[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

The last chapters of the book are included, and interestingly, this is where the dates named are also put into Shire context! Then we get a brief glimpse into events that are "future" from LotR's point of view, and this part is definitely "Shire-centric", telling us almost exclusively about Hobbits and their fate.

I suspect that the final part (or most of it) of App B was written by Hobbits, whereas the earlier parts were taken from Gondorian records.

This brings us to the interesting question of who, exactly, wrote the Appendices? Obviously they are an ‘amalgam’. If the earlier parts of the Annals used came from Gondor they are clearly not a straight ‘lift’ - there are mentions of Hobbit history scattered throughout the accounts of the earlier Third Age, which we can only see as insertions by Hobbits.

This can lead to some ‘odd’ juxtapositions:

2948: Theoden son of Thengel, King of Rohan, born.
2949: Gandalf and Balin visit Bilbo in the Shire.
2950: Finduilas, daughter of Adrahil of Dol Amroth, born.
2951: Sauron declares himself openly and gathers power in Mordor. He begins the rebuilding of Barad-dur. Gollum turns towards Mordor. Sauron sends three of the Nazgul to reoccupy Dol Guldur.

We have entries of significant historical record - Theoden’s birth & Sauron’s reappearance - ‘bookending’ a visit by Gandalf & Balin to Bag End, an event of relavance only to Hobbits (& we readers).

The question then arises as to whether these different sources are equally reliable. Same would apply to the references to the early history of the Rohirrim. Are the entries (for instance)

1977: Frumgor leads the Eotheod into the North.
&
c. 1150: The Fallohides enter Eriador. The Stoors come over the Redhorn Pass and move to the Angle, or to Dunland.

as reliable as

2698: Ecthelion I rebuilds the White Tower in Minas Tirith.

The point is, Ecthelion’s building of the White Tower in 2698 clearly comes from Gondorian Annals, probably written at the time by scribes in Minas Tirith, whereas the Hobbits probably didn’t have any written records at the time & the Eotheod definitely did not.

This brings in the ‘Translator Conceit’ with a vengeance. This is legend written down & turned into History long after the fact. Does a Legendary event actually become history once its given a date & set down in an ‘official’ record? Is something ‘True’ once its put in a history book, whereas before it was merely an ‘Old wives tale, told around the fireside?

At the end we have another example of the question asked about the ‘final note’ in App A - ‘Who wrote this’:

1482: Death of Mistress Rose, wife of Master Samwise, on Mid-year's Day. On September 22 Master Samwise rides out from Bag End. He comes to the Tower Hills, and is last seen by Elanor, to whom he gives the Red Book afterwards kept by the Fairbairns. Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over Sea, last of the Ring-bearers.

‘Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over Sea, last of the Ring-bearers.’ Who wrote this? Is it ‘True’ because its in a History book, or is it perhaps not True, because the History book states its a ‘tradition’? This ‘Tale of Years’ is perhaps quite literally a ‘tale’ in some parts!

Interestingly, these Annals (as CT points out) do not always tally with the main story itself:

It is a curious fact that the chronology of ‘The Chief Days from the Fall of Barad Dur to the End of the Third Age’ in Appendix B ...does not agree with the text of ‘Many Partings’ in respect either of Eomer’s return in relation to the setting out for Edoras or of the time taken for that journey. In the chronology of ‘The Chief Days’ Eomer returned to Minas Tirith on July 18th, & the riding from the City with King Theoden’s wain took place on the following day, July 19th, not four days later as in ‘Many Partings’; while the arrival at Edoras is dated August 7, eighteen days later, not fifteen, as in the text.
(CT in Sauron Defeated, cited in Hammond & Scull: Readers’ Companion to LotR)

Is CT right - is it ‘curious’ that the dates do not match up, or was it deliberate on Tolkien’s part? Whatever. The ‘fact’ is we are given two different chronologies, one in the story, one in the Annals. Which is correct - the History or the Legend?