LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 01 - A Long-Expected Party

[HerenIstarion]

Concerning names

Just to add some things to the soup. It had been already noted that Long Expected Party is built to parallel, and, at the same time, be an antithesis to the Hobbit chapter 1 – Unexpected Party.

But, with a bit of hindsight, both are quite the opposite – for, in the Hobbit, the party is unexpected to Bilbo only (and half so, since he himself invited Gandalf to tea). Gandalf had it planned long before with a clear purpose in mind, and dwarves look up to it all the way, even before they see the sign on the door.

The Long Expected Party is full of unexpected things, on the other hand (the main thing to happen – Bilbos’s disappearance, is expected mainly by Bilbo himself, though Gandalf knows it to and Frodo may have doubts) – the mere ring of Bilbo’s as we know it from the Hobbit to become the Ruling Ring, Bilbo exhibiting Gollum-like qualities and than vanishing in the midst of a party etc

In both cases Gandalf is in the know, though. But he is Gandalf, and has to be, if you follow my meaning

But one of the main differences lies in the names of protagonists, main [hobbit] heroes, which we come to know in the first chapter off hand.

Not to outrun my own pace – it should be noted that hobbit names are generally categorized in two ways – those of no meaning but mere sound – like Bilbo, Bungo, Bingo and so forth, and those of ‘foreign’ origin with some meaning to them

It is very interesting that main hero of the Hobbit, Bilbo, has a name with no meaning at all. It is significant, than that all four main hobbit characters of LoTR justify their names.

Meriadoc – has some Welsh connotations to it, to the best of my knowledge, and roughly may be rendered as “master of the sea”. True, Merry has not much doing with the sea as the sea, but is Brandybuck, i.e. of the only hobbit family to do anything with [big amounts] of water whatsoever. Besides, shortened form sounds like Merry, and Merry the hobbit is a merry hobbit indeed.

Peregrin – Now Latin rooting, meaning “wanderer”, or “pilgrim”. That’s him, it is -wanderer, for sure. In both senses – he wanders (i.e. travels a lot), and he is curious above measure of average (Palantir, per instance). But not merely wanderer, but wanderer with a quest, i.e. pilgrim. And shortening brings him to be Pippin, and Pippin the Short was a frank king in 8th century A.D., and who is that who dare say hobbits are not short, even if Pippin be taller than most? But, most interestingly, Pippin the Short drove Saracens (i.e. Muslims) out of France, and, strikingly, Pippin the Hobbit drove ruffians our of the Shire.

Samwise – old English for ‘half-wise’. But now that is matter of optimism – is the glass half full or half empty? I daresay it is half full, for if it were not so, Gollum would not have been spared and quest would have failed

Frodo – that being the special case. For one thing, in the first drafts of the LoTR Frodo is Bingo (if my memory does not fail me). And that is in line with Bilbo, i.e., is a name with sound to it, not meaning. But as the scope of the work widens, so the name changes, and we get Frodo. And, what with assessment that ‘hobbitish’ masculine ending is ‘a’, it gives us Froda, as original. But Froda is Norse, and is character out of mythology – old king, father of Ingeld (this latter mentioned in Beowulf), but, unlike main bulk of Norse heroes, not heroic at all in a sense he is not bloodthirsty, but peaceful. In fact, he owns a mill which grinds peace for him, and while he rules there is peace. Unfortunately, he is killed, and his son Ingeld turns back to old bloody heroism. Rings any bells? Especially with Frodo later on, when he draws no sword, takes no part in battles, and is generally kind of a pacifist, but very much neglected by his own people

But I’m again off and beyond current chapter. So I would conclude that, even when we take into account Tolkien’s statement that actually the names in Westron sound different (can not give reference or the list right away) and are merely translated, it is all very much interesting. Or, to summarize it all, we have four hobbit names of Welsh, Latin, English and Norse origins, all with the meaning, all highly relevant to the text and events that befall their bearers, and their behavioral pattern. And all is so well hidden, and at the time is so obviously on the surface, that I can not help but am awestruck (constantly so with Tolkien, that is).

[davem]

Bethberry
The passages I quoted were very selective - Flora Thompson also describes the poverty & everyday struggle of the people - which is why her account of her early life is so moving. But to focus solely on the starkness & harshness of that life is as mistaken as focussing solely on the simple beauty of it. For all the struggles she & her friends & family knew, she is full of regret for what had been lost. She lived through it, & she saw value in it, & knew that something important had been lost.

Its the same with the focus on the 'horrors' of WW1. Yes, horrors there were, but many of the men who fought believed in the cause they fought for, valued the comradeship & were proud of their service. By no means were Owen & Sassoon typical of the men who served. (Interesting points made in Tolkien & the Great War). In short, many of those who fought didn't think of WW1 as a futile exercise or as nothing more than an example of 'man's inhumanity to man' writ large.

Point being, those who lived through such times saw them differently to most of us. Just as Flora Thompson can find beauty amid the poverty, & place a value on that beauty, so can Tolkien. There is poverty in the Shire, but the fact that it isn't focussed on doesn't mean that Tolkien is deliberately 'caricaturing' that world, or being ironic. I think he is presenting what he loved about that world honestly. If he doesn't spend time presenting us with what he hated about it (though we can glimpse it if we look hard enough, & we see it in the state of the Shire when the hobbits return) that's no more dishonest than emphasising a loved ones good points.

(This is what I think Tolkien meant by 'parody', though I think the term is a little extreme - its certainly not 'burlesque', or we wouldn't care about the world or its inhabitants. Its a positive parody in Tolkien's case, & I don't get any sense that he's setting out to mock or belittle the people & culture he's writing about. He simply plays up the people's foibles. As to parodying the toponomy, I think he's 'idealising' the names of places. Its an archetypal rural England - as Rohan is an archetypal Anglo Saxon England)

In short, I chose the quotations from Lark Rise not to try & imply that village life in the 1880's was ideal, but to show that to the people who lived it, it was full of beauty & magic.

And besides, how significant is the last sentence I quoted:

Bands of little blue butterflies flitted here & there or poised themselves on quivering wings on the long grass bents; bees hummed in the white clover blooms, & over all a deep silence brooded. It seemed as though the road had been made ages before, then forgotten.

Boromir88

Do you think that Tolkien might be saying to us that 'traditions' are wise to keep re-telling ? With the seeming departure of Sauron/Ring from ME the tale of the old days has been forgotten, even the fact that The One Ring was not destroyed. Also, ignoring the old traditions, ignoring warning signs, placing ones cranium up ones anus and believing that all is well is not just a habit peculiar to Hobbits. Is Tolkien reflecting what had gone on in the two WW's and also what goes on today ?

I think it might be fair to say that Sauron's forces appeared to gather quickly once the One Ring had been brought from underground. He would have known that it was around somewhere, but not exactly where. Once Bilbo brought it out from Gollum's hiding place it would have been easier for Sauron to 'sense' it. A couple of questions arise here - was the One Ring trying to return to Sauron, did it leave Gollum and 'find' Bilbo ? Why did Bilbo lie about the ring ? If he had said something earlier then perhaps they could have gotten the One Ring to Mt. Doom before Sauron had gathered all his forces to him.

In reference to your last paragraph

This is ver similar to the events of WW2. The world just got out of a Global depression, just got out of WW1, so what do they do? They appease Hitler (as well as evil) to try anything to prevent another world war. Grant it the middle-earth peoples did not "appease" Sauron but they ignored the threat, they refused to see that anything was wrong and the whole time they were living under a "flawed peace." Within 6 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong) Hitler is able to take France, and within months all of Western Europe had fallen, except Britain. Same instance in LOTR, within months and a matter of years Sauron is able to press assaults upon all of Middle-earth, and Saruman easily takes the Shire. Sauron, as well as Hitler, weren't able to build up forces that rapid, they weren't able to do it within months, but it seemed like they could take control within a short period of time because of the people thinking there was no evil, hiding behind a "flawed happiness."

I'm not sure that it was a 'flawed happiness' in either case. Remember that Hitler lost his stab at the first election, then suddenly got in about 6 months later....could have been one of those election rigging thingys. But if it wasn't, then the people of Germany voted Hitler in, it must have been the feelings of a nation that got him there. Sauron did virtually the same thing with people......promises of power, promises of wealth, promises, promises, promises. Tolkien may be showing us not to listen to other peoples BS

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

H-I I ran across this in the dictionary the other day. Something else to add to your collection of names and their meanings.

bil·bo (n. Archaic pl. bil·boes)
1. A sword, especially one having a well-tempered blade.
2. An iron bar to which sliding fetters are attached, formerly used to shackle the feet of prisoners.

Either definition sets one thinking.

[HerenIstarion]

heh, Hilde, you tear half of my argument apart with that bil-boes reference. for indeed I was driving at that Bilbo's name, as part of the more light-hearted story about 'adventures', where lot of toponimy is just plain (The Hill, The Water, The Mountain, The River), is also just funny, whilst the LoTR, work of much wider scope, has layers upon layers of things to be seen and appreciated

But, well, one lives and learns.

On the other hand, I believe the said argument is still plausible, for all of the hidden meaning for 4 hobbits resides in real personal names (exeption possibly Sam, but than, his short name corresponds with our Sam, though it be derived from Samuel and Hebraic, not Samwise and English), whilst 'bilbo' is stated by my dictionary to come (probably) from spanish town of Bilboa.

I believe therefore Bilbo's case to be a coincidence, whilst the other four cases to be there on purpose

Which, probably, proves how much of a swindler I may be.

Or, still, maybe not

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I still think you have a point about The Lord of the Rings, Heren; it's just that Tolkein made a lot of philological jokes in all his writing, and not just the piece we're discussing. It would be typical of Tolkien to give the hero of his first novel a name that could both mean 'a good sword' and 'a fetter', because Bilbo starts out his adventures as a burden on the Dwarves, but soon becomes as useful in a pinch as a well-made blade, eventually releasing them from the Elven-king's prison in a final ironic flourish.

That's heinously off-topic, so I'll return to something that's been kicked around above. Why Tolkien encloses the word 'parody' in quotation marks in the letter quoted by Bêthberry is anybody's guess. Perhaps he was unsure of what he wanted to say, or perhaps he meant to use 'parody' in some modern vernacular sense that he refused entirely to accept. I don't think that we can discount his use of it, though. Given the satirical use to which Tolkien puts hobbits, their status as a pastiche or a parody of rustic Midlanders is entirely plausible. Something doesn't cease to be a parody when it runs close to reality; quite the reverse in my opinion: the best parody never loses sight of the true nature of its subject.

If Tolkien did intend the Shire as a smaller or parodic version of rural England, though, it was an affectionate and nostalgic one. In that respect it's similar to P.G. Wodehouse's sketches of British upper-class life in the 1920s and '30s, which he continued to write long after that social world had gone the way of the Dodo. Tolkien had a strong sense of fun, which would be very likely to depict literal 'little Englanders' rising up to trouble the counsels of the great and the Wise. What The Hobbit began by putting a country gentleman in a legendary setting, The Lord of the Rings continues; although as we are already seeing the author takes the mythical element a lot more seriously in the later work.

As for the unwillingness of good to recognise evil that was mentioned above, I think that Tolkien is more depicting evil growing where one least expects it. Who is it that holds back the attack on Dol Guldur? Why, Saruman; as yet unrecognised as a traitor working for his own ends. Good in Tolkien's works is always divided and uncertain of itself, while evil is always self-assured and at least nominally united. The difference is that the alliances of evil are fatally flawed by selfish motives, whereas when the good and the wise form alliances they have the common good at heart, which gives them greater strength in adversity. Evil always creeps back in, each time attacking where good seems strongest, warping or perverting the greatest bastions of its opposition to serve its own ends. The 'good' side do not allow the existence of evil to make them leave off their trust and goodwill: essentially they refuse to oppose evil at the cost of becoming more like it, which is the hardest lesson of all and one of the major themes of The Lord of the Rings.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Please, all excuse the fragmented nature of what is about to come, but there are so many different points I wish to address that I shan’t even try to render them all into a single line of argument.

Names: frodá is also Old Germanic for “wise by experience,” so that meaning must pertain to Frodo, inasmuch as during his journeys he does very much grow wise by experience. I think this meaning plays off very nicely with the meanings H-I has uncovered in the names of the other hobbits: Sam is already half-full of the ‘native’ wisdom of the hobbits; Pippin and Merry are not really ‘wise’ but possess virtues that they bear with them from out of the Shire to the aid of a world that is in need of those virtues.

I’ve already posted a long entry about names and naming and their importance in the thread Tolkien and Philosophy in which I talk about Aragorn and Arwen as well; not really relevant to this thread, however, so I cite it only for those who are interested.

Revelations: Reading through the posts in this thread I’m beginning to realise that this chapter is all about revealing the ‘fabulous’ or ‘magical’ or ‘darker’ or ‘higher’ matters that lie so closely beside the day-to-day that we no longer see them. Tolkien wrote quite brilliantly about this process of (what he calls) “recovery” in “On Fairy-Stories” but I shan’t address that essay here directly. In terms of what we find in this chapter however:

This process of revelation begins, I think, with the Gaffer’s opposition of “cabbages and potatoes” to “Elves and dragons”; in this line he opposes the Shire and the every day to the two adventures of the hobbits (Bilbo’s quest to the dragon and Frodo’s participation in an essentially Elvish story). He clearly is aware of the existence of both, but just as clearly prefers or thinks it more proper to concentrate on the former.

As the chapter goes on, however, we find that the Gaffer’s idea of an opposition between these two worlds is perhaps a mistaken one. For right in the very heart of the land of cabbages and potatoes we find Bilbo and Frodo – two hobbits who ‘used’ to be ordinary and sensible until they were affected (Bilbo by Gandalf, and Frodo by Bilbo) and thus became “queer.” The way that they ‘stand out’ in the Shire has been commented on already in the thread.

The next revelation is about Gandalf. When he first enters this story he is very much the Wizard of The Hobbit. But there are already hints that there is perhaps more here than meets the eye. At the fireworks display we learn that Gandalf’s “art improved with age.” The Wizard is thus connected with that terribly loaded and powerful word in Tolkien’s world: “art”. What’s more, his association with fireworks foreshadows the moment at which his full power is finally revealed to the hobbits who accompany him on the journey: “I am the bearer of the secret fire of Anor!” Bilbo is the first to see this true side of Gandalf when the Wizard becomes such a threatening presence in their argument, and he threatens to “uncloak” himself.

Closely connected to the revelation of Gandalf is the revelation of the Ring. Throughout this chapter is it merely a small-r ring, but by the end we already have a sense that there is much much more going on with it; it might not be The Ring yet, but it sure is more than a simple trinket!

This is, I think, closely connected to the idea of Road as expressed in Bilbo’s song. As H-I has already quite brilliantly pointed out, the Road becomes for Bilbo and for us, in this moment, much more than just a way to get from Shire A to Rivendell B; it becomes an analogue for life itself with the comforts of home at one end and the comforts of a new resting place at the other, with the adventure of experience along both sides.

The fact that all these revelations (recoveries) are so subtly sounded is, I think, a major part of the chapter’s purpose as it strives to indicate that just beside the ordinary, as though from the corner of our eyes, there is the extraordinary, both wonderful and terrible: Elves and dragons are not just ‘out there’ in some other place that we are isolated from, but ‘right here’ standing upon the same soil from which sprouts our more familiar and comfortable cabbages and potatoes.

Just What is this Ring Anyway?: My final thoughts go to, as always, the wonderful enigma that is the Ring and how it works on one. For me, one of the most highly resonant and important passages in this chapter is:

Bilbo drew his hand over his eyes. 'I am sorry,' he said. 'But I have felt so queer. And yet it would be a relief in a way not to be bothered with it any more. It has been so growing on my mind lately. Sometimes I have felt it was like an eye looking at me. And I am always wanting to put it on and disappear, don't you know; or wondering if it is safe, and pulling it out to make sure. I tried locking it up, but I found I couldn't rest without it in my pocket. I don't know why. And I don't seem able to make up my mind.'

'Then trust mine,' said Gandalf. 'It is quite made up. Go away and leave it behind. Stop possessing it. Give it to Frodo, and I will look after him.'

Bilbo stood for a moment tense and undecided. Presently he sighed. 'All right,' he said with an effort. 'I will.'. . .

. . .

Bilbo took out the envelope, but just as he was about to set it by the clock, his hand jerked back, and the packet fell on the floor. Before he could pick it up, the wizard stooped and seized it and set it in its place. A spasm of anger passed swiftly over the hobbit's face again. Suddenly it gave way to a look of relief and a laugh.

In the first paragraph we have a lot of “I”’s as Bilbo reflects upon the effect that the Ring is having upon him. Against his “I” however is the overpowering nature of the “eye” that is looking at him. This sets up, I think, the contest that will take place throughout the story between Frodo’s “I” and the “I/eye” of Sauron. The immediate effect of the Ring here would seem to be doubting and even loss of the self: Bilbo is wanting to “disappear” (which is what happens to the Wraith’s sense of self) and he can’t “make up” his mind anymore. This paragraph also shows that the hobbits of the Shire have been quite right in their assessment of Bilbo – he is, as they predicted, feeling “queer.”

Only when he agrees to give up the Ring is he able to once again say “I will” – that is, he once again has a will of his own.

The other part of this passage that I find so intriguing is the manner in which Bilbo finally “gives up” the Ring. The suggestion is, here, that he did not really manage to give it up. He did pass over the envelope, but he could not relinquish it completely, as his “hand jerked back” – I love how it is the hand that jerks back and not “Bilbo jerked his hand back”; it’s as though some other will is at work. The most disturbing aspect of his paragraph is the phrase “before he could pick it up,” which implies that Bilbo wanted or intended to pick it up, and only the quick intervention of Gandalf prevented him from doing so (as is further suggested by the “spasm of anger” that Bilbo feels in response).

I think this is an important moment, for in the entire history of the Ring only one person was able to willingly give it up – but here we see that this person was, perhaps, not quite so “willing” after all. Gandalf does not precisely take the Ring from him, but neither does Bilbo precisely give it up on his own. The Ring, that is, does not go from Bilbo’s hand to Frodo’s but from Bilbo’s to Gandalf’s (although he is careful to keep it in the envelope) to Frodo’s.

That’s it for now. Anyone who makes it through the whole post let me know!