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

[TrackerOrc]

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]

Why wouldn't he just be a hobbit?

 

[Elthir]

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

I apologize in advance.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Maybe he was a modo. Or part-modo.

A quasi, perhaps.

* No apologies.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

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]

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!

"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]

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]

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]

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!

( . . . ) 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]

... 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 🐾

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

 

[TrackerOrc]

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 ...

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]

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 patrilinear. 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]

The Hobbits were certainly patrilinear. 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]

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.