Short Questions and Answers
As I have noted in the past, sometimes people ask questions that don’t really merit a full post. I mean, I just cannot come up with enough information to justify writing an article for a specific question. These are good questions and I keep them for some future post. But I need to clear some of the backlog that has accumulated since last year. So here is another list of questions with short answers. I apologize if you were hoping for something longer.
Q: Did Ingwë and Finarfin go to Middle-earth with the Valar in the War of Wrath?
ANSWER: In several places J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that Ingwë never returned to Middle-earth, so I think it’s safe to say that he did not accompany the Host of Valinor. Of Finarfin, we can read the following in The Silmarillion:
Yet it is said that Morgoth looked not for the assault that came upon him from the West; for so great was his pride become that he deemed that none would ever again come with open war against him. Moreover he thought that he had for ever estranged the Noldor from the Lords of the West, and that content in their blissful realm the Valar would heed no more his kingdom in the world without; for to him that is pitiless the deeds of pity are ever strange and beyond reckoning. But the host of the Valar prepared for battle; and beneath their white banners marched the Vanyar, the people of Ingwë, and those also of the Noldor who never departed from Valinor, whose leader was Finarfin the son of Finwë. Few of the Teleri were willing to go forth to war, for they remembered the slaying at the Swan-haven, and the rape of their ships; but they hearkened to Elwing, who was the daughter of Dior Eluchíl and come of their own kindred, and they sent mariners enough to sail the ships that bore the host of Valinor east over the sea. Yet they stayed aboard their vessels, and none of them set foot upon the Hither Lands.
Q: Why is Tolkien’s chronology so spread out?
ANSWER: A reader posed the following (somewhat lengthy) question:
Why is Tolkien’s chronology so spread out? Was a rationale ever given for why events take so long to unfold? For example, Sauron comes to Dol Guldur in 1050, Gandalf doesn’t investigate it until 2063, despite Sauron’s return being the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth! What was Gandalf doing for 1013 years? That’s so much time! Sauron returns to the tower in 2460 and again Gandalf doesn’t investigate until 2850, and the White Council doesn’t agree to an attack until 2941 (at least we know Saruman was delaying there). But these are thousands of years in which, in our own chronology, vast civilizations have risen and fallen. Why do things move so much more slowly in Tolkien’s world?
I’m not sure “things move so much more slowly” in Middle-earth as you perceive. Rather, certain cultures last long. Then again, here are some real-world cultures that inspired Tolkien’s fiction:
- Egypt was unified in 3150 BCE and finally absorbed into Rome in 30 BCE
- Israel arose around 1400-1200 BCE and lasted more than 1,000 years
- Rome began around 750 BCE and its legacy continued until 1453 CE (later if you include Istambul)
- Chinese written records began around 1500 BCE but referred to a dynasty from about 2000 BCE
I think people forget that we have had some very long-lived civilizations and cultures in real history. For most of those centuries and millennia those people lived in what we would think of as primitive conditions, fought with bladed weapons, bows, and spears, and traveled (or traded) over great distances by foot, horse, and ship.
In other words, Middle-earth’s long history doesn’t look so strange when compared with the longest cultures and civilizations of real history. I think Tolkien’s timeline seems overly long because it focuses on the two major civilizations: the Eldar and the (Dun)edain.
But as for what everyone else did during those centuries, the details are presumed lost. That is part of the magic of Middle-earth. Gandalf wasn’t idle, but only he would remember everything he did, and he left Middle-earth.
Q: What Changes Distinguished the 3rd Edition Hobbit and 2nd Edition Lord of the Rings
ANSWER: I should add that the reader also asks why I “often refer to them with a negative tone? (You seem to prefer the 1950s editions of these works?)”
I don’t have a list of all the changes made to the books. In fact, every attempt I have read to document those changes has been followed up with corrections and additions. Even Wayne Hammond and Cristina Scull have had to issue errata and corrections for their Reader’s Companion, which is considered to be the definitive annotative work for The Lord of the Rings (although some of their interpretations are disputed by others).
Douglas A. Anderson compiled a list of changes to The Hobbit in his Annotated Hobbit but I think that has been revised at least once, maybe twice.
I don’t mean to refer to the later editions with a negative tone but, frankly, it’s just easier to find some consistency between the 2nd edition of The Hobbit and the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings, even though the 2nd edition of The Hobbit was largely accidental.
Many people use all these texts interchangeably. That simply doesn’t work. You have to match elements in one story with elements from the other story that were composed at about the same point in time, and hope that you’re not constructing a relationship that didn’t exist. Even the most thorough scholars have a difficult time showing which specific changes Tolkien meant to be definitive at the time they were made or published; and yet, he often changed his mind about definitive points. Galadriel’s history is the classic example of how changeful Tolkien was about definitive things.
If I am negative about anything, it is toward faux scholarship that dismisses any concerns about mixing texts from different periods of Tolkien’s compositional career. The people who intentionally conflate all these experiments and changes are deliberately falsifying Tolkien’s legacy to fulfill their own personal desires. So, yes, color me negative on that nonsense.
Why Didn’t Saruman Go Get the Ring from the Shire?
ANSWER: An astute reader points out that Saruman appears to have had an opportunity to visit the Shire and look for the Ring himself, before the Nazgûl found the place. “Since he knew the location of the Shire I don’t see why he didn’t go to there to search for, and possibly find, the ring.”
I can only speculate but I guess that Tolkien felt Saruman would not have known which Hobbit family to interrogate. He had a connection with Lotho Sackville-Baggins and yet had no inkling that Lotho was related to the Ringbearers. Gandalf had many hobbit friends, too. He was friendly with the Old Took, so if Saruman were to begin with the most prominent of Gandalf’s friends, he’d have to question all the Tooks. That would take a while. And then Bilbo had left the Shire. If Saruman suspected Bilbo had found the Ring he would have known Bilbo was no longer there. So he might guess that Bilbo had taken it with him to Rivendell.
Gandalf tells Frodo at one point that only Bilbo ever gave up a Great Ring willingly. Hence, Saruman would have to believe Bilbo still had the Ring, if he suspected Bilbo was the Ringbearer. (NOTE: Cirdan gave up Narya willingly, and Tolkien doesn’t explain this apparent contradiction in any writing of which I am aware.)
Q: Was There Any Special Form of Address for a Sindarin Prince?
ANSWER: I am not the right person to ask. The linguists who study Tolkien’s notes and essays might have found something in the materials they have published in the Vinyar Tengwar or Parma Eldalamberon newsletters, which are (unfortunately) the only sources for many obscure details.
Helge Fauskanger compiled the following list of Sindarin words:
SOME TITLES AND PROFESSIONS: aran “king”, rîs “queen” (cf. also rien, rîn “crowned lady”), cunn “prince”, hîr “lord, master” (another word for “lord” is brannon), hiril “lady” (also brennil, the fem. counterpart of masc. brannon just like hiril corresponds to masc. hîr), arphen “a noble”, ithron (or curunir) “wizard”, condir “mayor”, rochben “knight”, ceredir “doer, maker”, thavron “carpenter, wright, builder”, orodben “mountaineer”, pethron “narrator”, cennan “potter”.
Based on the English-language narratives of the stories, I suspect they were usually addressed as the equivalent of “lord” or “lady” in their official capacities and otherwise by their names.
Q: Can You Describe Specific Uses for the Three Rings?
ANSWER: The full question as submitted reads:
Curious about actual examples of uses of the three Elven rings. Of course, we know that they were used to ward off the effects of time and decay, most prominently in Lorien and Rivendell.
I’m curious about other, specific uses. It seemed clear to me that Gandalf was using his ring in Minas Tirith when he would walk around and rally the defenses and peoples’ hearts rose, but then when we walked away from them their courage withered again.
Another possible use is Elrond’s control of the Bruinen river, when we raised it to help Frodo – was this the Ring’s doing or could Elrond have done it through his own power?
We don’t know when Gandalf was using his own native ability or when he was enhancing it with Narya. I agree he was probably using Narya when inspiring the defenders of Minas Tirith. I feel he also used it to help persuade Bilbo to leave the One Ring with Frodo. As for the other two rings, we just don’t get to see Elrond and Galadriel in action very much.
Elrond was a healer, though, and he said that the elves wanted to achieve some healing with the Rings of Power (more a “healing of Middle-earth” I gather). They also wanted “making” and “understanding”. Both Elrond and Galadriel were famous for their deep insights and wisdom. So maybe the Rings assisted them with those skills or gifts. Galadriel told Frodo that she perceived Sauron’s mind while he was unable to perceive hers. I always inferred that she was using her Ring to do that.
Q: Why didn’t the Dwarves of Erebor go to the Iron Hills after it was taken by Smaug?
ANSWER: Some of them did go to the Iron Hills. I am not aware of any text where Tolkien explains why Thror and Thrain did not also go there. I would guess that if Tolkien had explained the post-Smaug diaspora, he probably would have attributed it to specific family ties to certain peoples or regions. But that would still not explain Thror’s wandering. Perhaps Tolkien thought Thror would have wanted to visit other lands in search of possible allies. He would not find them if he merely retired to the Iron Hills.
Q: Are the Bearded Easterlings with Axes Based on any Real Historical People?
ANSWER: The reference is to a race of “men like half-dwarves” mentioned in “The Siege of Gondor” and “The Battle of the Pelennor Fields”.
‘There is no news of the Rohirrim,’ he said. ‘Rohan will not come now. Or if they come, it will not avail us. The new host that we had tidings of has come first, from over the River by way of Andros, it is said. They are strong: battalions of Orcs of the Eye, and countless companies of Men of a new sort that we have not met before. Not tall, but broad and grim, bearded like dwarves, wielding great axes. Out of some savage land in the wide East they come, we deem. They hold the northward road; and many have passed on into Anórien. The Rohirrim cannot come.’
These Easterlings are often called “half-Dwarves” but that is not what J.R.R. Tolkien called them. They are simply men who wear their beards in a style like Dwarves. There may be an etymological joke in the reference, but you would have to study the arguments over the interpretation of the name of the Lombards (earlier Langobardi) to see what I am referring to. While that COULD be a long, worthy post, I am not the person to write it. The second part of their name might be related to an old Germanic word for “axe” but the historical Lombards fought with broadswords or spears (lances).
There were Germanic tribes who fought with battle axes, but the historical axes were much smaller (in general) than the fantasy weapons everyone is familiar with. The Franks, for example, threw their battle axes at their enemies to break their shields. They they charged in with spears or swords. There are references to large ceremonial double-headed axes in Greek mythology and Aegean cultures. I don’t know of any historical accounts of such weapons being used in battle.
For a more in-depth discussion, see my previous article Who Were the Bearded Easterlings with Large Axes?.
NOTE: I still have several dozen questions people submitted last year (and 1 remaining from 2016). I will do my best to get to them all.
See also …
- Answers for Short Questions from Tolkien Fans (September 2018)
- More Questions with Short Answers (July 2017)
- Answers Too Short for Their Own Articles (May 2017)
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
Regarding the chronology question… That question sent me back to the Tale of Years, and I think cherry-picking those few events misstates what happened during the intervening centuries; Angmar, Minas Morgul, Kinstrife, the fall of the North Kingdom, fall of Moria… certainly enough to keep the Gray Pilgrim and friends quite occupied. Another factor could be that the passage of time would likely seem very different to immortals like the Istari and Eldar. They could act with great speed when events demanded, but at other times they might have been inactive, apparently asleep, for decades or centuries at a time. The same would hold true for Sauron, who needed a few thousand years to regain sufficient strength to re-emerge from the shadows.
The chronologies bothered me much more when I was young, but as I learned more about history and how much has been forgotten or never recorded, in terms of who lived when and where and who did what, Tolkien’s timelines seem pretty reasonable to me. Written history in northern Europe may have begun only about 2,000 years ago but cultures were achieving some pretty amazing things for several thousand years prior to that time. We just don’t have neat written records for them. I think Tolkien’s timelines are really only intended to call out events that were somehow significant to the main plot (the struggle against Sauron) without necessarily implying that nothing ever changed.
On the “use of the Rings” question, for Elrond’s control of his river, he wouldn’t need a Ring. A properly designed dam and gates would do the same thing, and with no magic, wouldn’t attract as much attention. Their “magic” gets the attention today, but Elves were also fine crafters and builders of mundane devices.
The thing that makes the vast span of years seem less reasonable is the movies – which obviously isn’t representative of what Tolkien wrote in terms of visualization, but rather indicative of what audiences expect to see more than what Tolkien intended. What I mean is that you look at, say, Isildur’s armor in the prologue of the first film, and compare it to Aragorn’s at the climax of the third film, and its like society and technology haven’t changed at all in three thousands years. Go to any point in Middle Earth’s history in the popular visualizations – the movies, games, the most popular painters – and it all looks about the same. That’s not really Tolkien’s fault so much as it is the popular imagination’s.