam remained cautios of Gollum all the way;
- he is instrumental in saving Frodo from the orcs;
- he is concerned well before Frodo about their return route;
- he became mayor of Michel Delving;
- he was named Counsellor of the North Kingdom by Aragorn himself.

Samwise - simple of foolish. Foolish *could* reffer to hobbits not carring about "serious" matters; simple (my favorite translation) could reffer to Sam's plain, pure heart and nature. And if we care about names, Sam's great-grandfather was *Wiseman* Gamwich 
I don't think he should remain in Rivendell; I would say both Gandalf and Elrond saw in him the 'perfect' hobbit companion for the 'perfect' hobbit ring-bearer.
Loyalty/obedience are traits which are manifest in some of the greatest heroes of M-E, such as Beren or Aragorn. In Tolkien's view, love itself is based on obedience - it is another sign of christian morality influence.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

There are a lot of heroes in LOTR, but Sam is the major hero.




I would also give a big, big nod to Rosie. Thirteen children!!!!!


----------



## Arat Macar (Jun 7, 2005)

Add to the list of Sam's smart moves:
Thinking ahead to bring things they would need e.g. rope, pots and pans, salt.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 9, 2005)

Samwise...


He is a servant of Frodo
He helped him in his journey to Rivendell
He wanted to come back to the Shire when he was in Lórien
He didn't leave Frodo when the Fellowship broke
He was cautious with Gollum and he didn't like him (that's very good)
He was Ring-Bearer for a while
He decided to help Frodo and not to go alone to Mordor to destroy the Ring
Samwise is a loyal fellow, very important character in the War of the Ring. He is the One who helped the Ring-bearer to destroy the One Ring and without Sam that destruction wouldn't come true. Though Sam is not very clever he is one of the most interesting heroes in thr LotR.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 9, 2005)

Ingwe, I ask you on this thread also, do you have any reason to believe that Sam wasn't clever? And if you care to read , no one on this thread, not even you, have provided anything to sustain that claim.


----------



## Arat Macar (Jun 9, 2005)

I agree, I mean maybe he was not clever in that obnoxious way that some people are who can't stop playing with their cleverness in everyone's faces. He did not spend his time combing through the scrolls in M.T. but he was wise in botany and in relationships to say the least. 

He was self-effacive and would be the last to call himself clever but a wise reader is not fooled. He was the only one of the fellowship to catch Frodo trying to sneak away at Parth Galen. Not even Aragorn or Legolas caught that.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 10, 2005)

> Ingwe, I ask you on this thread also, do you have any reason to believe that Sam wasn't clever? And if you care to read , no one on this thread, not even you, have provided anything to sustain that claim.


 
Yes, I still think he is not clever. Well, he is not stupid but he can be more clever. As I previously mentioned, Samwise is simple of foolish. And I think you remember the quote from the chapter 'The Mirror of Galadriel' in which he shows he is simple, plain. And he shows that in the other parts of the Book. But he helped Frodo because he is good friend.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 10, 2005)

I am not very sure what quote your reffering to. So, to wrap things up, is simplicity of nature the only basis for calling Sam not clever? And if so, how did you reason?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 10, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> There are a lot of heroes in LOTR, but Sam is the major hero.
> 
> I would also give a big, big nod to Rosie. Thirteen children!!!!!



I think that Sam should also get an honorable mention there — after all, it does take an equal amount of "filial cooperation"...

I tried to find the thread in which we hear from a woman in England whose last name in Gamgee. Couldn't dig it up. 

But Tolkien himself said that Sam Gamgee is THE hero of LOTR:

"...the highest love-story, that of Aragorn and Arwen Elrond's daughter is only alluded to as a known thing. It is told elsewhere in a short tale. Of Aragorn and Arwen Undómiel. I think *the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character*, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty." —_Letter #131_

Barley


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 10, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I think that Sam should also get an honorable mention there — after all, it does take an equal amount of "filial cooperation"...


Barley,

I think you had better run for cover. The women on the Forum are going to flay you alive for the suggestion that nine months of pregancy and followed by childbirth are comparable to the male's contribution.  

<Greenwood runs, *very rapidly*, for cover before the bloodshed starts.>


----------



## Eruërthiel (Jun 10, 2005)

Hello all, just thought I'd put in my opinion here. I've been a member of this forum for 8 months, and I think I've posted once 

Among people today I see a pattern of seemingly contrasting characteristics: Smart people ("smart" defined as people with high IQ's and such) tend to do the stupid things that cause problems, while people with lesser logical powers tend to have it a bit easier. And before everyone jumps on me for this statement, let me just say that this is a generalization and does not apply to everyone. I said it's a tendency.
I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, and I have done some pretty stupid things in my life. I know someone who claims to have a high IQ (genius-level) who has done some REALLY stupid things (like drive drunk across a field in front of two cop cars outside a police station and then dricing the wrong way down a one-way road). On the contrast, I know some people who might be considered "simple" people, and they generally tend to be happier people, and see matters in a simpler light that more intelligent people might overcomplicate. Intelligent people have a tendency to read into things too much. Think of it as some people can think withing the box real well, but can't think outside of it, while some people are the opposite.
Simply put, smart people do dumb things sometimes, and dumb people can be prone to profound insights. Which brings us to the topic:
Sam is a simple creature, even by hobbit standards. While Frodo is definitely a more intelligent hobbit, his thoughts are on a higher level, and, as a result, he tends to overlook things that might be obvious from another perspective (such as Gollum's two-faced nature), the reason probably being that he overanalyzes and tries to weigh everything fairly, whereas Samwise, who lacks the brainpower of his master, relies on handed-down lessons and common sense to make judgements. So, though he is not necessarily "knowledgeable" (four days after departing from Rivendell, he expected to see Orodruin), he does have a healthy supply of common sense.
As far as his "cleverness", I would say that overall he is not very clever, but due to his good common sense and simple thought process, he does tend to see some things that others would not.

Oh yes, and one more thing:


> Loyalty/obedience are traits which are manifest in some of the greatest heroes of M-E, such as Beren or Aragorn. In Tolkien's view, love itself is based on obedience - it is another sign of christian morality influence.


IMO, this is backwards...obedience is based on love, not vice versa. The idea that love is based on obedience doesn't seem like love to me...and would pretty much make void the idea of "unconditional love". If it exists, it would have to have its roots in the creative force, ie, God.

Well, that's my opinion. Hopefully I haven't made myself look like a rambling fool 

- *Eruërthiel* _the Minstrel of Aman -_


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 10, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Barley,
> 
> I think you had better run for cover. The women on the Forum are going to flay you alive for the suggestion that nine months of pregnancy and followed by childbirth are comparable to the male's contribution.
> 
> <Greenwood runs, *very rapidly*, for cover before the bloodshed starts.>



Hey — _whatever_ they say, Rosie couldn'ta dunnit without Sam! And I said _cooperation_ — there was no implication whatever of an equal distribution of labor! 

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 11, 2005)

Eruërthiel, beside your gut feeling, can you reffer anything to sustain your claim that he wasn't clever? I know Ingwe hasn't done so so far, maybe you will.

The fact that Aragorn and Arwen marry only after his quest is fulfilled was enough reason for me to say that love is based on obedience (and a somewhat similar story happened between Luthien and Beren). However, since, as far as I know, Tolkien didn't make any comment on love as related to obedience, I guess we are each entitled to our own opinion.

Furthermore, about obedience and heroism, Tolkien says that: "it is the *heroism of obedience and love* not of pride or willfulness that is the most heroic and the most moving".


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 11, 2005)

Having already had some fun on this thread, I think it is now time for me to be a bit more serious on the topic.  

I think people are getting a bit hung-up on modern connotations of words like, simple and clever. Clearly Frodo and Sam were extraordinary hobbits. I will have to find the exact quote, but I remember it being said once that Gandalf thought Frodo the best hobbit in the Shire. Now Sam is not as learned, or perhaps as smart as Frodo, but he certainly is not stupid. He is literate, having learned to read and write from Bilbo, something we are told most hobbits never learn. As has been pointed out Tolkien considered Sma the true hero of the story, though Tolkien himself describes Sam as a simple person. However, he does not mean simple to imply stupid. In this case simple means uncomplicated. Sam does not undertake the quest to destroy the Ring out of any grandiose goal of defeating evil and saving the world. It does it for the far simpler reasons of friendship and love.

As for Sam being less trusting of Gollum than Frodo, we must remember that Frodo was at least partly under the spell of the Ring. Also as Ringbearer, Frodo knew firsthand some of the torment the desire for the Ring inflicted on Gollum. For his own sake he had to hope there was a chance for redemption for Gollum. If there wasn't, what chance was there for himself? In one of his letters Tolkien says he considers the saddest moment in the book the moment when Gollum comes down from the pass of Cirith Ungol (before leading Frodo and Sam to Shelob's trap) and is on the verge of repentance but Sam wakes suddenly and misinterprets Gollum's reaching to touch Frodo. Sam speaks harshly to Gollum and the brief chance at repentance is gone forever. In the end on Mount Doom, when Sam at last has the chance to take revenge on Gollum for all his treachery, Sam stays his hand. Having briefly carried the Ring he now has some of the understanding of Gollum's torment that Frodo had shown earlier. Sam is a less complex character than Frodo and is in that sense simpler, but it does not mean he is stupid. Less clever than Frodo, perhaps, but not stupid.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 11, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Having already had some fun on this thread, I think it is now time for me to be a bit more serious on the topic.



Great post, m'friend! 

Barley


----------



## Eruërthiel (Jun 11, 2005)

It seems I may have put out the impression that I thought Samwise is stupid. I don't think that at all. I just don't believe that he is, overall, as quick-witted as Frodo; though he is definitely no idiot. And I do not think "simple" means "stupid"; if so, it would mean I was striving to live an idiotic life by keeping things uncomplicated  No, I think a simple life is much easier and in some ways more rewarding.
A good comparison to Sam's character would be, to anyone who has read the Dragonlance novels, Caramon Majere (besides the valorious fighter attitude). Since he is not quick to come to an answer to a problem, people would deem him slow and maybe stupid, when in fact, he analyzes a problem thoroughly before reaching a conclusion. And also, his love for his brother is very comparable to Sam's love for Frodo, except that Frodo cares for Sam as well. All this, combined with the fact that Samwise is anything but "worldly" (The Shire and his garden is all he really _knows_) might make others, especially most Men, look down on him.
I do truly believe that Sam is the true hero of the story, simply because of his love of his master and his steadfast commitment to him. Any "intelligent" person would have thought the quest was pure folly and might have tried to dissuade Frodo from his mission. Sam, while he didn't _truly _understand the dangers he would face, he did not cow before them or turn back, even when hope seemed completely lost. Even when Frodo no longer had the will to go on, Sam was there to keep him going. He had heart, and it was a good heart, and that can be more valuable than intelligence.


> Furthermore, about obedience and heroism, Tolkien says that: "it is the *heroism of obedience and love* not of pride or willfulness that is the most heroic and the most moving".


I agree on that. That does not state that love is _based on_ obedience, however, which was the point I was arguing. But yes, I believe that the good done through obedience and love is what makes _The Lord of the Rings_ one of the most satisfying books I've ever read.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 12, 2005)

Thorondor, there aren't many things that I can mention about Sam...  Maybe I think he is not clever because he is a hobbit and the Hobbits are strange race. They don't want to know about the other world. Sam is a Hobbit and as I said he is simple, plain. Maybe I think he is not clevar because of his race. 




> I think people are getting a bit hung-up on modern connotations of words like, simple and clever. Clearly Frodo and Sam were extraordinary hobbits. I will have to find the exact quote, but I remember it being said once that Gandalf thought Frodo the best hobbit in the Shire. Now Sam is not as learned, or perhaps as smart as Frodo


 Perhas this is one more reason why he is not clever. But I don't say he is stupid! He didn't study but he learned many things during his life.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 12, 2005)

> Thorondor, there aren't many things that I can mention about Sam...  Maybe I think he is not clever because he is a hobbit and the Hobbits are strange race. They don't want to know about the other world. Sam is a Hobbit and as I said he is simple, plain. Maybe I think he is not clevar because of his race.


 

Geez... "cultural violence" all over again ...







> Perhas this is one more reason why he is not clever


 
"Not as smart as" someone else doesn't imply "not clever" .


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 13, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Geez... "cultural violence" all over again ...


What do you mean? 



> "Not as smart as" someone else doesn't imply "not clever" .


The hobbits aren't as smart as the other races. You know: they don't like machines, they are interested only about things copncerning the Shire and their relations. And not as smart as those who aren't smart is not very clever.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 13, 2005)

> What do you mean?


 
There are three layers of violence:

- direct: hitting and the likes;
- institutional: prohibiting certain rights to certain people;
- cultural (the basis of all violence): believing that certain persons are inferior to you in certain aspects, because of their race, gender, religion, etc.

You believing that Sam is not clever because he is a hobbit is something like cultural violence 



> The hobbits aren't as smart as the other races. You know: they don't like machines,


 
Tolkien would shoot you for saying that . He is against machines too, esspecially when machines destroy nature.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 13, 2005)

> You believing that Sam is not clever because he is a hobbit is something like cultural violence


Well, you think so  He is not as clever as the other hobbits. And they aren't much clever so he Sam is not very clever. But mind it! he is not stupid and he show it in the journey from Mordor.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 13, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> The hobbits aren't as smart as the other races. You know: they don't like machines, they are interested only about things copncerning the Shire and their relations. And not as smart as those who aren't smart is not very clever.


You are confusing technology with intelligence. Aristotle lived in what would now be considered a technologically backward time but is also considered one of the most brilliant minds that ever lived.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 13, 2005)

I don't mean only their technology. I mean their character, their mind, they don't need information about the world outside their Shire. They afraid the water and they think the other hobbits strange if they talk with Gandalf, Dwarves, etc. You know


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 13, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> I don't mean only their technology. I mean their character, their mind, they don't need information about the world outside their Shire. They afraid the water and they think the other hobbits strange if they talk with Gandalf, Dwarves, etc. You know


But none of that means that they aren't clever or smart. In English they would be described as provincial or insular. They could also be called isolationist. None of it has anything to do with intelligence.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 13, 2005)

Yes, but is there any information about Hobbits and lore? Maths, books like the Men and the Elves. _I know about Bilbo's book and the hobbits songs. _


----------



## Alatar (Jun 13, 2005)

It is implied many times that sam is not that intelligent and tolkein did this to show that not all heros arwe intelligent, and about the troubled veiws of the intelligent people, the creators of the A bomb were realy simple by not thinking ahead to what it would be used for. Tolkein said somthing like this in his letters.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 13, 2005)

Alatar said:


> It is implied many times that sam is not that intelligent and tolkein did this to show that not all heros arwe intelligent, and about the troubled veiws of the intelligent people, the creators of the A bomb were realy simple by not thinking ahead to what it would be used for. Tolkein said somthing like this in his letters.


 
Where is it implied that Sam is not that intelligent? (I am having a deja-vu feeling.)
And are you comparing Sam's simplicity with the alleged simplicity of the creators of the A bomb?


----------



## Meselyn (Jun 13, 2005)

Is he clever?! Yes he's clever. He could see right through Gollum when Frodo could not. If it were not for sam. Frodo might have been killed, and the ring in Saurons possesion. He didn't have to remain in rivendell. He might have considered it, but he kept his promise to Gandalf to go with Frodo to the end. In my opinion Sam was one very wise Hobbitt.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 13, 2005)

> He could see right through Gollum when Frodo could not. If it were not for Sam Frodo might have been killed, and the Ring in Saurons possesion. He didn't have to remain in rivendell. He might have considered it, but he kept his promise to Gandalf to go with Frodo to the end. In my opinion Sam was one very wise Hobbit.


He could see right but Gollum helped Frodo to destroy the One Ring though Gollum wanted to kill Frodo. I think Sam is a loyal friend, he would do anything for his master. Yes, I agree he mustn't remain in Rivendell because Frodo would get plucked.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 13, 2005)

Throdor i mean that sometimes it is the itelligent people who do the stupid things and that simple people can use there sence to see what is infront of them, like with gollum.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 13, 2005)

I presume you are reffering to me  (although you pretty much messed up the username). Can you please rephrase your post also, I don't make much of it.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 13, 2005)

Alatar said:


> ...sometimes it is the intelligent people who do the stupid things...



Alatar, I take my hat off to you! **tips hat** You understand something at age 13 that a fair number of grownups _never_ learn: It takes an intelligent person to do something _really_ stupid.

Barley


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 14, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> It takes an intelligent person to do something _really_ stupid.
> 
> Barley


Too true!

But do you know why it is so hard to make something foolproof? It is because fools are so damn clever!


----------

