LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 04 – A Short Cut to Mushrooms

[The Saucepan Man]

My thoughts about the symbolic portent of 'maggot' were slightly different than yours, Sauce. I thought of Farmer Maggot's courage and refusal to be cowed by the Black Rider. Maggot eradicates the stench of fear.

Yes, I did get your drift Bb, and I think that you may have a point. I was just taking the idea one step further (probably too far). Looks like davem has come up with the original basis for Tolkien's use of the name, although I wonder if there is a reason (such as that which Bb suggests) why he didn't change it with the change in the character's nature.

Have to say these words didn't register on me in the same way, as both of them were in my childhood, & to an extent still are

Yes, I wondered whether they might still be in use in some parts of the UK. However, they are not words that I have come across before (other than on previous reads of this chapter). The definition of "mending" that you suggest make sense as the Maggots' farmhouse seems the type of place where the fire would be kept going all day and stoked up when necessary.

[Boromir88]

It's clear hobbits don't like to be told what to do (especially if it's some outsider/foreigner). For awhile this act of "getting rid" of the black riders works, but Hobbits were no strength for the evil that was to become. Then again, it only took a few Hobbits to challenge the ruffians, until the whole Shire went into revolt. That is one example of Hobbits not liking to be bossed around. The other two have been discussed, with the Gaffer and Farmer Maggot. I believe the reason the Hobbits are like this, would be because as discussed in earlier chapters Hobbits didn't really have any rules, and they hated rules. They hate rules, they hate being told what to do, especially if it is some stranger foreigner.

[davem]

Another interesting thing in this chapter is Sam's 'oath':

'Don't you leave him! they said to me. Leave him! I said. I never mean to. I am going with him, if he climbs to the moon; & if any of those Black Riders try to stop him, they'll have Sam Gamgee to reckon with.

There's an interesting essay by John Holmes, Oaths & Oath Breaking: Analogues of Old English Comitatus in Tolkien's Myth, in the recent collection Tolkien & the Invention of Myth. He cites a sermon by Archbishop Wulfstan of Ely, in which the 'sins' of the English at the time (ad 1014) are set out: greed, theft, pillaging, selling of men, attacks on kinsmen, manslaughter, adultery, (& finally, the culmination!) oath breaking. these things have brought the sourge of the Danes on the English. As Holmes asks: 'What kind of culture is it that would rank oath breaking with pillaging & murder?' Answer, the Anglo-saxon (& by extension, the culture of Middle earth).

Sam has, effectively, sworn an oath to serve Frodo, even unto death. He has also, more importantly, told Frodo that he has sworn it. In part, this accounts for his statement: 'I know we are to take a long road, into darkness; but I know I can't turn back.'

Among other examples of 'oath breaking he looks at is Gandalf's - Gandalf has promised Frodo he will return to accompany him, but he doesn't turn up. But is this really a case of 'oath breaking - well Gandalf seems to think it is:

It is at the end of Gandalf's long resume to the Council of Elrond of his narrow escape from the tower od Saruman, imprisonment which had kept him from meeting Frodo & company in Bree as planned. He asks forgiveness: 'But such a thing has not happened before, that Gandalf broke tryst & did not come when he promised. An account to the Ring-bearer of so strange an event was required, I think'

Holmes also makes an interesting point about Gollum's 'oath' to 'serve the master of the precious' - even Gollum will not simply 'break' his oath - he instead has to twist the meaning of the oath - if he makes himself the master he can serve himself. Now, maybe (Holmes doesn't offer this possibility) that's down to fear of the precious (Precious will be angry), but we have to consider that even Smeagol will not go so far as oath breaking (though he's definitely working his way through Wulfstan's list of sins!). Support fo this would be his sticking to the rules of the Riddle Game.

So, Sam has sworn his oath to serve Frodo, to the Elves, & then declared it to Frodo. Hence his shock & horror at discovering Frodo has set out from Parth Galen without him, & later, outside Cirith Ungol, when he agonises over whether to take the Ring or stay with his master,is not simply down to love for Frodo, but also because if Frodo does go alone, & then if Sam leaves him 'all alone on top of mountains, Sam will be an oath breaker. From that moment at Woodhall Sam has bound himself to stay with Frodo till the end. Once Frodo accepts his oath:

I understand that Gandalf chose me a good companion. I am content. We will go together.

they become Lord & Theign. We can understand Sam's shock when Frodo does set off alone - Frodo is breaking tryst with Sam. Yet the oath holds them both

(Makes you wonder whether that's why Sam, in the end, follows Frodo into the West.)

[Bêthberry]

davem,

A very fine post about the value of one's word and the comitatus and a point well worth making here.

What kind of culture is it that would rank oath breaking with pillaging & murder?' Answer, the Anglo-saxon (& by extension, the culture of Middle earth).

Obviously, a culture which predates lawyers and perhaps even literacy itself....

However, the value of one's oath is a pervasive value in early literatures and cultures. It was one reason why divorce was unthinkable--how could one withdraw one's oath. Poor Henry.

The theme of the rash oath in many early stories owes its force to the very serious regard in which a person's word was held. This I think can be related to a high degree of respect for language. Those who respect language do not use it lightly or thoughtlessly. (This does not preclude comedy of course.)

Consider, for example, the story of Jephthah in Judges (from the Bible). Jephthah vows to the Lord that he willl offer as a burnt offering to the Lord what or whoever comes through his door if the Lord will grant him victory in battle. Jephthah wins the battle, he returns home, and who walks through his door first but his only child, a daughter. Abraham was not forced to keep his word, but Jephthah was.

We might consider also, when we discuss the chapters which deal with Rohan, Eowyn's promise to act as protector of her people.

[Bombadil]

Further evidence of such beliefs in keeping an oath shown in the Silmarillion:

For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.

Which brings up an interesting point about what drives many characters in Tolkien's world. Off-topic, Fëanor truly had the lust for the Silmarils, but was that same lust within his sons? Or were they simply driven by the oath to death? On-topic, was Sam really just following his oath? Was there more to it?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bombadil

On-topic, was Sam really just following his oath? Was there more to it?

I don't think Sam was 'just following his oath' in the sense of simply doing what he did because he'd said he would & didn't want to look bad. If you take the marriage vow, as Bethberry points out, 'For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness & in health'. That's a vow, & (hopefully) the couples who swear it don't subsequently stick together because they see it as simply a 'legal' contract. They swear it in the first place as an acknowledgement of their love & commitment to each other. Sam 'binds' himself to Frodo in service, & Frodo accepts, & a 'covenant' is made - I don't use the word 'covenant' lightly in this context, because the anglo-saxons understood God's covenant with the Israelites in terms of an oath sworn by a theign to his Lord. When the Israelites broke the covenant, they were oathbreakers, one of the most terrible offences imaginable, & punishable by death.

I think there was more to it for Sam, he did feel he had some task to do, involving Frodo's task, but in a sense this is why he swears the oath, just as marriage partners swear their vow because they feel that they should be 'one flesh'. The fact that Sam swears his 'oath of fealty' is confirmation that, for him, there was 'more to it'.

It is difficcult for many of us today to understand the nature of oath taking - we tend to see it as simply a legally binding contract, as BB says. It wasn't. It ws a commitment to a Lord, or cause, until death, made because the individual felt that that cause was worth dying for.

The theme of oaths & oath breaking runs right through the Legendarium, as you point out. All the hobbits swear an oath - Sam first, to Frodo, Merry to Theoden, Pippin to Denethor, Frodo to the Council. Sam's oath taking can be missed, because it takes place in a conversation over breakfast, but its as sacred & binding as the oaths sworn by the other three. Gollum also swears his oath - & that's perhaps the most interesting example, as, first, he won't simply break it, & second, it binds him, & brings his death when he tries to stick to the letter of it but avoid the spirit of it.

When Aragorn confronts the oath breakers it interesting that he doesn't simply 'forgive' them, he calls on them to fulfil the oath they swore. I don't think that we're simply dealing with the necessity of war here, Aragorn needing allies. My interpretation is that once sworn, the oath must be fulfilled before they can be freed. It can't simply be discarded, by them or by the heir of Isildur. In this context its interesting that Elrond tries to disuade the Fellowship from swearing a binding oath:

'Faithless is he that says farewell when the raod darkens,' said Gimli.

Maybe,' said Elrond, 'but let him not vow to walk in the dark who has not seen the nightfall.'

'Yet sworn word may strengthen the quaking heart,' said Gimli.

'Or break it,' said Elrond.

As we see with Sam's terrible dilemma outside Shelob's lair, breaking an oath can break the heart. Does he take the Ring & save everyone & everything he loves - we think, yes, if Frodo's dead, of course he must. But he's sworn an oath never to leave Frodo. If he leaves him, even if he is dead, then Sam becomes an oath breaker, lowest of the low, as bad as someone who murders a family member in cold blood.

Eowyn is an oath breaker, & she nearly dies as a consequence, but she survives, probably because she was backed into a corner, & didn't swear the oath freely. Yet a sworn oath cannot be ignored, & has consequences - even Gollum knows that. I can't help wondering if part of the reason for her desire for death was bound up with this sense of having broken her oath to her Lord & people, & also whether her subsequent loss of hope & despair (till cured by Faramir) is down to her sense of betrayal. She goes to war as 'Dernhelm' & will die in battle as Dernhelm, if it comes to that - not as Eowyn.

The oath sworn by Feanor's sons is of the same kind - they may not have trully wanted to swear it, but once sworn, it binds them. Even at the end, the last two will kill & die in attempting to fulfill it, when they'd rather forget all about it. I suspect Elrond's attempt to disuade the members of the Fellowship from swearing an oath of service may be due to his personal experience - he, more than most in Middle earth, knows the power of oaths.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

This discussion of Sam's 'oath' brings out yet another echo that exists between the Nazgul and the hobbits: the Ringwraiths are bound to their Lord in a manner that would seem to be the perversion of the ideal embodied by the bond of Sam and Frodo. The Nazgul are bound to their Lord by the strongest of all 'oaths' -- the power of the Ring. In this respect I would argue that Sam's ability to break his oath to Frodo sets him apart from the Nazgul insofar as their 'oath' is not freely given at all (so far as we know -- either that or it was freely given but they subsequently lost the ability to forswear).

So, apparently, blindly following an oath, or making one that cannot be broken (like the Nazgul) is problematic at best, evil at worst.

Interestingly, among the Anglo-Saxons, a Lord would give richly carved armbands of gold in return for oaths of fealty. This is why the vassal would refer to his lord as his "ring-giver", since these 'rings' would stand as a sign of both the pledge made by the vassal and the recognition and protection by the lord. Sauron is an evil ring-giver* because he does so to enslave; Sam is a good ring-acceptor because he does so for the love of his lord, even though it is in contravention of his oath (as he interprets that oath).

* In at least one dictionary of Anglo-Saxon idiom, I have seen a generous lord referred to as "ringas-theoden" (ringas=rings, theoden=prince/king) which was subsequently translated as "lord of the rings"!!!!!

[davem]

I do wonder about the significance of finger rings, as opposed to arm rings. There is, perhaps, some 'marriage' symbolism - making the two 'one flesh', binding them forever. In the British Coronation service the Monarch is given a ring, symbolic of his/her 'marriage' to the people. Perhaps there's something of the same going on with the Rings of power. Could we think in terms of Galadriel being 'wedded' to her realm & people, Elrond in a similar position - & Gandalf? (yet Gandalf, as he tells Denethor, is a 'steward').

If the wedding ring symbolises the union of two people into one flesh, do the Rings Sauron gives symbolise the same thing, bind his servants to him in the same way? But then, what is the significance of his making & bestowing the One on himself? Marriage to himself, producing a sort of incestuous, sterile union with himself - self love pushed to the ultimate extreme? All the other rings are given out, bestowed on others, even the elven rings - Celebrimbor gives them to Gil galad, Galadriel & Cirdan, but Sauron makes the one for himself & keeps it, in a sense binding himself to himself, closing himself off from external contact. Perhaps this is why the One obsesses any who take it up, & turns them in on themselves. So, Gandalf warns Frodo never to put it on.

Wild thought - the Ring turns its wearer invisible - symbolising their own self obsession, their (final) inability to be aware of anyone but themself.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Fordim, davem, what a fascinating train of thought! Thanks for your insights on the significance of oaths as found in this passage (and elsewhere) - I hadn't thought of Sam's committment as an oath! The connection to AS 'ringas-theoden' is intriguing, and the idea of the One Ring as a symbol of self-love is definitely worth pondering! There's more to be found in this chapter than one thinks at first reading, isn't there?!

[Sharkû]

I've posted some ring 'n rule stuff inspired by this thread's latest posts here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...751#post336751

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Eowyn is an oath breaker, & she nearly dies as a consequence, but she survives, probably because she was backed into a corner, & didn't swear the oath freely.

Indeed, things would probably have turned out far worse had she not broken it - the slaying of the Witch-king was one of the critical points in the battle. And Merry broke the same oath she did, did he not? He did swear fealty to Theoden and then disobey Theoden's command. I'm not sure what that says about oaths and oath-breakers, but it can't be ignored.

It's certainly true that oaths are a major theme within the Legendarium as a whole; Feanor's oath motivates most of the Silmarillion. Tolkien's other great oath-story, I've always thought, is Beren and Luthien. The obvious oath there is Beren's to Thingol. For a passage with a great deal of bearing on the whole matter of oaths, see the debate of Beren with Luthien in the Lay of Leithien in HoMe III, where Luthien urges Beren to forget his oath and he refuses. There are other oaths here as well - Gorlim's to Barahir (which is broken), Thingol's to Luthien (which is nominally kept but twisted in spirit), and Finrod's to Beren (which is fulfilled, resulting in the death of Finrod). This probably isn't the place to enter into a discussion of those oaths, but it's an interesting story to consider in connection with the oaths of LotR.

Fordim wrote:

The Nazgul are bound to their Lord by the strongest of all 'oaths' -- the power of the Ring. In this respect I would argue that Sam's ability to break his oath to Frodo sets him apart from the Nazgul insofar as their 'oath' is not freely given at all

I wonder whether this is true. We could ask the same questions concerning the Nine Rings as we have concerning the One - is their power external or internal? Do they impose Sauron's will on the Nazgul, or do they amplify the evil tendencies of the Nazgul but leave their free will essentially intact?

Davem wrote:

Now, maybe (Holmes doesn't offer this possibility) that's down to fear of the precious (Precious will be angry), but we have to consider that even Smeagol will not go so far as oath breaking (though he's definitely working his way through Wulfstan's list of sins!). Support fo this would be his sticking to the rules of the Riddle Game.

I think it's in between. It's certainly not simply fear of the precious - at least I don't think so. But I don't think that Gollum would have thought twice about breaking most other oaths. I think the important point is that he swore by the Ring. That was the only kind of oath that had any power over him, and certainly the only kind of oath from him that Frodo would trust. For Tolkien, the person or thing by which you swear an oath is of critical importance. Remember that Feanor's oath was sworn in the name of Iluvatar.

On a far lighter note, I was flipping through Letters the other day and remembered an anecdote of Tolkien's with some connection to this chapter. In 1958 he attended a "Hobbit Dinner" in Holland, held by a Dutch bookseller. One of the items on the menu was a mushroom soup. Apparently, by way of alluding to the book and as they did not know "all the names of the English vermins", they called it "Maggot Soup".

Not profound, I know, but it does make me wonder whether any squeamish hobbits preferred not to eat the mushrooms from our good farmer's fields.

[Fingolfin II]

Aiwendil wrote:

For Tolkien, the person or thing by which you swear an oath is of critical importance. Remember that Feanor's oath was sworn in the name of Iluvatar.

That is very true. In all the cases of when an oath is sworn in Middle-Earth, the effect has been that either the oath-swearer has fulfilled their oath (i.e. Beren, Finrod, Sam, etc.) or have died trying- for example, the sons of Feanor.

In the case that an oath has been broken, there has usually been retribution for the oath-breaker; the examples I can think of are Gollum falling into Mount Doom, the sons of Ulfang being slain after their treachery in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears and the Dead Men of Dunharrow becoming like that because they didn't fulfill their oath to fight for Isildur.

Fordim wrote:

So, apparently, blindly following an oath, or making one that cannot be broken (like the Nazgul) is problematic at best, evil at worst.

When we think of oaths in this way, it must be taken into consideration why the oath was made in the first place- was it made for a good reason or a bad one? Certainly Sam's 'oath' was made in good faith and for the right reasons, but Feanor's oath was made not to protect and help others, but to regain what was stolen for him and also to avenge his father, to an extent. However, Sam's oath to follow Frodo wherever he went turned out in the end, to have been a key part of the story- without that oath, Sam probably would have left Frodo and the Quest would have failed. Note that out of the Fellowship, he was the only one who swore to follow Frodo wherever he went. Hence his torment in Cirith Ungol is not only because he thinks is master is dead, but now that he is gone, Sam is at a loss for what to do.

'Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.

Maybe,' said Elrond, 'but let him not vow to walk in the dark who has not seen the nightfall.'

'Yet sworn word may strengthen the quaking heart,' said Gimli.

'Or break it,' said Elrond.

That's a great quote davem and it shows how your idea that breaking an oath is very costly- in your example, Eowyn is used to illustrate this. I think that this reinforces my idea that making oaths for the 'right' reasons is usually beneficial - as it was in Beren and Finrod's case - and doesn't torment the oath-maker or the people he/she loves as much as those that are made for the 'wrong' reasons: i.e. Feanor swearing by Illuvatar and causing the woes of the Noldor afterwards by trying to fulfill it.

However, I concede that oaths made for the 'right' reasons can still lead to a bad end- consider Gorlim's betrayal of Barahir and his band. In every case of oath-breaking we see that it is always out of the desire for something- in Gorlim's case it is his desire to see his wife, for Gollum it is lust for the Ring and for the Easterlings who betrayed Caranthir it is a desire for power.

We have seen that an oath-maker must either fulfill their oath, die trying to fulfill it, or break it and suffer the torment. Frodo has sworn to destroy the Ring and he must do that or else die trying. So while oaths may be a good thing, following them blindly (as Fordim said), does lead to problems and certainly in Feanor's case, estrangement and evil.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

And Merry broke the same oath she did, did he not? He did swear fealty to Theoden and then disobey Theoden's command. I'm not sure what that says about oaths and oath-breakers, but it can't be ignored.

The interesting thing about Merry's 'oathbreaking' here is that Merry is actually trying to fulfil his oath:

' I have a sword,' said Merry, climbing from his seat, & drawing from its black sheath his small bright blade. Filled suddenly with love for this old man, he knelt on one knee, & took his hand & kissed it. 'May I lay the sword of Meriadoc of the Shire on your lap, Theoden King?' he cried. 'Recieve my service, if you will!'

'Gladly will I take it,' said the King; & laying his long old hands upon the brown hair of the hobbit, he blessed him. 'Rise now, Meriadoc, esquire of Rohan of the household of Meduseld!' he said. Take your sword & bear it to good fortune!'

'As a father you shall be to me.' said Merry.

'For a little while,' said Theoden
'

The Passing of the Grey Company

Later, when Theoden tells Merrry he will not be allowed to ride into battle , Merry is shocked:

The King turned to Merry. 'I am going to war, Master Meriadoc,' he said. In a little while I sahll take the road. i release you from my service, but not from my friendship. You shall abaide here, & if you will, you shall serve the lady Eowyn, who will govern the folk in my stead.'

'But, but, lord,' Merry stammered. 'I offered you my sword. I do not want to be parted from you like this, Theoden King. And as all my friends have gone to the battle, I should be ashamed to stay behind.'

The Muster of Rohan

Finally, Theoden's words are almost an admission of his own fault:

Merry could not speak, but wept anew. 'Forgive me lord,' he said at last, 'if I broke your command, & yet have done no more in your service than to weep at our parting.'

The old King smiled. 'Grieve not! It is forgiven. Great heart will not be denied'.

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields

It seems that Merry has taken his oath of service to Theoden far more seroiusly than Theoden himself! Its also another example of how binding an oath actually is. Merry swore service to Theoden (he's even told Theoden he will follow him on the Paths of the Dead, if he is asked to), Theoden will put aside the oath, but Merry will not, & because of that the oath still binds Merry, & works itself out on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

On a far lighter note, I was flipping through Letters the other day and remembered an anecdote of Tolkien's with some connection to this chapter. In 1958 he attended a "Hobbit Dinner" in Holland, held by a Dutch bookseller. One of the items on the menu was a mushroom soup. Apparently, by way of alluding to the book and as they did not know "all the names of the English vermins", they called it "Maggot Soup".

If anyone is interested, there is a 'reconstruction, of this event, with menu, speeches, account of Tolkien's journey & his feelings, & photographs of the actual event in the Proceedings of the JRR Tolkien Centenary Conference volume.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This highly interesting discussion on oaths and oath-breaking is worth its own thread! Though the examples are interesting and enlightening, we don't want to get too far ahead of the current chapter discussion or too far off-tangent in the Legendarium. Who would like to begin a new thread about it on the Books main forum?

[alatar]

Excellent thread! Who'd have thunk it that a fungal shortcut would have led down such an intellectual path. Anyway...

What always got me in this and the previous chapter, after multiple readings, was the lack of success that the Nazgul have in (1) finding Frodo and the Ring and (2) finding any information about the same. The Witch-King, who later will ride through the Gate at Minas Tirith, who will face Gandalf and live , fails. These same creatures are put off by the Gaffer and Farmer Maggot. Sure, there's a power in the Shire, and methinks that it's food related (note how unwraith-like the hobbits are in their girth), but really, could Maggot and hounds hold back even the least of the Nine?

That got me to thinking. Why doesn't Sauron have his minions ride roughshod over the Shirefolk, having them do all kinds of nasty things to get information instead of just promising gold and spurring a horse? What's to fear, that an inhabitant of the Shire will rise up and slay the Witch-King?

Something else was going on. Part of the restraint is for the story, as noted, to keep up the suspense. We get to see hints and glimpses of what these Black Riders are or may be. If the Black Rider slew the Gaffer, then there would be no doubt, and the story would change - I like when I am practically begging the characters for information, not when it's all spelled out on the first page ala Brian Herbert of the newer Dune series fame.

But another reason may be assumed: Did Sauron command his servants to be as discrete and, dare I say, circumspect, as possible as not to tip off Saruman? The fallen Wizard sought the Ring as well; this Sauron must have known or at least assumed. Saruman already had dealings in the Shire and so had agents about - or as least as close as the Rangers would permit. Did Sauron, judging all others by his own lust and fear, think that with the Nazgul making a stir that they would provide Saruman with information that would make *his* finding of the Ring more possible?


And, on another note, just how big were Farmer Maggot's dogs? Were they hobbit or human scale?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This chapter is shorter than the first three, and quite transitional. I already mentioned the safe havens in my introductory post, so I shall do my best to bring out new aspects without being repetitive.

Tolkien's humorous lines are often almost hidden; this time I took note of the exchange between Pippin and Frodo on the first page, with the former saying a question was important, and Frodo answering, "In that case I am sure Gildor would have refused to explain it." Go not to the Elves indeed! I don't remember - did we discuss the question of the significance of the sniffing Nazgul?

I'm also amused over the end of that brief conversation:

[Frodo]'I don't want to answer a string of questions while I am eating. I want to think.'
'Good heavens!' said Pippin. 'At breakfast?'

Despite the movement and action of this passage of the story, there is a good deal of dialogue - which I enjoy very much. The short cuts... proverb and its extension to inns is nice. Have any of you ever heard the 'short cuts' proverb in real life, or did Tolkien make it up?

The "Ho! Ho! Ho!" poem is used in the movie, in an inn scene, though the words actually do not fit that context. They seem to be custom-made for the situation in which the three Hobbits find themselves at that moment.

We have two cases of misleading identification of friends as foes - Frodo's perception of Farmer Maggot, and Merry's figure as seen in the fog. That provides suspense, especially for first-time readers.

The Hobbit surname 'Puddifoot' reminds me of C. S. Lewis' Marsh-wiggle in the Narnia books.

By the way, the Reader's Companion mentions a comment written by Tolkien in a draft for a letter (Letters #297) concerning the relationship between Sam and Frodo:

...as having the status of one who serves a legitimate master, but the spirit of a friend (if not an equal).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I must say this chapter is just great and I always have the urge to go on a trip when reading this one (the same with the previous chapter - though there it has to be a nightly trip, while this time it has to be "through ").

Concerning the dialogue in this chapter, I must agree with you, Esty, that it is great and amusing from beginning to the end - in fact, this chapter is full of jokes, even the final revelation of Merry as the mysterious rider is a heart-lifting joke. The whole conversation between Pippin and Frodo at the beginning is very funny, it's one of the funniest parts of the book I remember.

Another interesting quote is Farmer Maggot's

You should never have gone mixing yourself up with Hobbiton folk, Mr. Frodo. Folk are queer up there.

Which is total contradiction, or rather: a copy of the opinion of the Hobbiton folk on the Bucklanders, only with reversed subjects - we read the very same thing at the beginning of the book from Gaffer. It nicely shows the opinions of people from one place on "the others", and it's all the same wherever you are.

The short cuts... proverb and its extension to inns is nice. Have any of you ever heard the 'short cuts' proverb in real life, or did Tolkien make it up?

I hereby call the English members to help us answer this one. I can contribute a bit by a Czech saying, which is not even a regular proverb, more like a joke you say in reply when someone asks you if you don't know about a shortcut: "Yes, I know one - it's a little longer, but on the other hand it's more dangerous."

And now the last thing that I immediately noted down "You have to ask this one when you post up there". Please follow.

Two of Maggot's sons and his three daughters came in, and a generous supper was laid on the large table. The kitchen was lit with candles and the fire was mended. Mrs. Maggot hustled in and out. One or two other hobbits belonging to the farm-household came in. In a short while fourteen sat down to eat.

Count with me, please. Frodo, Sam, and Pippin - that's three. Farmer Maggot and his wife - that makes five. Two sons and three daughters make another five, so we are on ten people now. One or two other hobbits - that's eleven or twelve. "In a short while fourteen sat down to eat." Okay, just asking - is that intentional? I realise it's not that apparent in original, but in Czech it plainly says "two other hobbits". But the number fourteen immediately reminded me of another occassion with dubious welcome, dinner and miscounting - Queer Lodgings. "Twelve isn't fifteen", resp. in this case "twelve isn't fourteen, the reader should know that much!" And the words "one or two other hobbits..." remind me of "I was coming over the mountains with a friend or two..." Maybe hadn't it been for the plainly-seeming translation, I wouldn't have noticed; but still - do you think there was any intention behind this? Or anything that was supposed to connect the scenes of being welcomed by Farmer Maggot and Beorn? Most curious.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

You know what, Legate? I'd never noticed this passage in detail before, but this time when I read it I started counting as well!! I looked at the sentence more closely and deducted from it that the Maggots have more than two sons. After all, "his three daughters" denotes that that's all of them, while "two of Maggot's sons" implies that there are more. Depending on whether it was "one or two" other Hobbits (farmhands, I would guess) that would mean two or three more sons. Considering the size of Hobbit families, seven or eight children is not improbable. The uncertainty whether the people were farmhands or (grown-up) children could have easily come from the bewildering crowd that was there all at once.

Darn, now that we've explained the possibilities, we can't use this as a quiz question!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Ah, good spot with the sons. That would explain a lot.

But, anyway, when I read the part again it is somewhat hazy. The author must have known what he's writing. Why count up all the people so carefully when in the end the author skips the arrival of the rest? It looks like there is something missing at least. We are told what the sons did, what the daughters did, what Mrs. Maggot did, what the farmhands did, and then we are told that "all fourteen", as if their identities were something already known to us, sat down to the table. Yet we know only about eleven or twelve of them. You know what I mean? It is as if I said "In the room there was an old woman sewing, two boys fighting and then all six of them greeted me." Yes, in the Maggots' case we can at least deduce, as you did, that the missing ones could have been Maggot's sons - but anyway, it's odd at least.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Darn, now that we've explained the possibilities, we can't use this as a quiz question!

Surely not everyone will read this... and if necessary, I can always edit the post

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Tolkien also mentions the Maggot family in one of his other works - the poem "Tom Goes Boating", in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Maggot approaches Tom with his pony cart and they greet each other with the humorous contempt that only good friends can express. Tom calls Maggot "Muddy-feet", which sounds very similar to "Puddifoot". Besides reading that the two of them sat up long exchanging news of the area and the wide world, we also find that the daughters danced the Springle-ring - as far as I know, the only time aside from Bilbo's Birthday Party where that dance is mentioned.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Besides reading that the two of them sat up long exchanging news of the area and the wide world, we also find that the daughters danced the Springle-ring - as far as I know, the only time aside from Bilbo's Birthday Party where that dance is mentioned.

The recent book Ring of Words has an entry for 'Springle-ring'. It states that the Oxford English Dictionary has no entry for Springle-ring, but it does mention an 18-19th century word 'springle' meaning ' a young man, youth or stripling'. They mention it could be a learned joke as 'springle/springald' has a meaning similar to 'halfling' - which is a Northern English/Scots word meaning 'one not fully grown; about the age of 15.'

[Thinlómien]

Fourteen, you say? Frodo, Sam & Pippin + Mr & Mrs Maggot + three daughters + two sons + one farmhand + three dogs. Makes sense, doesn't it?

A bit more seriously though, I always liked this chapter as well. While other posters on this thread have mainly considered it a humorous chapter, I must say I think it is partly one of the scariest in the book.

I mean, look at these quotes:

Ho! Ho! Ho! they began again louder. They stopped short suddenly. Frodo sprang to his feet. A long-drawn wail came down the wind, like the cry of some evil and lonely creature. It rose and fell, and ended on a high piercing note. Even as they sat and stood, as if suddenly frozen, it was answered by another cry, fainter and further off, but no less chilling to the blood. There was then a silence, broken only by the sound of the wind in the leaves.

"It was not bird or beast," said Frodo. "It was a call, or a signal - there were words in that cry, though I could not catch them. But no hobbit has such a voice."

Every time I read them, they just make a chill run down my spine. They must be among the creepiest passages in the whole book.

Also, the episode of Merry The Black Rider is very scary. I remember when my father read LotR aloud to me and my little sister when we were about 6 and 4 years old and that passage was simply horror. I was sure the Black Riders had finally found them and I was so relieved when it turned out that the rider was Merry. The passage is very impressive - especially as when something is read aloud to you, you can't even accidentally see the next phrases that reveal the truth.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Fourteen, you say? Frodo, Sam & Pippin + Mr & Mrs Maggot + three daughters + two sons + one farmhand + three dogs. Makes sense, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. Unless there were six dogs (or five, for that matter). Skipping the eventually discutable thing about dogs sitting down to eat, there are other things the dogs are doing by the time others sit:

In a short while fourteen sat down to eat. (...) The dogs lay by the fire and gnawed rinds and cracked bones.

Originally Posted by Lommy

While other posters on this thread have mainly considered it a humorous chapter, I must say I think it is partly one of the scariest in the book.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Also, the episode of Merry The Black Rider is very scary. I remember when my father read LotR aloud to me and my little sister when we were about 6 and 4 years old and that passage was simply [I]horror[/I.

Well, if you were 6 by that time, no wonder you considered it a horror and the chapter remained in your memory as that. I don't recall what feeling I had about this one, but I think the relief came probably too early for the mysterious rider to make any stronger impression on me. And concerning the other things, I never felt it scary - like I said about the previous chapter, the hobbits were still in the Shire, the Riders were something riding here and there in the woods and I did not know what deadly thing they actually are. Weathertop, now that was horror! But about that later, in due time.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

No, it doesn't. Unless there were six dogs (or five, for that matter). Skipping the eventually discutable thing about dogs sitting down to eat, there are other things the dogs are doing by the time others sit:

Touché, you're right. But maybe the dogs first sat down and then went to lay by the fireplace...?

Originally Posted by Legate

And concerning the other things, I never felt it scary - like I said about the previous chapter, the hobbits were still in the Shire, the Riders were something riding here and there in the woods and I did not know what deadly thing they actually are. Weathertop, now that was horror! But about that later, in due time.

This is actually quite interesting. Because in my opinion, the Riders are very scary in the beginning, when we know absolutely nothing of them. The things Strider tells of them later & what they do at Weathertop make them really scary, yes, but not necessarily much scarier than they were in the beginning. And - this has been discussed elsewhere at great length - they become 90% less scary when they reappear in TT and RotK, riding on winged beasts and commading armies (possibly discounting the WK in Pelennor fields).

I don't know, I might have seen the Bakshi movie before being introduced to the books themselves. But early memories of the Bakshi movie might explain something here. I rewatched the Bakshi movie some years ago and while I mostly thought it was ridiculous, the Black Riders in the beginning (before Weathertop) were very creepy - creepy enough to force me to joke about them in order to maintain my calm .

Also, it is weird, but those quotes I posted are much more chill-causing in Finnish. When I looked them up from my English LotR they seemed somewhat... lame. Too ordinary words and phrasings, or something like that. At times the Finnish translation of the LotR succeeds in being more impressive than the original (gasp! ), and I think this is one of the few occasions.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Touché, you're right. But maybe the dogs first sat down and then went to lay by the fireplace...?

Well, from the phrasing it looks like both the things happened at the same occassion. That's why I said there would have to be more dogs around; and in fact, even that won't help, as it seems all the dogs were lying by the fireplace.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Also, it is weird, but those quotes I posted are much more chill-causing in Finnish. When I looked them up from my English LotR they seemed somewhat... lame. Too ordinary words and phrasings, or something like that. At times the Finnish translation of the LotR succeeds in being more impressive than the original (gasp! ), and I think this is one of the few occasions.

In fact, as I noticed, on the other hand the Czech translation seems to make things sound a lot more "ordinary" than the original. "Good breakfast, Pippin, look, someone's calling down there in the woods." - "Hullo, I'm Maggot, we are having a nice autumn don't we; some bagman just visited me asking about Baggins." That describes the feelings pretty well. So, the original seems to lie somewhere in between our opinions - seemingly it's not that creepy, but also not that easeful. Nevertheless, surely one is strongly affected by the way he read it the first time, so the feeling is already deeply rooted inside us.

[Rumil]

Hi all,

who would have though so much would come out of a Short cut to Mushrooms!

I noticed that the landscape plays a part in the fear and unease felt in his chapter. The short cut rapidly leads into thickets and undergrowth and it starts raining. The journey turns arduous and frustrating (to say nothing of the regret at missing the 'Golden Perch'). At the same time the Hobbits are (though we don't fully realise it on first read) being hunted down by the Nazgul and in serious danger of thir lives. Of course the same landscape effect is more apparent later on in the Old Forest, Trollshaws and of course Mordor amongst others. The river-mist is another device that ceratinly heightens tension.

On minor points, it seems that the elves use bent living branches to make sleeping bowers. This is exactly the same technique that chimpanzees use!

When I first read this chapter I remember being confused as to whether Farmer Maggot was a Hobbit or one of the Big Folk for some reason. Perhaps its just difficult imagining hobbit-sized farming, surely it would be difficult for them to handle much of the livestock? I'm thinking bulls here but also pigs which can grow very big and aggressive, though we know there was bacon! Did the hobbits breed especially small varieties of animal perhaps, whereas our farmers have gnerally bred for bigger individuals. This can be effective, for example the miniature Shetland ponies etc. I guess the dogs were a reasonable size in order to terrify young Frodo so!

Note that Maggot highlights an increase in the number of 'outsiders' coming north up the Brandywine, again refugees or Saruman's spies? Also, regardless of their localism (partly in jest maybe), the Maggotses seem some of the most cosmopolitan Hobbits, Maggot knows Tom of course and has to be warned by his Mrs to avoid arguing with foreigners!

On the mushrooms themselves, I hope they were of a wide variety of species It's uncommon now in Britain, but on the continent many different types of wild mushroom species are gathered for food, and very delicious many of them are! I believe in rural France you can take them to the local pharmacist for identification in case you get mixed up with poisonous species.

[mark12_30]

More later, but in the midst of all the Maggot-Bombadil nostalgia, here is my favorite part from Bombadil Goes Boating:

Stars shone on Bamfurlong, and Maggot’s house was lighted;
Fire in the kitchen burned to welcome the benighted.

Maggot’s sons bowed at door, his daughters did they curtsy.
His wife brought tankards out for those that might be thirsty.
Songs they had and merry tales, the supping and the dancing;
Goodman Maggot there for all his belt was prancing,
Tom did a hornpipe when he was not quaffing,
Daughters did the Springle-ring, goodwife did the laughing.

When others went to bed in hay, fern or feather,
Close in the inglenook they laid their heads together,
Old Tom and Muddy-feet, swapping all the tidings
From Barrow-downs to Tower Hills: of walkings and of ridings;
Of wheat-ear and barley-corn, of sowing and of reaping;
Queer tales from Bree, and talk at smithy, mill and cheaping;
Rumours in whispering trees, south-wind in the larches,
Tall Watchers by the Ford, Shadows on the marches.
Old Maggot slept at last in chair beside the embers.
Ere dawn Tom was gone: as dreams one half remembers,
Some merry, some sad, and some of hidden warning.

These lines fill me with longing, and bring up MacDonald' s favorite quote from Novalis: "Life is no dream. But it ought to become one, and someday perhaps it will."

[Thinlómien]

A Short Cut to Mushrooms! I love this chapter. I love Frodo and Pippin's banter here, and the skillful juxtaposition of further exploration of Hobbit culture and our protagonists with the increasing dread of the Black Riders.

The Black Riders are blood curdlingly creepy in this chapter. I don't have the book with me in English at the moment (Legate has my copy ) but the passage where the Hobbits hear the Nazgûl's cry ust be one of the scariest things Tolkien ever wrote.

EDIT: Well I just scrolled though this thread and found my own post from 2008 where I posted the quotes, so:

Ho! Ho! Ho! they began again louder. They stopped short suddenly. Frodo sprang to his feet. A long-drawn wail came down the wind, like the cry of some evil and lonely creature. It rose and fell, and ended on a high piercing note. Even as they sat and stood, as if suddenly frozen, it was answered by another cry, fainter and further off, but no less chilling to the blood. There was then a silence, broken only by the sound of the wind in the leaves.
--
"It was not bird or beast," said Frodo. "It was a call, or a signal - there were words in that cry, though I could not catch them. But no hobbit has such a voice."

Frodo is positively afraid of the Black Riders as he should be, yet with gentle humour, Tolkien introduces us with another figure Frodo dreads: the Farmer Maggot. Even with Black Riders hunting you, an angry farmer and his angry dogs can genuinely frighten you. Of course, Farmer Maggot turns out to be a firend, and later in the book we learn even more interesting things about him.

I quite love the ending of this chapter too - Tolkien is toying with us a bit more here. A reader might be tricked alongside with Frodo, Pippin and Sam to think Merry is a Black Rider. I recall very vividly when my dad read this part aloud to me and my sister and how the dread I felt when I thought the Black Riders had finally caught up with them - only to learn it was Merry. Well, I'm sure my dad enjoyed making the passage sound as menacing as possible... (And of course, we soon learn the Nazgûl are indeed not far behind.)

I guess I never thought of it that way, but the great thing about this chapter is the beautiful interplay between horror and humour - neither of which is usually brought up when dicussing Tolkien's merits or genres. Tolkien keeps us on the edge with constant reminders of the pursuit, bringing up creepier and creepier details about the Black Riders. Yet there are balancing moments of levity - Tolkien makes fun of his protagonists, of Hobbits in general, and ultimately of us readers.

Yeah, it's a wonderful chapter.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

It is a nice chapter, this. The "slow change of scenery" is quite interesting; if the previous chapter was about sunny days, and autumn, but still with some green; dry trek through the hills with some wind, and ending in Elvish twilight under the stars, this chapter goes from clouds on the horizon to overcast and wet and drizzle and mud and bushes and nightfall literally choking with fog (incidentally, it is amazing how Tolkien manages to convey the feel-once again, by for example mentioning Merry's scarf). The chapter is, in fact, about as vivid in its description of the land and weather as the previous one (and that is one of the things I love about LotR the most), only it is much less pleasant setting.

What is pleasant here is the character of Farmer Maggot. His honest, welcoming attitude is heartwarming after the awful feeling of Riders all over the place. Incidentally, I have noticed that however small her role might seem, Mrs. Maggot is also quite well sketched-out here, she even has lines (!), and you can get a pretty good feel of what kind of a person she was. She is also really nice and objectively, not any less important than Mr. Maggot.

Otherwise, yet again I was disturbed and reminded of the Beorn episode when I felt that Wizards and the narrator of this piece count differently than normal people. I see I had posted about this here during the last re-read only a couple of posts above. It's about the number of people sitting at the table, of course. Mr. Maggot, Mrs. Maggot, three visitors, five young Maggots and "one or two" farmhands don't make fourteen. So apparently the only missing thing in this chapter is Black Riders setting the house on fire and singing "Fifteen birds around the table".

Ad Black Riders and their voices: I remembered one thing regarding the "words in that cry", I recall that I once wondered what language that was - Black Speech? Or something else? I think, personally, it is better to just leave that question open (it is much scarier that way), but just mentioning.

[Boromir88]

It was more prevalent in Three is Company, but you also see in this chapter the idea of trees providing shelter and protection. Trees provide cover for the hobbits when hiding from the Nazgul. Provided a place for Frodo to sleep:

In the morning Frodo woke refreshed. He was lying in a bower made by a living tree with branches laced and drooping to the ground; his bed was of fern and grass, deep and soft and strangely fragrant...~A Short cut to Mushrooms

Before long the wood came to a sudden end...

At first they felt afraid, away from the shelter of the wood...

The protective nature of the trees in chapters 3 and 4 are interesting once we get to the encounter of "when trees go bad" with Old Man Willow.

This is a rather fun and necessary chapter too. I think critics consider this to be slow-moving, here we are 100 pages in to the story and Frodo's still in the Shire! However, Sauron's most dangerous servants have penetrated the Shire and remain as an almost constant threat. They just missed Frodo at Bag End, and they just missed him at Maggot's. I believe it's Ursula K. LeGuin who commented about the Lord of the Rings being like a roller coaster. You have moments of high suspense, intensity and action, but you also need the moments of respite and relaxation. You need parts likes Maggot's farm in the story, where it's important for the characters (and readers) to have a respite from danger and doom.

I also agree with Lommy about the "wail" of the Nazgul...the brief description is unsettling and scary. "cry of some evil and lonely creature," it's a statement about evil also being lonely. There are 9 Nazgul, bound together, but they aren't bound together in an oath of friendship, it's an oath to an object. They are bound together by the Ring. In contrast you have Sam who makes an oath to follow Frodo wherever he may go. And while the Fellowship makes no sworn oath, it is in friendship that binds good together.

[Formendacil]

At the end of "Three is Company," Frodo is pressed by Gildor to take companions with him; at the start of this chapter, we discover the Elves were also pressuring Sam to do the same.

What about Pippin?

Pippin doesn't tell us whether or not the Elves said anything to him about continuing with Frodo, and he--still in Conspiracy As-Yet-Unmaksed mode--isn't necessarily going to, but is it possible that the Elves DID say something to him?

Three things seem possible:

1. The Elves said nothing to Pippin because, somehow, being Elves, they know that Frodo is leaving the Shire and they know Sam is his companion and they know that Pippin (as yet, as we know) is not. So they only talk to Frodo's known companion, to stay his companion. OR they don't say anything to Pippin because they discern the difference in character and relationship-to-Frodo between him and Sam.

2. The Elves *do* say something similar to Pippin, but Pippin keeps it under his hat because of the Conspiracy.

3. The Elves say something to Pippin about NOT going. This is the most unlikely of the three, given that he would have ample opportunity to think back on this regretfully after his blunder with the palantír, but it would be interestingly consistent with Elrond's advice in Rivendell to have discouraged the young (not-yet-of-age) hobbit from continuing on, and it would be even more likely that Pippin WOULDN'T mention it, both because of the Conspiracy and also later when the Conspiracy is unmasked.



Certainly, 1 or 2 seems more likely (I lean towards 2), but 3 makes good head-canon fanfic and fits Pippin's story.