Minor Works -- 1 - Farmer Giles of Ham

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Introduction

Farmer Giles of Ham is one of the few fictional works of Tolkien published during his lifetime. Like the Hobbit and Roverandom, it has its origins in a story that JRRT told to his children. The first manuscript was narrated by "Daddy", details were personal, and the sophisticated tone of the printed version we know was missing. A later version, the first typescript, added some details and changed the narrator to the "family jester".

In 1938 Tolkien revised and enlarged the story, adding philological jokes, Latin words, names, and scholarly allusions, then reading it in lieu of a paper on fairy stories to the Lovelace Society in Oxford - which was apparently very amused! He offered it to Allen and Unwin for publishing; they considered it too short on its own and decided to add illustrations. Those were provided by Pauline Baynes and highly approved of by Tolkien. Along with his "mock" Foreward, the tale was then complete and the book published in 1949.

The above information comes from Hammond and Scull's Introduction to the 50th anniversary edition (HarperCollins, 1999), which I highly recommend to anyone wanting to know more! It also includes the first manuscript version of the story, as well as the incomplete sequel Tolkien began writing later.

Let's begin the discussion with Tolkien's satirical Foreward - even if you don't normally read forewards, this one is short and amusing, so please do, and let us know what you think of it. In one to three days (depending on the volume of posting about the Foreword) we will move on to the actual story.

[Inziladun]

Well! I have to confess it was only around five years ago that I read this story for the first time. I got it with a paperback also containing Smith of Wooten Major.

I like immediately the tone set by Tolkien. He lets the reader know that the story was
derived not from sober annals, but from the popular lays to which its author frequently refers.

We have the scene set in England, but in a time that cannot be precisely set, much like Middle-earth (but much less removed).

Overall, it reminds me quite a bit of The Hobbit.

[Morthoron]

I do love that Giles' dog is named Garm after the fierce and bloody guardian of Hel's Gate in Norse myth, who was loosed during Ragnarök and battled to the death with Tyr. In Tolkien's tale, Garm is neither fierce nor bloody, and certainly prone to tuck tail and flee.

In regards to the Forward, when Tolkien references the "Little Kingdom" I believe the conjecture is that he was referring to Surrey or Frithwuld's Surrey, a 7th century sub-kingdom of Mercia. Let the anachronisms begin with Giles' blunderbuss.

[Bêthberry]

I'll back up a bit and start with the Introduction by Hammond and Scull, it being a serious bit of scholarly history concerning the text. Their information reminds us of how important Tolkien's oral storytelling to his children was in his development as a writer. Roverandom and Farmer Giles began as stories to entertain his children, as well of course as The Hobbit. (Tom Bombadil has a nod to the children's affairs as well.) As much as philology and the creation of languages inspired Tolkien, so also was the impulse of oral storytelling. Of course, as Hammond and Scull point out, Farmer Giles was developed far beyond this original oral piece of entertainment with its satire, but remembering Tolkien's original audience for his stories is helpful in understanding the power of his later tales.

Tolkien's Foreward satirises scholarly concerns at the time over the origins of fairy tales and nursery rhymes. King Coel is non other than a reference to the children's nursery rhyme about Old King Coel, who was a merry old soul, who called for his pipe and his bowl and his fiddlers three. There had been much scholarly ado trying to discover which historical character is referred to in the nursery rhyme but scholars came up empty handed (or dry penned?) Sir Walter Scott even joined the speculation There were attempts to link Coel with Arthur's legends. So all in all this little satirical reference shows Tolkien's own interest in the legends and possibly the mythology of his little island, an interest which produced what we now know as The Book of Lost Tales, while providing, significantly, a satirical slight on the study of nursery rhymes not as art or story or entertainment but as historical content
.

[Thinlómien]

It's been a very long time since I last read Farmer Giles. I have to confess I didn't particularly like it then, nor did I like it as a kid when I was first acquainted with it. I'm curious what my verdict will be this time. Also, I'm a little saddened I only have the book in Finnish; while the translation is good, the story is so English that it seems already after the introduction that one is losing quite a bit by not reading it in the original. I'll cope, I guess!

That being said, I feel like one would also greatly benefit from being more familiar with English mythology and history. I feel like you can't really appreciate Tolkien's writing as much "just as a story", without a greater context. Now that I think of it, it's rather fascinating how he often wrote - in a way - for scholars and children at the same time, which is not really a common combination.

As for the foreword itself, two things stood out to me - two very trademark Tolkien things that we see in his major works too. One is that his love for and knowledge of linguistics is evident; how many other authors would say their story is just an explanation for odd place names? Or how many others would bother to establish what language the story is written, and what they're telling us it was translated from? And the trope of the somewhat unreliable translator-narrator passing on an old story, obscuring the truth of what "really happened," is of course the second thing. It is very much like the whole narrative framing of the Red Book of Westmarch.

[Formendacil]

The Foreword is appropriately brief--two pages in my edition of Tales from the Perilous Realm, which is the text I have readiest to hand, though I first encountered it in a very dusty, unassuming copy of The Tolkien Reader on my Dad's bookshelves--a not-quite-standard collection of some of Tolkien's minor works. There are several of these, not all quite lining up in terms of content.

Farmer Giles has never felt quite Middle-earthen to me, which makes him stand stand out from both Roverandom and The Hobbit, which are its nearest comparisons in his catalogue. Where he draws nearest to Middle-earth might actually be here: this Foreword reminds me strongly of the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings: it's the same pseudo-scholarly voice.

It occurred to me, reading the Foreword this time, that it's a shame that Hobbitus Ille was the first official Tolkien-to-Latin translation, because this would have been a more appropriate attempt--possibly also more challenging, since it would be best to render it as "very insular Latin." My own Latin would not actually be up to the challenge of reading it, but I would still have been deeply amused by the gesture.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for the apt and thoughtful comments on the Foreword! We'll proceed with the story proper, and if anyone has something to add, it can be posted any time.

The first pages introduce two of the main characters - Giles and Garm - as well as the antagonist of the first adventure. After a few pages, Agatha joins them. Considerably later, the villagers, the King and his knights join them.

Which characters do you enjoy most? How do you like the abundance of Latin names used? What opinion do you have of the talking dog? Do you enjoy the parodic humour?

Let's stay with the first adventure for now - it paves the way for the events that follow.

[littlemanpoet]

Many years ago now, I bought a second hand copy of Tolkien's "Smith of Wootton Major & Farmer Giles of Ham," copyright 1967, Ballantine Books. I reread Farmer Giles of Ham for the umpteenth time because I just love it. In the most recent reading it had not lost any of its charm for me.

I find in the Foreword some delicious comments in terms of geography: the valley of the Thames and excursions to the "walls of Wales." The pseudo history places the tale some time after King Coel (maybe) and after King Arthur ... which, of course, makes it pseudo-history in the plainest sense. If one were to take this seriously, then it would have to be a story about pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain. Will we find the ensuing text free of Anglo-Saxon place names? Wink wink.

Let the fun begin!

[Inziladun]

I like the way Tolkien seemingly reinforces a theme from The Hobbit (taking place in a world with "less noise and more green") with this:

The time was not one of hurry or bustle. But bustle has very little to do with business. Men did their work without it; and they got through a deal, both of work and of talk.

Then we have Giles described as being mostly interested in being safe and comfortable, and the fact that he and Garm didn't pay much notice to anything outside the immediate area of Ham (shades of Bilbo Baggins?).

I think Garm is endearingly annoying at times, but obviously very loyal to his master. I love the vocalizations he's given in the book, such as when he wakes Giles to warn of the giant, and gets a thrown bottle for his trouble:

"Ow!" said the dog, jumping aside with practiced skill. "Help! Help! Help!"

The accompanying illustrations in my paperback compliment the story well.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Does your book have the Pauline Baynes illustrations, Inzil? Those are such a wonderful complement to the story - and Tolkien really liked them. For those who remember her illustrations for the Narnia books, the style is similar. I find it has something medieval, but also something like comic book drawings. I love having the small pictures right where they belong in the text. And the black and white drawings make me want to colour them, though I wouldn't do it in the book...

[Inziladun]

Does your book have the Pauline Baynes illustrations, Inzil? Those are such a wonderful complement to the story - and Tolkien really liked them.

It doesn't say specifically in my Smith/Giles paperback, but I also have the 1966 Tolkien Reader with PB illustrations, and they are indeed the same.

[Morthoron]

Does your book have the Pauline Baynes illustrations, Inzil? Those are such a wonderful complement to the story - and Tolkien really liked them. For those who remember her illustrations for the Narnia books, the style is similar. I find it has something medieval, but also something like comic book drawings. I love having the small pictures right where they belong in the text. And the black and white drawings make me want to colour them, though I wouldn't do it in the book...

I have a hard cover copy of the U.S. Nelson Doubleday, Inc. edition (1976), and the color frontispiece and end covers by Baynes are excellent. The Baynes illustrations (both color and black and white) are certainly reminiscent of 12th century illuminated manuscripts.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I realised that I did not have a copy of Farmer Giles of Ham lying around, nor could I find my copy of the Danish translation Niels Bonde fra Bold. I couldn't find it on my audiobook/library apps and my local library have a bit of delivery time. Today I had resigned to purchasing an e-book version, when I looked at the book shelf and realised I had a barely touched volume of "Tales from the Perilous Realm" standing right there... Anyways, I have only made it a little passed the foreword for now.




That being said, I feel like one would also greatly benefit from being more familiar with English mythology and history. I feel like you can't really appreciate Tolkien's writing as much "just as a story", without a greater context. Now that I think of it, it's rather fascinating how he often wrote - in a way - for scholars and children at the same time, which is not really a common combination.

As for the foreword itself, two things stood out to me - two very trademark Tolkien things that we see in his major works too. One is that his love for and knowledge of linguistics is evident; how many other authors would say their story is just an explanation for odd place names? Or how many others would bother to establish what language the story is written, and what they're telling us it was translated from? And the trope of the somewhat unreliable translator-narrator passing on an old story, obscuring the truth of what "really happened," is of course the second thing. It is very much like the whole narrative framing of the Red Book of Westmarch.

I think this scholarly approach is one of the reasons I still find Tolkien so fascinating. It is escapism, but it also speaks to the part of me that loves academia. Like Tolkien I prefer history, even if this history is imagined.

I agree with your comparison with the Red Book of Westmarch, which incidentally is one of my favorite things in the appendix to Lord of the Rings.


I find in the Foreword some delicious comments in terms of geography: the valley of the Thames and excursions to the "walls of Wales." The pseudo history places the tale some time after King Coel (maybe) and after King Arthur ... which, of course, makes it pseudo-history in the plainest sense. If one were to take this seriously, then it would have to be a story about pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain. Will we find the ensuing text free of Anglo-Saxon place names? Wink wink.

Let the fun begin!

Tolkien quite caught my attention when he started talking about the valley of the Thames, because I have never really thought much about southern English geography before. Too me it is just a massive urban area, but all of the sudden my mind started wondering. Why did that area/London become so important. I remembered that it had already been important in Roman times, obviously the main reasons had to be geographical...
and so on.

Anyways, I quite expected the setting to be pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain-like... So I was immediately flustered by the blunderbuss, more so than the giant and the talking dog.

[Pitchwife]

Just popping in very briefly during the final minutes of an insane Day in the current Werewolf game to say that I loved the portrayals of the animals, Garm and the grey mare, they seem so true to life! Did the Tolkien family actually ever own a dog?


Also Pauline Baynes's illustrations, they remind me very much of the Manesse Liederhandschrift, our famous collection of German minnesang poetry from the 12th century.

[Kuruharan]

(shades of Bilbo Baggins?)

Giles doesn't remind me of Bilbo so much as Gaffer Gamgee.

It has been many a long year since I read the book, but it surprised me on this re-read how often I would read a passage and think to myself, "Oh that's where that line comes from!"

One of my personal favorites is the Parson, "The characters are archaic and the language barbaric."

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There are numerous quotable lines in this story! One that I enjoy is, "He [Farmer Giles] was finding that a local reputation may require keeping up, and that may prove awkward."

And I love the turn-around irony of this one: "So knights are mythical!" said the younger and less experienced dragons. "We always thought so."

Another, very reminiscent of the Shire quote about the rest of the world being there, even if they weren't aware of it (can't remember the exact words or location): "But the Wide World was there." Sounds just a bit ominous, doesn't it?!

One of the characters that grew on me as I read and reread this story is Giles' wife Agatha. She's not mentioned very often, and according to Scull and Hammond, she was not part of the original story Tolkien told to his children, nor of the first manuscript. I will keep an eye out for the passages in which she appears to see if their is any significance to her addition to the story.

Incidentally, I haven't seen anyone cosplaying Queen Agatha - so I remedied that situation at the "Tolkien 2019" event in Birmingham two years ago...

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Which characters do you enjoy most? How do you like the abundance of Latin names used? What opinion do you have of the talking dog? Do you enjoy the parodic humour?

Let's stay with the first adventure for now - it paves the way for the events that follow.

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king.

Augustus Bonifacius Ambrosius Aurelianus Antoninus Pius et Magnificus, dux rex, tyrannusm et Basileus Mediterranearum Partium

My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

Anyways, I am mystified why a greek word appears in our story. I mean as far as I know it was never used in Latin...

Later we learn that the sword Tailbiter used to belong to the famed dragon-slayer Bellomarius, and now I am ready to go into conspiracy theory mode.

Bellomarius is such a strange name, and just too similar to Belisarius, the greatest Byzantine general of all time (instrumental in Justinian's attempt to reconquer the western half of the empire).

I look forward to see how the rise of Islam, Iconoclasm and the first crusade have been incorporated in the later stages of this book, as they no doubt have.

[Morthoron]

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king....

My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

Anyways, I am mystified why a greek word appears in our story. I mean as far as I know it was never used in Latin...


The original meaning of "dux" was military leader (before it became attached to the aristocracy (duke in English, duc in French). So, King Arthur is referred to in some early texts as dux bellorum (war leader/general of battles). Given the pompous title Tolkien gives the king, I would consider dux rex to be "lord of all generals."

As far as the Greek basileus appearing in Tolkien's story (and the dragon's name Chrysophylax is Greek as well), basileus was used in the Eastern regions of the Roman Empire in reference to the Emperor in Rome (Imperator). The use of the term basileus survived in the West up until Charlemagne, who was recognized as "basileus Rhomaíōn" by the Byzantines as the titular ruler of Rome and emperor of the West.

It's basically the scruffy king of Mercia putting on airs, as evinced by the further title Mediterranearum Partium, usually in reference to the Mediterranean Sea, is here more a conveyance for imparting that the King reigns over the English Midlands, because Mediterranean literally means "in the middle of land, inland": medius ("middle"), terra ("land, earth").

Even the king's ponderous name Augustus Bonifacius Ambrosius Aurelianus Antoninus Pius (minus the titles) refers to the pre-Saxon Romano-British society of the Britons, and each aspect of the name concerns a certain personage in Briton history (Ambrosius Aurelianus, for instance, was a famous hero of Romano-British resistance to the invading Saxons).

[Kuruharan]

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king.



My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

I too had noticed this oddity.

In the notes in the 50th Anniversary Edition it says thusly:

Basileus is also 'king', but with the suggestion of 'administrator'.

I must admit I had never seen basileus as carrying that connotation before that footnote, and I don't think I have ever seen it again. I'm not sure where the editors got that reference from.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I have finally the time to join in. Let me start just on the Foreword first...


We have the scene set in England, but in a time that cannot be precisely set, much like Middle-earth (but much less removed).
It too struck me as obvious forerunner (well, or not exactly forerunner, rather, co-runner) of all the Aelfwine stuff and the attempt to frame also Middle-Earth into an "oh, this is real-world translated from ancient XY". Tolkien clearly was a lot into this, or at least he had a stage where he had been very much using that form.

It actually made me think not that it was just a satire, as some have mentioned here, but that perhaps he was simply following certain trends that had been there in 19th century and its echoes were probably still present, or it may have had enough influence on Tolkien in his youth and studies.

I am referring to the whole "hobby" many writers picked up around the time when all the national revivals were popping up around Europe and the renewed interest in trying to find old national myths. And that whole era marked with discoveries (and perhaps even more often, "discoveries") and renewed interest in national epics and stories (and not just among scholars, but exactly among the wide public) - ranging from real ones like the Niebelungenlied, through collected and admittedly modified ones like the Kalevala, to utter fakes presented as real things, like the Scottish Ossian or the Russian Slovo o pulku Igoreve (yes, I know it is still being debated, but I am with those that think that enough proofs have been made to show that it was fake).

I mean, did not Tolkien himself say that with his legendarium, he started with the ambition to write an "authentic" English myth? It is exactly the same kind of approach that the authors of the "fake myths" had, only admitted one. He had the advantage of having the distance of a hundred years from all that, but I can imagine how doing that would appeal to a writer with an interest in history and linguistics. Heck, it would appeal to one even now!

So Farmer Giles seems to me to be a by-product of the same "hobby". The "hobby" that many writers had had, well, since antiquity in fact (Journal of Dictys), but spiked again in recent past and could have been an inspiration to Tolkien, something he wanted to try. Obviously, Giles *is* framed as a joke, but that does not matter - it was an exercise utilising the same form, only not with a serious intent. But in technical terms it is no different from the fake manuscripts - an educated writer that knows something about a certain past era writes a completely imaginary story and plays with the ideas on how to connect it to existing places and other known myths.

In regards to the Forward, when Tolkien references the "Little Kingdom" I believe the conjecture is that he was referring to Surrey or Frithwuld's Surrey, a 7th century sub-kingdom of Mercia. Let the anachronisms begin with Giles' blunderbuss.
With my very generic knowledge of the history of Britain with many gaps, I always wondered whether "Little Kingdom" referred to something "real" (as in, that there was actually something called that, by whomever). So I take it that there wasn't, but if you wanted to take it as "real", you could identify it with something?


Tolkien's Foreward satirises scholarly concerns at the time over the origins of fairy tales and nursery rhymes. King Coel is non other than a reference to the children's nursery rhyme about Old King Coel, who was a merry old soul, who called for his pipe and his bowl and his fiddlers three. There had been much scholarly ado trying to discover which historical character is referred to in the nursery rhyme but scholars came up empty handed (or dry penned?) Sir Walter Scott even joined the speculation There were attempts to link Coel with Arthur's legends. So all in all this little satirical reference shows Tolkien's own interest in the legends and possibly the mythology of his little island, an interest which produced what we now know as The Book of Lost Tales, while providing, significantly, a satirical slight on the study of nursery rhymes not as art or story or entertainment but as historical content
.
This is basically in line of what I was thinking. And nice, even with my only second-hand experience with English nursery rhymes, I immediately thought that this was referrence to Old King Coel - I am glad this confirms it.

Also, I'm a little saddened I only have the book in Finnish; while the translation is good, the story is so English that it seems already after the introduction that one is losing quite a bit by not reading it in the original. I'll cope, I guess!
Yes, there is no copy of English Farmer Giles in our house - I, on the other hand, am reading it in Czech translation. Nonetheless, I believe it is a quality one, and perhaps we are going to stumble upon something that will stand out differently in that way.

Now that I think of it, it's rather fascinating how he often wrote - in a way - for scholars and children at the same time, which is not really a common combination.
Really? I actually disagree. Or, okay, maybe it is not *as* common, but I think there is a lot of books - and that is actually the best kind of literature in my opinion - that are written "for children", but have some hidden jokes in there if not necessarily for scholars, then for the parents. And often these can be pretty elaborate, up to the point of being rather "for scholars" than for any "average parents". I'm thinking you might find probably something like that in the Moomins. But at least the "inside jokes for parents" is certainly a thing that is present in a lot of things written for very little children (it is probably there for the relief of parents who would otherwise have to plough through some stupidity just because their child does).

Or how many others would bother to establish what language the story is written, and what they're telling us it was translated from? And the trope of the somewhat unreliable translator-narrator passing on an old story, obscuring the truth of what "really happened," is of course the second thing. It is very much like the whole narrative framing of the Red Book of Westmarch.
That is exactly what made me think about the "fabricated old epics" framework.

Farmer Giles has never felt quite Middle-earthen to me, which makes him stand stand out from both Roverandom and The Hobbit, which are its nearest comparisons in his catalogue.
Interestingly, Giles to me somehow seemed fairly Middle-Earthy on first reading: maybe it was because of the dragon. But let's see if I get the same impression this time.

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king.

My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

Anyways, I am mystified why a greek word appears in our story. I mean as far as I know it was never used in Latin...

I think Morthoron has already addressed that; personally I recall (but do not have a source at hand) Basileus used somewhere in some circumstances in the medieval Latin-speaking world too, maybe as the sort of mix-and-match, and exactly redundantly in the sense like this. Otherwise at least as far as I can speak for 1-3rd century Greek, basileus was simply a "ruler" there. For that matter, the world "tyrannus" also was not originally Latin (although that was being used), and it just sounds like adding more redundant titles that just make it sound like "how many times can we say that I am a ruler in different ways to hammer the point". But if you read the King's name and simply swap "basileus" with "ruler", it sounds perfectly normal.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

The original meaning of "dux" was military leader (before it became attached to the aristocracy (duke in English, duc in French). So, King Arthur is referred to in some early texts as dux bellorum (war leader/general of battles). Given the pompous title Tolkien gives the king, I would consider dux rex to be "lord of all generals."

Sounds more likely than my interpretation, and I do like pompous and longwinded titles.


As far as the Greek basileus appearing in Tolkien's story (and the dragon's name Chrysophylax is Greek as well), basileus was used in the Eastern regions of the Roman Empire in reference to the Emperor in Rome (Imperator). The use of the term basileus survived in the West up until Charlemagne, who was recognized as "basileus Rhomaíōn" by the Byzantines as the titular ruler of Rome and emperor of the West.

Now this seems off to me. Yes basileus was used in the greek speaking parts of the roman empire, but to my knowledge not used by the latin speakers. Surely the west used "Imperator"?

Also, it seems very un-byzantine to recognize anybody else as Roman Emperor. They were pragmatic, so they might not always object to other powers encroaching on their turf, if it suited the political situation. Anyways I am straying off topic and will only add that to my knowledge they only acknowledge Charlemagne as Emperor of the Franks.


I too had noticed this oddity.

In the notes in the 50th Anniversary Edition it says thusly:

I must admit I had never seen basileus as carrying that connotation before that footnote, and I don't think I have ever seen it again. I'm not sure where the editors got that reference from.

That is a peculiar connotation, I wish there was a footnote to the footnote explaining the source.


All the pompous titles and names, especially those of the petty king, has an air of Erasmus Montanus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Montanus) about it (a central play in Scandinavian theater).

[Bêthberry]

Does your book have the Pauline Baynes illustrations, Inzil? Those are such a wonderful complement to the story - and Tolkien really liked them. For those who remember her illustrations for the Narnia books, the style is similar. I find it has something medieval, but also something like comic book drawings. I love having the small pictures right where they belong in the text. And the black and white drawings make me want to colour them, though I wouldn't do it in the book...

In case anyone is looking for an edition of Farmer Giles of Ham, there is one that has more than just the Pauline Baynes illustrations: the 50th Anniversary edition, edited by Scull & Hammond. It includes the first manuscript version as well as notes for a planned sequel.

As an example of how much "tinkering" Tolkien did to the story, here is the beginning of that first manuscript version:

THEN DADDY BEGAN A STORY, and this is what he said:
Once there was a giant, a fairly big giant: his walking-stick was like a tree, and his feet were very large. If he walked down the road he would have left holes in it; if he had trodden on our garden he would have squashed it altogether; if he had bumped into our house there would have been no house left. And he might easily have bumped into it, for his head was far above the roof of it and he seldom looked where his feet were going.

And to provide a real spoiler, here's the ending:

'But who was the real hero of the this story, do you suppose?' said Daddy.
'I don't know.'
'The Grey Mare, of course, he said, and that ended it.

[Kuruharan]

I think Morthoron has already addressed that; personally I recall (but do not have a source at hand) Basileus used somewhere in some circumstances in the medieval Latin-speaking world too, maybe as the sort of mix-and-match, and exactly redundantly in the sense like this. Otherwise at least as far as I can speak for 1-3rd century Greek, basileus was simply a "ruler" there. For that matter, the world "tyrannus" also was not originally Latin (although that was being used), and it just sounds like adding more redundant titles that just make it sound like "how many times can we say that I am a ruler in different ways to hammer the point". But if you read the King's name and simply swap "basileus" with "ruler", it sounds perfectly normal.

There is quite the rabbit hole you can disappear down on this topic...so here I go!

Basileus is not the original Greek word for king. The original word was "Anax," which while losing the status of a title, is still present in the Greek language and appears in such places as personal names.

"Basileus" in origin was a lower title subservient to an anax. The reasons why anax faded into dusty obscurity and basileus came to the fore are, at this far removed, lost to us. I've read speculation that "anax" had more of a sacerdotal association and "basileus", as it ultimately developed, was more secular in nature. There are also implications of what we could consider a feudal hierarchy at play where the anax was the high king and the basileus were autonomous rulers loosely subject to the anax. This is the political system at play in The Iliad. When the Bronze Age collapse occurred, there was no longer an anax but a host of petty basileus’ and that title came to dominate because it was so common.

I don't know if this potential sacred vs. secular dichotomy was what the editors were referring to in saying that "basileus" had the connotation of "administrator". It would be a pretty obscure reference if it was.

Now this seems off to me. Yes basileus was used in the greek speaking parts of the roman empire, but to my knowledge not used by the latin speakers. Surely the west used "Imperator"?

It is a bit murky and there is a lot of what to us in the modern era is a frustrating non-standardization of usage. That being said, the "titles" if you will (which in itself is a bit murky and not a totally accurate description) were "Augustus" and "Caesar." At some point down the road after the end of the Roman Empire in the West "Augustus" completely lost its connotation of being a title, which it very much had in the time of what I will call the classic Roman Empire. In fact, it was the title "Augustus" that unambiguously identified the person of the emperor, not the title "Imperator." After the end of the Western Empire the word Augustus ultimately became what it is today; a personal name specifically associated with the person we now call "Augustus."

"Caesar" has experienced a similar phenomenon, although to a lesser degree. There is still some sense in the collective consciousness that Caesar was used as a title, but it is mostly associated as the name of Julius Caesar. More on “Caesar” below.

However, to ratchet up the levels of confusion "Imperator" was used, especially in an informal sense and "Imperator" as a title (for whatever reason) is the one that ultimately won out linguistically in the West. It was used in its connotation of "command - commander - command sphere or realm." In a way, from a pure definition standpoint, it is similar to the Arabic title “emir.”

My theory for why “Imperator” leading to “Emperor” became the utilized title in the West is that the preferred word order changed from Latin and "Imperator" won because it was the word that came first and was thus more prominent and "Augustus", reflecting its status as being a pretended nickname came later in the name and people lost the original importance of the word.

Of course, this is very much not the case in German as the word for emperor is “Kaiser” coming straight from “Caesar.” Same thing in Russian with “tsar.” I’d be interested to know if there is a similar practice in other Eastern European languages.

This is actually a topic of keen interest to me, so please forgive my digression on this.

That is a peculiar connotation, I wish there was a footnote to the footnote explaining the source.

Indeed.

[Galadriel55]

Of course, this is very much not the case in German as the word for emperor is “Kaiser” coming straight from “Caesar.” Same thing in Russian with “tsar.” I’d be interested to know if there is a similar practice in other Eastern European languages.

I can speak a bit for Russian on this tangent perhaps, though I have no linguistic or historical background. The derivatives of "Caesar" can be seen in three forms: Tsar, Tsezar, and Kesar (and perhaps others that I have not thought of). Tsar came to mean "king", and is both a title and a common noun, same as "king" in English. Tsezar is the name of Julius Caesar, as well as the title of other Roman Emperors (and the salad). Kesar is more complicated and could mean either "tsar" or "Tsezar" depending on the context (minus the salad), but in some contexts it may be more appropriate to use one versus the other; I am not sure if there are actually any rules here, this is purely my observation. It is also more archaic and a little bit Biblical, but not exclusively. Then the German Kaiser is called kayzer - which is a title that is also distinct from all the rest, and this one has no overlap to my knowledge.

"Augustus" survives in the Russian adjective avgusteyshiy, meaning pertaining to the royal family (e.g. avgusteyshaya osoba = royal persona).

Imperator is, surprise, imperator and is equivalent to emperor.

The other royal persona (avgusteyshaya osoba ;)) that left quite a mark on European language development is Charlemagne, who I believe is credited with seeding his name all over Europe's languages (mostly in the form of Karl). In Russian it appears as korol, and means "king", same as "tsar", but is applied to non-Russian (perhaps even non-Slavic? not sure) kings. I know the word also appears in Western Slavic languages, but I will leave it to Legate maybe to talk on their behalf, he would do it much better than I.

What all this mess means in terms of Tolkien is that there is a lot more flexibility in titles - not to mention that my beloved translation also dug up konung from some proto-germanic depths specifically for the rulers of Rohan. But Aragorn, for instance, not being tied to any real-world dynasty, can be called tsar and korol interchangeably, and also knyaz (which is "prince" except that it's much more than "prince", it calls back to the time in history when Knyaz was the title of the biggest boss in your group of people).

But coming back to Farmer Giles with a question: wouldn't the root of baselius still echoed in Latin in some form, since it's via Latin that it gives words like basilisk to modern languages? Or am I getting the order of things wrong?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Basileus is not the original Greek word for king. The original word was "Anax," which while losing the status of a title, is still present in the Greek language and appears in such places as personal names.

The reasons why anax faded into dusty obscurity and basileus came to the fore are, at this far removed, lost to us. I've read speculation that "anax" had more of a sacerdotal association and "basileus", as it ultimately developed, was more secular in nature. There are also implications of what we could consider a feudal hierarchy at play where the anax was the high king and the basileus were autonomous rulers loosely subject to the anax. This is the political system at play in The Iliad. When the Bronze Age collapse occurred, there was no longer an anax but a host of petty basileus’ and that title came to dominate because it was so common.
But that is exactly what concerns us - if what you are saying is true, anax was out of the game a thousand years before the word had the chance to spread around Europe with the Roman Empire. I know that by the time of 1-3rd century, "basileus" was the common term in Greek, and - perhaps most importantly for its spread in subsequent centuries and potential use in the Middle Ages - it was used in the New Testament. That still does not say anything about whether or how it would get to the Western part of the Empire, but like I said - I think that if it was used in the Middle Ages, it could have been used as a "fancy extra title", using a "foreign word" in your list, perhaps in some "international" diplomatic meetings or somesuch.

Of course, this is very much not the case in German as the word for emperor is “Kaiser” coming straight from “Caesar.” Same thing in Russian with “tsar.” I’d be interested to know if there is a similar practice in other Eastern European languages.
Czech has "císař" as the word for "emperor", which is obviously derived from "Caesar" (and I think it is both influenced by Kaiser, as the Germans are immediate neighbours, but likely also some direct knowledge about Caesar). I would personally actually be interested in what do the Southern, Balkan Slavs have, because they would have been directly in contact with the Byzantium (or actually part of it), so I wonder whether their word for Emperor may be similar to Basileus rather than to Caesar/Kaiser/what-have-you.

The other royal persona (avgusteyshaya osoba ;)) that left quite a mark on European language development is Charlemagne, who I believe is credited with seeding his name all over Europe's languages (mostly in the form of Karl). In Russian it appears as korol, and means "king", same as "tsar", but is applied to non-Russian (perhaps even non-Slavic? not sure) kings. I know the word also appears in Western Slavic languages, but I will leave it to Legate maybe to talk on their behalf, he would do it much better than I.
In Czech (and Polish, Slovak etc.) there is the word král (król, etc.) which means "king" and it comes exactly from Karl (i.e. Charlemagne). So yes (and I assume that's how it travelled to Russian too).

But coming back to Farmer Giles with a question: wouldn't the root of baselius still echoed in Latin in some form, since it's via Latin that it gives words like basilisk to modern languages? Or am I getting the order of things wrong?
Basilisk specifically is a literal borrowing of a word, but yes, of course there are all these Greek-words-turned-Latin-and-later-(French-and-later-English-or-whichever-other-languages), but I think what others were trying to say was that Basileus, of all things, did not get actually transferred as is into wide use; however, it is true that there is for example the word basilica which definitely WAS used in Latin and DOES come from the same root (it was originally an adjective, meaning "royal", and later became stand-alone noun). So, I guess there is something.

Anyways, I hope to post soon something more about the progress of the story itself ;)

[Kuruharan]

But Aragorn, for instance, not being tied to any real-world dynasty, can be called tsar and korol interchangeably, and also knyaz (which is "prince" except that it's much more than "prince", it calls back to the time in history when Knyaz was the title of the biggest boss in your group of people).

I subscribe to to the school of thought that says that translating knyaz as "prince" or "grand prince" is a piece of western snobbery which was intended to reduce the social and cultural standing of the Rus' and their medieval states. I believe the most appropriate translation of knyaz (especially in a medieval historical context) is, in fact, "king." Doubly so since the word ultimately derives from the same root as the word king. However, time and linguistic shifts solidified the translation as Grand Prince to the point that the Russian Tsars handed the title out with the explicit intention of it being understood as "Grand Prince", for example, the Grand Principality of Finland.

But coming back to Farmer Giles

Oh yes...sputter…*ahem*…

I think that if it was used in the Middle Ages, it could have been used as a "fancy extra title", using a "foreign word" in your list, perhaps in some "international" diplomatic meetings or somesuch.

Which brings us around to an important, and ironic, point...which Gildor might have made. For all the seeming physical and cultural isolation and parochialism of the Middle and Little Kingdoms, they retained evidences of wider experiences of the world.

Of course, the Latin itself is evidence of that.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

A few observations about the first adventure...

I like the way Tolkien seemingly reinforces a theme from The Hobbit (taking place in a world with "less noise and more green") with this:

Then we have Giles described as being mostly interested in being safe and comfortable, and the fact that he and Garm didn't pay much notice to anything outside the immediate area of Ham (shades of Bilbo Baggins?).
There is definitely the same archetypal setup. Giles definitely takes on a bit of "Bilbo Baggins character development", even though I agree with Kuru that as person, he is more similar to somebody else; I'm not sure if Gaffer Gamgee (absolutely see that dimension too), I am actually thinking Farmer Maggot. There is the same dichotomy of somebody who is both very much set in his own comfortable isolated spot but at the same time very sharp when it comes to analysing problems at hand. And of course, the most strikingly, there is the element of "get off of my field, you supernatural intruder!" Stand not between the farmer and his property (or, on his property).

Another side-remark: what is the deal with there being specific effort to remark that Giles has a ginger beard when he is being introduced? (However is it exactly phrased in the original? Because obviously it seems like a super-random remark that gives me the vibe that it is either just there to provide some artistic imbalance to the sentence, or does it have some other significance? Also because the way it's phrased in my translation makes it sound somewhat derogatory, but that may come with the peculiar cultural element that if you talk about people with that colour of hair using that particular word, it has a somewhat negative tone. But is that a reference to something in the English culture that I am not aware of?)

I think Garm is endearingly annoying at times, but obviously very loyal to his master. I love the vocalizations he's given in the book, such as when he wakes Giles to warn of the giant, and gets a thrown bottle for his trouble:
He actually reminds me of Roverandom (and the other various dogs present in that story, particularly maybe the Moon Dog. Also, there seems to be some strange connection in Tolkien's works between dogs and moonbeams; chasing moonbeams. Is it just recycling the same element in two stories, or is it a trope that has some deeper significance?).

Garm is a little more "crude" than Roverandom, perhaps, but the similarity is there. If I exaggerated a little, I would say that all Tolkien's dogs could happily be the same character and it would not be a problem. So is that it? Does Tolkien have an "archetypal dog" figure?

That made me think: I am aware of his opinion on cats, but what about dogs? Did he have any close relationship with any dogs that we know of? The family didn't own a dog, right, or did they? (I actually only now just noticed that Pitchwife has already asked this question, and it hasn't been answered.) Did some of Tolkien's closest friends have one? In other words: is Tolkien's writing of dogs pure fabrication, or could it have been inspired by some specific dog(s) that he had had the chance to get to know more closely?

I do love that Giles' dog is named Garm after the fierce and bloody guardian of Hel's Gate in Norse myth
And that is just as we are told that dogs did not have fancy names. Perhaps not by the standards of the Latin-centric "high culture". But I find it interesting that if we say that Garm is a "barbaric" name, then the cow already is much better - her name being Galathea, which points to the classical Greek mythology (and, in another of Tolkien's linguistic inside-jokes, means "milk-white". Of course you'd name a cow after something that has to do with milk. Now the next level question is, was Giles himself actually so educated that he did this on purpose? :eek: ).

Another, very reminiscent of the Shire quote about the rest of the world being there, even if they weren't aware of it (can't remember the exact words or location): "But the Wide World was there." Sounds just a bit ominous, doesn't it?!
There is a very similar build-up to The Hobbit in broad terms - this particular quote reminds me also of Gildor. *points to current signature* There is the same use of "Wilderness" as the Outside, and the Shire/Ham being the more civilised part but still different from the King's city that lies on the opposite end of the spectrum (in TH and LotR it would be all the Elven and human cities).

More strikingly, there is the same progression in The Hobbit and Giles with "upping the challenge" of Giants(trolls)->Dragons (->greedy individuals of royal bloodline).

One of the characters that grew on me as I read and reread this story is Giles' wife Agatha. She's not mentioned very often, and according to Scull and Hammond, she was not part of the original story Tolkien told to his children, nor of the first manuscript. I will keep an eye out for the passages in which she appears to see if their is any significance to her addition to the story.

Incidentally, I haven't seen anyone cosplaying Queen Agatha - so I remedied that situation at the "Tolkien 2019" event in Birmingham two years ago...
I daresay that is certainly a commendable deed! I will also be curious to see what more there is about Agatha as the story continues. So far, I found it interesting how she is presented as a balance - much in the same vein as Giles - between the two types of the "hobbitish mentality" - the type of that would prefer her peace and quiet and thinks that a dog yelling about giants in the middle of the night is probably making up things (reminded me of the famous conversation about walking trees at the Green Dragon), but at the same time very much thinks that something should be done if the threat seems likely enough.

I have one more remark about the first adventure. So we have painstakingly analysed the "real historical period" of when this takes place, figured out that it goes maybe into around 7th century or somesuch, and then we have Giles using a muskette. Um...? Talk about "suspending disbelief", Mr. Tolkien!

And speaking of that, there is one little joke I enjoyed - now again, like I said, I have only a translation, so I would like to know how it goes in the original - there is the part where Tolkien supplies a quote from "four wise men" from, obviously, Oxford (in my translation it literally says Volský Brod, "Ox Ford", something that evokes the idea of some average muddy village and therefore fits the rural setting of the story while at the same time pointing to the famous university; but how does it go in the original? Is it something along the same lines?). And was this just a generic nod to Oxford as the centre of science, or was this perhaps even a specific referrence to him and some of his friends among the Inklings, a self-insert, if you will?

[Kuruharan]

Another side-remark: what is the deal with there being specific effort to remark that Giles has a ginger beard when he is being introduced? (However is it exactly phrased in the original? Because obviously it seems like a super-random remark that gives me the vibe that it is either just there to provide some artistic imbalance to the sentence, or does it have some other significance? Also because the way it's phrased in my translation makes it sound somewhat derogatory, but that may come with the peculiar cultural element that if you talk about people with that colour of hair using that particular word, it has a somewhat negative tone. But is that a reference to something in the English culture that I am not aware of?)


I had never thought about that before.

My guess is that it is an additional personal identifier in case there was another Giles in town.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I've enjoyed following these posts down the linguistic rabbit hole! Thanks to all of you who know the ancient languages for sharing your ideas! I must admit that I'm glad to get back to the story though...

Legate, your signature quote of Gildor's words is exactly what I was looking for, about the wide world! I also find your comparison of Tolkien's dogs interesting.

The similarity of the atmosphere of Farmer Giles and the Hobbit is very noticeable, as several have mentioned.

One thing I have already seen in Agatha is that she grounds Giles - she helps him to make the first decision to go after the giant. More later on...

Concerning the definition of blunderbuss: Scull and Hammond comment that it is taken verbatim from the Oxford English Dictionary. The 'Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford' apparently refers to the four editors of the Dictionary.

Have you remarked upon the use of saints' days to mark the time? I know that the scholastic year in England was divided up by saints' days with which the terms began - is that still the case?

[Morthoron]

With my very generic knowledge of the history of Britain with many gaps, I always wondered whether "Little Kingdom" referred to something "real" (as in, that there was actually something called that, by whomever). So I take it that there wasn't, but if you wanted to take it as "real", you could identify it with something?

I mentioned this in my very first post in this thread. The "Little Kingdom" Tolkien refers to is believed to be a real place: Frithwuld's Surrey, a 7th century sub-kingdom of Mercia.

And that is just as we are told that dogs did not have fancy names. Perhaps not by the standards of the Latin-centric "high culture". But I find it interesting that if we say that Garm is a "barbaric" name, then the cow already is much better - her name being Galathea, which points to the classical Greek mythology (and, in another of Tolkien's linguistic inside-jokes, means "milk-white". Of course you'd name a cow after something that has to do with milk. Now the next level question is, was Giles himself actually so educated that he did this on purpose?

Well, considering Giles could not decipher anything but the most basic "uncial" letters, and had to have the Parson read everything to him, I would suggest "Galathea" was a name he heard somewhere in a story (like the tales of the great dragon slayer Bellomarius he had loved as a child). It's a Tolkien joke, so let's not ascribe any classical Graeco-Roman learning to our stolid farmer.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The Blunderbuss and the Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford: Tolkien here quotes, verbatim, the Oxford English Dictionary definition. The 'four wise clerks' is a reference to the Dictionary's four editors-in-chief, Murray, Bradley, Craigie and Onions.

King Cole: Known from the nursery rhyme, yes, but Coel Hen also figures in Geoffrey of Monmouth's grand pseudo-history of pre-Saxon Britain, the Historia Regum Britanniae - the primary source for Arthurian legend (although there are a handful earlier and many later), which give point to T referencing Arthur in the same sentence. Geoffrey didn't invent him - he already existed in Welsh legend - but he made him the father of St Helena and thus the grandfather of the Emperor Constantine. The HRB also bequeathed literature such rulers as King Lear and Cymbeline.

Favorite Character: Chrysophylax. Tolkien's dragons are some of his best characters, full stop.

[Kuruharan]

Favorite Character: Chrysophylax. Tolkien's dragons are some of his best characters, full stop.

Hear, hear!

[Thinlómien]

The first pages introduce two of the main characters - Giles and Garm - as well as the antagonist of the first adventure. After a few pages, Agatha joins them. Considerably later, the villagers, the King and his knights join them.

Which characters do you enjoy most? How do you like the abundance of Latin names used? What opinion do you have of the talking dog? Do you enjoy the parodic humour?As for the characters - so far Farmer Giles reminds me of Farmer Maggot, the same archetype of a no-nonsense, steadfast farmer who doesn't back down in the face of danger, being either very brave or very stupid - or perhaps a bit of both - in standing up to a magnificient foe. (I see Legate made this same point, so we are in agreement!)

About the humour - to be fair, I don't think I ever got it. I don't have the context for whatever Tolkien is making fun of, so to me, the story comes of either serious but odd, or frivolous without a bigger point to make. The element of parody is sadly largely lost on me - and I dare say for many other readers less versed in English literature and history than Tolkien himself (a majority of us, I suppose).

I think this scholarly approach is one of the reasons I still find Tolkien so fascinating. It is escapism, but it also speaks to the part of me that loves academia. Like Tolkien I prefer history, even if this history is imagined. It certainly gives his work a lot more depth and a unique flair. And unlike with so many others of his ideas, not many later fantasy authors have tried to mimic it (or if yes, then rather lazily). The only other truly scholarly fantasy author I've come across is Susanna Clarke, whose novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell has footnotes throughout, referencing an imaginary history of magic in England in a wonderfully dry, academic manner. I would certainly recommend the book to anyone who loves the scholarly side of Tolkien's writing, even though it's certainly not even trying to be of equal depth as Tolkien's Middle-Earth Legendarium. I think it is rather comparable to Farmer Giles indeed - it blends actual English history and mythology with made up stories, but it doesn't create a whole new world with its own history and historiography.

Which brings us around to an important, and ironic, point...which Gildor might have made. For all the seeming physical and cultural isolation and parochialism of the Middle and Little Kingdoms, they retained evidences of wider experiences of the world.I think this might have been the most interesting point to come out of the grand linguistic debate, and I think it's a rather clever little jab from Tolkien.

I have one more remark about the first adventure. So we have painstakingly analysed the "real historical period" of when this takes place, figured out that it goes maybe into around 7th century or somesuch, and then we have Giles using a muskette. Um...? Talk about "suspending disbelief", Mr. Tolkien!Yes, this confused me too. Certainly one of the humorous elements of the story that reveal it's tongue-in-cheek, but again, I feel like I lack the context to fully appreciate it. To be honest, sometimes reading Farmer Giles feels a little like reading someone else's inside joke. But I guess that's what it is, to a degree. (Even though, I guess you could say all writing is the author's "inside joke", but here it is perhaps more evident than usual.)

[littlemanpoet]

In this reading, I'm fascinated by Tolkien's word choices:

Distinguished

"There was more time then, and folk were fewer, so that most men were distinguished."

Distinguished, here, has a delicious double meaning: first, as in having a reputation; second, as in differences being apparent.

It is this second meaning that could escape one's notice, and has escaped mine until this reading. And of course, during the times in which Tolkien sets his story, there was much to distinguish one character from another, as he proceeds to do, by occupation, skills, character, and attitude. Giles, the Parson, the Miller, Garm, the Smith, the King - each are clearly delineated from each other as shall be seen with further reading.

Memorable events

"There was plenty to talk about, for memorable events occurred very frequently. But at the moment when this tale begins nothing memorable had, in fact, happened in Ham for quite a long time."

This makes me laugh every time I come across it, each reading. The first sentence is tongue in cheek because it's both true and not true, it depends on what one means by 'memorable.' If you can remember it as a distinguishable event as compared to others, then it's memorable. But there are degrees of memorable, and what is about to happen is so memorable that all of those other memorable events pale by comparison. Which is why the story is being told about this event rather than those.

The Giant

"...he had very few friends, owing to his deafness and his stupidity, and the scarcity of giants."

This also makes me laugh every time. What an interesting set of reasons. Deafness and stupidity are fair enough reasons for having very few friends. The scarcity of giants says, without saying so, that giants tend not to be friends of anyone but other giants. Which makes even more sense if they're stupid, and perhaps deaf into the bargain.

Then you get to "One fine summer's day..." and I notice that Tolkien has taken three full pages to set the scene, after the Foreword.

Garm and the Giant

"He had a fancy for moonshine...."

Cracks me up. I do not know if Tolkien was aware of the American slang meaning of the word moonshine, so I don't know if this is what he was hinting at. Still, I find it hilarious to think of Garm finding a way to get light in the head.

"In five minutes he had done more damage than the royal fox hunt could have done in five days."

This is a particularly damning socio-political commentary, and is offered so off the cuff that it could be missed.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Let's move on to the main adventure - enter Chrysophylax Dives! The thing that I noticed right away upon rereading this is the difference between expectation and reality of adventures. The idea of real (meaty) Dragon's Tail vs. (sweet) Mock Dragon's Tail - which one do they actually want?! And the knights being expected to do something - but their knowledge is 'inofficial' and their convenience is 'not early at all'. Besides, real fighting would interfere with the planned tournament!

Shades of the Hobbit again - "...adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!"

[Huinesoron]

I have one more remark about the first adventure. So we have painstakingly analysed the "real historical period" of when this takes place, figured out that it goes maybe into around 7th century or somesuch, and then we have Giles using a muskette. Um...? Talk about "suspending disbelief", Mr. Tolkien!

Yes, this confused me too. Certainly one of the humorous elements of the story that reveal it's tongue-in-cheek, but again, I feel like I lack the context to fully appreciate it. To be honest, sometimes reading Farmer Giles feels a little like reading someone else's inside joke. But I guess that's what it is, to a degree. (Even though, I guess you could say all writing is the author's "inside joke", but here it is perhaps more evident than usual.)

I love the blunderbuss. :D I've always felt that Tolkien was poking fun at the likes of the King Arthur stories, which always seem to depict Arthur in full late-medieval plate armour, as if he had ridden out of Camelot and straight into the Hundred Years' War! St. George is depicted the same way (WW1 example (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Britain_Needs_You_at_Once_-_WWI_recruitment_poster_-_Parliamentary_Recruiting_Committee_Poster_No._108 .jpg)), despite living at least a thousand years before it was invented.

So, says Tolkien, what's another half-millennium between friends? Give 'em all firearms too! I love it. XD

Another side-remark: what is the deal with there being specific effort to remark that Giles has a ginger beard when he is being introduced?

Thank you for asking, because now I've looked this up. ^_^

In full his name was Ægidius Ahenobarbus Julius Agricola de Hammo... I will in what follows give the man his name shortly, and in the vulgar form: he was Farmer Giles of Ham, and he had a red beard.


Ægidius - Late Latin name and origin of the English 'Giles'.
Ahenobarbus - Latin cognomen meaning 'red-beard' or 'copper-beard'.
Agricola - Latin for 'farmer'.
de Hammo - 'of Ham', I assume in Latin.


So Tolkien is here being 100% literal: 'farmer', 'Giles', 'of Ham', and 'he had a red beard' are all parts of the good farmer's name!

(I don't know what happened to the Julius. Perhaps a dragon ate it.)

hS

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

A few observations about the first adventure...


There is definitely the same archetypal setup. Giles definitely takes on a bit of "Bilbo Baggins character development", even though I agree with Kuru that as person, he is more similar to somebody else; I'm not sure if Gaffer Gamgee (absolutely see that dimension too), I am actually thinking Farmer Maggot. There is the same dichotomy of somebody who is both very much set in his own comfortable isolated spot but at the same time very sharp when it comes to analysing problems at hand. And of course, the most strikingly, there is the element of "get off of my field, you supernatural intruder!" Stand not between the farmer and his property (or, on his property).

I don't get that vibe at all, but possibly that is because we don't know why Farmer Maggot developed into the character we meet in The Fellowship. Maggot is one of my favorite characters and seems exceedingly knowledgeable, which is not something I can say about Giles. Giles develops though, and to the better...



I have one more remark about the first adventure. So we have painstakingly analysed the "real historical period" of when this takes place, figured out that it goes maybe into around 7th century or somesuch, and then we have Giles using a muskette. Um...? Talk about "suspending disbelief", Mr. Tolkien!


Yup, exactly... I was stairing out into thin air for half a minute after reading that.

As for the characters - so far Farmer Giles reminds me of Farmer Maggot, the same archetype of a no-nonsense, steadfast farmer who doesn't back down in the face of danger, being either very brave or very stupid - or perhaps a bit of both - in standing up to a magnificient foe. (I see Legate made this same point, so we are in agreement!)

But where do you get the notion that Farmer Maggot is anything else than intelligent. Him standing his ground in the face of a hooded stranger? He seems a magnificent specimen of a hobbit to me.


It certainly gives his work a lot more depth and a unique flair. And unlike with so many others of his ideas, not many later fantasy authors have tried to mimic it (or if yes, then rather lazily). The only other truly scholarly fantasy author I've come across is Susanna Clarke, whose novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell has footnotes throughout, referencing an imaginary history of magic in England in a wonderfully dry, academic manner. I would certainly recommend the book to anyone who loves the scholarly side of Tolkien's writing, even though it's certainly not even trying to be of equal depth as Tolkien's Middle-Earth Legendarium. I think it is rather comparable to Farmer Giles indeed - it blends actual English history and mythology with made up stories, but it doesn't create a whole new world with its own history and historiography.


Recommendation noted, and book added to my wish-list.

I love the blunderbuss. :D I've always felt that Tolkien was poking fun at the likes of the King Arthur stories, which always seem to depict Arthur in full late-medieval plate armour, as if he had ridden out of Camelot and straight into the Hundred Years' War! St. George is depicted the same way (WW1 example (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Britain_Needs_You_at_Once_-_WWI_recruitment_poster_-_Parliamentary_Recruiting_Committee_Poster_No._108 .jpg)), despite living at least a thousand years before it was invented.

So, says Tolkien, what's another half-millennium between friends? Give 'em all firearms too! I love it. XD


It is funny the way vast differences in time can totally disappear in popular culture. I often wonder why people think it makes human-dinosaur interaction more realistic if the humans are from the stone-age. In the grand scheme of things they are not much closer in time to dinosaurs than us.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Let's move on to the main adventure - enter Chrysophylax Dives! The thing that I noticed right away upon rereading this is the difference between expectation and reality of adventures. The idea of real (meaty) Dragon's Tail vs. (sweet) Mock Dragon's Tail - which one do they actually want?!
I have always thought that the Mock Dragon's Tail sounded like something I'd like to try. The real one, not so much.

Shades of the Hobbit again - "...adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!"
Yes! And I can't help but again noticing a million similarities with Hobbit/LotR in general.

There is also the part, when Garm informs Giles about the dragon, and Giles asks where did he see him, and Garm describes the area, Giles's reaction is the classic Hobbit reaction, in the vein of either Gaffer Gamgee about Bucklanders or Farmer Maggot about Bagenders (see, we again have the two people Giles was compared to before on this thread), "oh there? Well that explains, there have always been strange folk over there, nevermind". Despite it being only a couple of miles in reality, the "queer folk" argument, this is beyond our familiar village, is enough to convince Giles that it is normal to have a dragon prowling there. Or in other words: it hasn't breached our comfort zone yet; once it starts running across the places we all know, then it will become a problem.

You can clearly see from this that Giles sees (much like the Hobbits) the world divided into the "safe world" around his home and the "Outside". And no matter the actual geographical distances and/or other parameters, the "Outside" is the Outside and you could dump anything into it from Giants to Dragons to people who eat different type of things for breakfast.

***

Other similarities? I don't think I ever realised it before, but the parson actually bears some similarities to Gandalf. He is the one who recognises the magical item (sword) with an inscription and suspects that it is something long before everyone else, just like Gandalf can recognise not only the Troll-swords, but also The One Ring. He overall knows much more and seems to be somewhat manipulative, not unlike Gandalf in TH, in nudging Giles into the quest (but also in calculatingly letting the dragon run free so that the rest of the story can unfold).

The similarity between the dragons' respective dialogues and cunning eloquence in TH and Giles does not need to be even mentioned.

More recurring themes: what is it with Tolkien and swords with runes on them anyway? Is just the influence of the generic cultural background (Excalibur etc being such an important part of English mythology)?

And more interestingly, what is it with Tolkien and millers? He clearly has some beef with them. Sandymans in LotR, and the local miller here, clearly people of questionable motives and morality. If someone in the future stumbles upon an unpublished detective story by Tolkien, I guarantee you that the culprit is the miller. Can anyone more familiar with Tolkien's personal life confirm some real-life parallels? Did the Tolkiens have at some point an annoying miller for a neighbour?



Ægidius - Late Latin name and origin of the English 'Giles'.
Ahenobarbus - Latin cognomen meaning 'red-beard' or 'copper-beard'.
Agricola - Latin for 'farmer'.
de Hammo - 'of Ham', I assume in Latin.


So Tolkien is here being 100% literal: 'farmer', 'Giles', 'of Ham', and 'he had a red beard' are all parts of the good farmer's name!

(I don't know what happened to the Julius. Perhaps a dragon ate it.)

Okay! But of course! It never occured to me to seek the answer in his name. Well done, now it makes perfect sense!

It is funny the way vast differences in time can totally disappear in popular culture. I often wonder why people think it makes human-dinosaur interaction more realistic if the humans are from the stone-age. In the grand scheme of things they are not much closer in time to dinosaurs than us.
Indeed, it's exactly the same thing! Or the other famous examples like Cleopatra living closer to current time than to the building of the pyramids, or - since you mentioned dinosaurs - my favourite, tyrannosaurus being actually closer in time to humans than to... stegosaurus. (Yes, the popular illustrations have been lying to us.)

[Kuruharan]

And more interestingly, what is it with Tolkien and millers? He clearly has some beef with them. Sandymans in LotR, and the local miller here, clearly people of questionable motives and morality. If someone in the future stumbles upon an unpublished detective story by Tolkien, I guarantee you that the culprit is the miller. Can anyone more familiar with Tolkien's personal life confirm some real-life parallels? Did the Tolkiens have at some point an annoying miller for a neighbour?

Tolkien is playing into a common medieval stereotype against millers. The miller was one of the most prosperous members of the average medieval community. He had a monopoly from the local lord to grind the grain and was a much resented figure. Millers in medieval popular culture were regarded as the epitome of dishonesty.

[Findegil]

In addition to that medieval stereotype we know that JRR Tolkien and his brother Hilary were afraid of the Miller and his son in Sarehole were they lived in their earlier childhood. And probably with some right, because we can imagine that they were catched trespassing on the property of the millers and any how a pond of a mill is fascinating and dangours for kids, so they seldom accept that. I think I have seen a picture of that Miller and his son standing in the yard of the mill in a book, probably the Tolkien Family Album or The Black and the Withe Ogre Country. And to be sure the named Withe Ogre is that Miller seen in the crocked mirror of a fantastic story written by jung Hilary Tolkien (sad I don't remember clearly who was suggested as being the Black Ogre, but he had the most beautiful flowers in his fields, so he might be a farmer).

And again we find a connection to The Hobbit: If you search for pictures of the Sarehole mill in Birmingham (yes its still there!) guess what it looks like => right: the mill in Hobbingen across the Water as painted by JRR Tolkien. Of course, not exactly but still: the red brick building with roof ridge parallel to the water, its sparse windows, and the high chimney.

Coming back for a moment to the red beard of Giles: Yes, it is part of his name, but that doesn't make it any less interesting, maybe even to the contrary since only exceptional characteristics will become part of your name. Tolkien does often speak about beards (the Dwarves and their wives, the Wizards, Theoden and even Círdan just to mention a view out of my head). But he does not often mention red hair, I don't think one of Dwarves in The Hobbit had red hair, so they come out with some strange colures like blue. And the 1 figure out of the legendarium I remember having a red beard is really exceptional in both having red hair and growing a beard early in his life: The father of Nerdanel, Feanor's wife.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I have always thought that the Mock Dragon's Tail sounded like something I'd like to try. The real one, not so much.


Actually funny as it is, Moc Dragon's tale is an element that adds a bit of historicity to the tale. I grew up eating Moch Hare (Danish meatloaf) and Mock Turtle Soup, so there is also an air of familiarity to it.



Indeed, it's exactly the same thing! Or the other famous examples like Cleopatra living closer to current time than to the building of the pyramids, or - since you mentioned dinosaurs - my favourite, tyrannosaurus being actually closer in time to humans than to... stegosaurus. (Yes, the popular illustrations have been lying to us.)

I had forgotten the stegosaurus, but that is a brilliant example.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You think Tolkien is hard on millers, read Chaucer!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Anyway, to move on:

What do folks think about another structural parallel to The Hobbit, the everyman hero obtaining a Great Equalizer? In Bilbo's case, it's a Ring of Invisibility; in Giles' case it's Tailbiter. Giles has pluck, common sense and a sort of well-there's-no-help-for-it courage, but most of all he has a sword which practically by itself can terrify a dragon of ancient and imperial lineage.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The acquisition of those objects is a matter of luck, isn't it? And Bilbo is said to have a good deal of luck, though it would not suffice without his courage.

I am always amused over the scholarly glossing over of lack of knowledge that the parson shows when examining the sword: "...some, ah, epigraphical signs..." "The characters are archaic and the language barbaric," said the parson, to gain time. It reminds me of the language of academia used in papers and lectures!

When Giles covers his "chain mail" with his cloak, I am reminded of Gandalf the Grey - who threatens to show himself uncloaked. Obviously there is a time for secrecy and a time for open battle!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well,
It must be admitted that Giles owed his rise in a large measure to luck, though he showed some wits in the use of it. Both the luck and the wits remained with him to the end of his days

Luck not only in Caudimordax itself, but also in the giant blundering into his fields, Chrysophylax advancing on Ham rather than some other place, that particular dragon being the first one the cavalcade of knights blundered into... a whole lotta luck. But we can't deny the wits as well. Opportunity knocked, and Giles opened.

Then again, how best to describe Bilbo's career except as "luck and wits"?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There are numerous contrasts between the knights, whose task it is to protect the kingdom, and Giles. One of them is the matter of protocol - the knights need "official" notice and don't act immediately even then. The "professional" clothing is another - and it provides no protection when it comes to the actual fight with the dragon.

One that stuck out to me upon this rereading is that of fairness. Chrysophylax accuses Giles of unfair treatment because he didn't announce his name and his intention, with a formal challenge. Is the dragon expecting fairness from others while attacking the countryside in an unfair manner himself? It's typical of bullies to be annoyed when another bully stands up to them.

But later Giles expects the dragon to act in fairness when he waits for him to pay up as agreed, and Chrysophylax does not.

[Thinlómien]

Very interesting and enlightening miller discussion, I must say!

So I don't know how far everyone else is but I read (spoiler alert ;)) until Chrysophylax leaves the village after making his bargain. I like how this dragon story subverts quite a lot of the traditional elements, such as the dragon suddenly being a coward willing to bargain with his treasure to save his life (even if he doesn't intend to keep the bargain). I was also very amused by the mental image of Farmer Giles chasing the fleeing dragon on horseback for miles on end - not very dignified. Even though, of course, the imagery is familiar from for example the Arthurian legendarium and Pellinore chasing his beast, but the way Tolkien writes it underlines the comical side of a man on horseback chasing a formidable monster like that.

The most interesting detail in this part for me, however, was the court's tradition of eating dragons??? I don't remember reading any other story where dragons would be hunted for food. They're usually hunted because they threaten the kingdom and/or have treasure and/or make coveted trophies. Hunting a dragon and eating it seems rather original.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But later Giles expects the dragon to act in fairness when he waits for him to pay up as agreed, and Chrysophylax does not.

I think that in part Giles was a bit complacent after his triumph; but also that Giles no more than the other villagers, even the educated parson, simply could not conceive that a sentient being, no matter how base, could possibly disregard the "solemn and astonishing oaths" which the dragon swore. A bit of a commentary on the power of oaths and their dependency on belief-- an enormous difference between the Middle Ages or even the 19th century and today.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Some years ago, I realised that there were numerous similarities between the tale of Giles and the movie Shrek. I found the thread in which I shared the insights I found (and lectured on in German), so I won't duplicate them here. Check out Honey, I Forgot to Kill the Dragon (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14060)

Both stories are parodies of established story-telling conventions - what do you think of the comparisons?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, I feel a bit like I'm talking to myself - what was that Gandalf said about speaking to the wisest person present?! But I like this story too much to quit yet...

Comparisons that remind me of other characters: "Mighty handy this rope has turned out in the end!" Giles' comment reminds me of Sam wishing for rope at the beginning of LotR and being thankful for it later on.

Giles gathered and employed the servants of the deceased knights; that reminds me of Aragorn, who gave those that were too fearful to attack the Black Gate a task that they could handle.

Has anyone else seen things that remind you of other characters and events?

[Pitchwife]

Has anyone else seen things that remind you of other characters and events?
Well, there's Tailbiter, the semi-sentient sword, or at least animated by an agenda of its own, more bent on dragon-slaying than its wielder - a more light-hearted cousin of such wilful blades as Tyrfing of Norse legend, which inspired both Túrin's Gurthang and Elric's Stormbringer; but unlike in these cases, Tailbiter's activity works out for its wielder's benefit: another example of a classic fantasy trope Tolkien found in his sources and popularised in his own writings but which is here used in a humorous way. The central subverted trope is, of course, that of the dragon-slaying hero, be his name Sigurd or Túrin, Beowulf or Bard; unlike his more famous colleagues, Giles doesn't kill the dragon but rather strikes a bargain with the worm, wins him as an ally and even manages to avert the curse on the dragon's gold (another trope, see the Volsunga saga and the tale of the Nauglamír).

It's been a while since I watched Shrek, and my memory is a bit hazy, so I have to take your word on the parallels, Esty; but what all this does remind me of is the work of Terry Pratchett, which Farmer Giles seems to anticipate by a couple of decades. Like Tolkien in this tale, Pratchett uses staple fantasy tropes (many of which only became so because of Tolkien!) in a tongue-in-cheek parodic spirit, but his best works rise through and above parody to a genuine (though still humorous) mythopoeia.

Finally, I find Giles's defiance of the king (who comes to reap the fruits he didn't sow) echoed, across time and genres and most likely without any conscious influence, in the end of the manga AKIRA by Katsuhiro Otomo: the apocalypse brought about by a bunch of kids with superhuman powers is over at last, UN forces land in Japan to re-establish peace and order, only for Kaneda (teenage misfit turned into hero), backed by an army of his peers with machine guns and bazookas, to tell them "Get out of our country!" Tolkien being Tolkien, of course, his story ends with a Little Kingdom ruled by a benign monarch rather than the glorious anarchy of the Great Akira Empire, but I suppose that was the best that could be hoped for.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, I feel a bit like I'm talking to myself - what was that Gandalf said about speaking to the wisest person present?! But I like this story too much to quit yet...
Whoa, and here I have been waiting for a signal that we are moving to a next part of the story... I have paused at the second encounter with the dragon and waited, assuming we were still waiting for people to discuss about the earlier part.

Okay, I shall catch up onwards and meanwhile just comment on what I wanted to say about the second departure to the dragon's lair...

Comparisons that remind me of other characters: "Mighty handy this rope has turned out in the end!" Giles' comment reminds me of Sam wishing for rope at the beginning of LotR and being thankful for it later on.

That was literally the first thing I thought about when reading the second part - when Giles is about to go and the parson reminds him of the rope. "Samwise only wished he had such a helpful advisor," I thought.

But that it just another in the line of "strange Tolkien tropes" - I think it might be interesting to list them all when we are done. Swords inscribed with runes, negatively-painted millers, the importance of ropes, wise men who slightly manipulate the main hero into doing something, simple farmers who are very comfortable in their ways but turn very heroic when faced with actual danger.

Oh and speaking of millers and such - somewhere halfway through I realised that my favourite character may very well be the smith. I originally just found it a possibly funny character trait that he took such delight in bad news, but him downright starting to sing when there had been no news about Giles and the royal party for several days, that is just so absurd that it is actually great.


Some years ago, I realised that there were numerous similarities between the tale of Giles and the movie Shrek. I found the thread in which I shared the insights I found (and lectured on in German), so I won't duplicate them here. Check out Honey, I Forgot to Kill the Dragon (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14060)
I am not a particular fan of Shrek and it's been ages since I have seen it, but I think when it comes to the tone of the whole story, you hit the nail on the head! And it is not just that these both subvert fairytales - there are many different ways to subvert fairytales, but these subvert them in the same, let's say, style. With very similar "moral points", or how should one say that. Certainly a good and interesting catch!

Finally, I find Giles's defiance of the king (who comes to reap the fruits he didn't sow) echoed, across time and genres and most likely without any conscious influence, in the end of the manga AKIRA by Katsuhiro Otomo: the apocalypse brought about by a bunch of kids with superhuman powers is over at last, UN forces land in Japan to re-establish peace and order, only for Kaneda (teenage misfit turned into hero), backed by an army of his peers with machine guns and bazookas, to tell them "Get out of our country!" Tolkien being Tolkien, of course, his story ends with a Little Kingdom ruled by a benign monarch rather than the glorious anarchy of the Great Akira Empire, but I suppose that was the best that could be hoped for.
Now that is a kind of comparison I absolutely did not expect, but I'd just say that it is a nice example how far across different genres some themes can echo...

But okay! I shall read onwards and be back with more comments today or tomorrow.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Alright, allow me to add a short excursion about one thing that somewhat emerged on its own as I was reading: Biblical parallels.

It started when I noted the character of the grey mare being the "reasonable one" (if not straightaway the wise one), especially the way it was underlined when Giles and the knights were about to approach the dragon's lair. That reminded me of the story of Bileam in his donkey in Numbers 22. There, Bileam is also riding off to do something stupid (notably also at the request of a corrupt king), is riding oblivious to a danger (there represented by a sword-wielding angel blocking the road) that the wise she-donkey perceives, unlike her master. Eventually, the donkey speaks to rebuke her master.

There are of course notable differences in the stories, but you could say they contain the same patterns (and it is just as well possible that the story of Bileam may have been one of Tolkien's conscious or unconscious sources of inspiration). The mare in Giles's story does not speak aloud, but we see her thoughts in direct speech. The stupid ones are in Giles's story rather all the knights than Giles himself, so they are Bileam more than Giles is.
At the same time, however, Giles is actually a lot like Bileam himself. In that particular Biblical story, Bileam is essentially the good guy. I already noted the parallel between Augustus Bonifacius and the evil king Balak. And just like Giles sets off with the premise to fulfil the king's command and slay the dragon, Bileam sets off with the premise to fulfil Balak's wishes and set a curse upon the people he wished to destroy, but ends up blessing them instead.

The second thing that struck me as similar were the dealings between Giles and the king. Again: you could say that the "man of the people defies the monarch and becomes a hero, founding his own kingdom" is a trope we find in many stories (to stay close, one could mention King Arthur - even though that also is already n-th down the line of being built on previously existing myths). But of the more significant stories in Tolkien's cultural environment, it is also reminiscent of the story of David versus Saul. You could point out many similarities, such as Giles recruiting the "leftovers" or the promising young lads (a very Davidic trope), being the "popular king" versus the by-law one, etc. But it was notably the dynamic between them - specifically the way Augustus Bonifacius speaks - that reminded me of the Biblical Saul a lot. The outburst of anger, followed by the desire to just kill Giles in person after an unsuccessful military campaign just gave me a very similar vibe. And at the same time, Giles shows a very "Davidic" attitude by telling the king to just go home and cool his head, just like David refused to kill Saul when he had the chance.

These are perhaps a stretch and I absolutely do not want to put an equation between (these parts of) the story of Giles and the abovementioned stories. Nonetheless, at the very least you can say that they draw upon the very same tropes (the David thing) and it is possible, if not probable, also given Tolkien's erudice and background, that he got either unconsciously or consciously inspired by them. And I especially like the case of the Bileam story, because if you asked who was the hero of that one, the answer should truly be "Why, the she-donkey, of course!"

[Thinlómien]

Well, interesting that Esty should ask about parallels and Legate about the grey mare - because I was just thinking of the scene with the grey mare being the only one who did not flee from the dragon being a lighter precursor of the scene with Shadowfax and the Witch-King. I don't usually enjoy psychoanalyzing writers, but I do wonder if there was some great instance of equine bravery that Tolkien witnessed in the war that made a lasting impression on him.

The other thing that caught my eye was the mention that Chrysophylax ate the younger dragon who had tried to claim his lair in his absence. What's this with humans and dragons alike eating dragons in this story?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What's this with humans and dragons alike eating dragons in this story?

That dragon is really tasty? After all, when the court all averred that Mock Dragon's Tail was better than the real thing, they only said so to please the Royal Cook.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There is an actual battle scene in the story, where Giles and the knights ride to the dragon's cave. Once again the knights are so concentrated on matters of "precedence and etiquette" that they did not realize they were endangered. This time Chrysophylax does not bother with "warning or formality" before attacking. The scene is quite short in the tale (Peter Jackson would make half a movie of it, I presume ;) ), and it ends when the original opponent, Giles, stands up to the dragon - thanks to his mare.

It amuses me that Giles and Chrysophylax now echo the greeting of their first meeting with reversed roles. First time, Chrysophylax: "Excuse my asking, but were you looking for me by any chance?" Giles: "No, indeed! Who'd a' thought of seeing you here? I was just going for a ride." Chrysophylax: "Then we meet by good luck. The pleasure is mine."

Second time, Giles: "Excuse me, but were you looking for me, by any chance?" Chrysophylax: No, indeed! Who would have thought of seeing you here? I was just flying about." Giles: "Then we meet by good luck, and the pleasure is mine..."

The fact that both of them begin the conversation with the formula "Excuse me" is amusing, and adds another aspect of the conventions of etiquette and politeness to the tale. That would by a major subject to examine!

[Morthoron]

There is an actual battle scene in the story, where Giles and the knights ride to the dragon's cave. Once again the knights are so concentrated on matters of "precedence and etiquette" that they did not realize they were endangered. This time Chrysophylax does not bother with "warning or formality" before attacking. The scene is quite short in the tale (Peter Jackson would make half a movie of it, I presume ;) ), and it ends when the original opponent, Giles, stands up to the dragon - thanks to his mare.

It amuses me that Giles and Chrysophylax now echo the greeting of their first meeting with reversed roles. First time, Chrysophylax: "Excuse my asking, but were you looking for me by any chance?" Giles: "No, indeed! Who'd a' thought of seeing you here? I was just going for a ride." Chrysophylax: "Then we meet by good luck. The pleasure is mine."

Second time, Giles: "Excuse me, but were you looking for me, by any chance?" Chrysophylax: No, indeed! Who would have thought of seeing you here? I was just flying about." Giles: "Then we meet by good luck, and the pleasure is mine..."

The fact that both of them begin the conversation with the formula "Excuse me" is amusing, and adds another aspect of the conventions of etiquette and politeness to the tale. That would by a major subject to examine!

When I read those interactions, I considered Tolkien was parodying the more stylized and formulaic knightly challenges preceding a tilt that one finds in Mallory or Chrétien de Troyes. That both Giles and Chrysophylax are lying through their teeth is patently evident, but that does not preclude them from exchanging pleasantries before sallying forth.

In a different vein, but along the same lines, T.H. White in The Once and Future King, used the same flowery chivalric challenge to comedic effect in the duel between King Pellinore and Sir Grummore (but stayed closer to the style of Mallory):

"Fair knight," said King Pellinore, "I pray thee tell me thy name."

"That me regards," replied Sir Grummore, using the proper formula.

"That is uncourteously said," said King Pellinore, "what? For no knight ne dreadeth for to speak his name openly, but for some reason of shame."

"Be that as it may, I choose that thou shalt not know my name at this time, for no askin'."

"Then you must stay and joust with me, false knight."

"Haven't you got that wrong, Pellinore?" inquired Sir Grummore. I believe it ought to be 'thou shalt.' "

"Oh, I'm sorry, Sir Grummore. Yes, so it should, of course. Then thou shalt stay and joust with me, false knight."

Now, you could see the courtly knights of the King's court using this formula, so Giles and the dragon had to use a less stylized manner of greeting.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, interesting that Esty should ask about parallels and Legate about the grey mare - because I was just thinking of the scene with the grey mare being the only one who did not flee from the dragon being a lighter precursor of the scene with Shadowfax and the Witch-King. I don't usually enjoy psychoanalyzing writers, but I do wonder if there was some great instance of equine bravery that Tolkien witnessed in the war that made a lasting impression on him.
Nice catch. I similarly wanted to point out that there is something weird about Tolkien and baggage ponies etc. In The Hobbit, you have the famous thing with first the Goblins stealing and eating the Dwarven baggage ponies in the Misty Mountains and later the dragon similarly scattering and eating the new ones. In a very similar manner that Chrysophylax scatters the baggage horses of the knights' company.

But why I am saying is that I believe that an unusually large - I daresay - proportion of the story is devoted to talking about the baggage horses/ponies (both here and in The Hobbit, and actually also in the Fellowship with Bill the Pony, who has the same function). I mean, nothing against them and they certainly serve an important function - especially realistically. But I would say that Tolkien probably treats them with a slightly above-average amount of attention.

Obviously, it is "common sense" that you need baggage ponies when you are travelling somewhere, but I daresay not every writer would be as aware of the problem. I wonder, therefore, alongside Lommy's remark, whether Tolkien simply had such an experience from the war (provisions transportation) that made him conscious of this issue, or whether he had perhaps even some closer knowledge of some particular bunch of ponies or whatnot.

So, I am putting this on the list of questions alongside what both myself, Pitchwife and Lommy wondered about here about whether Tolkien's family/friends/neighbours had a dog that Garm, Roverandom etc. were modelled after (and the loyal Huan???). There surely are some Tolkienologists who have answers to both of these questions.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, Roverandom was based on one of JRRT's children's toy dog, that was lost at the beach. The dog's adventures were made up to comfort him and explain where the dog had gone. I'm not aware of a real dog who could have been a precursor.

I've been thinking about the wisdom of knowing when enough is enough - first Giles was smart enough to stop bargaining before he demanded too much for the dragon to bear. Then later he knew that it was time to let him go - aggravated of course by the cost of feeding him! I'm trying to remember if Tolkien wrote of a character whose downfall was greed? At any rate, Giles did not succumb to that particular sin.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, Roverandom was based on one of JRRT's children's toy dog, that was lost at the beach. The dog's adventures were made up to comfort him and explain where the dog had gone. I'm not aware of a real dog who could have been a precursor.
Yes, the toy dog is a known one, but I was exactly wondering about a live one: given how very specific Tolkien's dogs' behaviour is, and how Roverandom and Garm have very similar mannerisms (nearly identical), and as others have remarked here, it almost feels like there was a specific real-life dog "character" behind all this.

I've been thinking about the wisdom of knowing when enough is enough - first Giles was smart enough to stop bargaining before he demanded too much for the dragon to bear. Then later he knew that it was time to let him go - aggravated of course by the cost of feeding him! I'm trying to remember if Tolkien wrote of a character whose downfall was greed? At any rate, Giles did not succumb to that particular sin.

Well, how about everyone in The Hobbit, for starters? Meaning everyone involved in the Battle of the Five Armies - Thorin specifically, although he got his redemption, but it was a bit too late. But it is likely they would have been better prepared for the Goblin assault had they not been bickering among themselves (and nearly killed each others first).

One could however say that for example Bard is more on the Giles side (and Bilbo, to a degree), having set the line "enough is enough".

Mutatis mutandis, the same thing with Thingol and about half the people somehow involved with the Silmarils. The fall of Doriath being the most glaring example.

Otherwise, I am not sure if for example Lotho Sackville-Baggins might qualify? Probably it is a bit of a stretch, although we do not know what were the exact circumstances of his negotiating with Sharkey et al.

In any case, "greed as the cause of downfall" is certainly a theme that repeats itself throughout Tolkien's works, and the people who manage to resist are the main heroes, or the most positive characters of all. Giles, Bilbo - I'd also say that (even though other aspects are at play there too) the problem with the Ring qualifies too. Gandalf stresses how important it was that Bilbo gave it up willingly. If you disregard the whole Dark Lord connection for a moment, it would almost seem like "the way to break the spell of the Ring is to let go and stop being possessive of it". (For that matter, since I have already mentioned the Silmarils, it would probably apply to them as well.)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Setting aside his "ROTC" stint with King Edward's Horse, Tolkien could hardly have been unaware of the ubiquitousness of horses and ponies, in and out of war! He grew up in an animal-powered world, and this persisted in Britain throughout his young adulthood (Britain did not automobilize nearly as quickly as the USA), and certainly in France he couldn't have ignored those of the half-million British Army horses there which he would have seen every day. And, yes, that meant seeing the poor beasts being killed.

As for "an example of equine courage" underlying the mare or Shadowfax- perhaps less likely. Tolkien would never have seen horses in combat,* and moreover cavalry's employment in battle is never, ever as "stalwart defense" (a horseman brought to a halt is a dead horseman).

*While cavalry was certainly used in WWI in its intended role in more open campaigns like Palestine, Mesopotamia and Russia, the 1914 Battle of the Frontiers quickly put an end to its use on the Western Front. Useless in trench warfare. The Germans transferred all of theirs to the east, or converted horse regiments to infantry, as did the British in many cases (my wife's great-uncle was killed with the 6th Dragoon Guards as a de facto infantryman). It is true that for the Somme the plan included a division of cavalry to exploit the breach in the German lines, but since no breach was made the cav remained in reserve, well back from the front)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for the examples of greed and its consequences, Legate! I didn't take the time to think about it - Thorin (and to a lesser extent, the other Dwarves) is certainly the character closest to this story who exemplifies that.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Nice catch. I similarly wanted to point out that there is something weird about Tolkien and baggage ponies etc. In The Hobbit, you have the famous thing with first the Goblins stealing and eating the Dwarven baggage ponies in the Misty Mountains and later the dragon similarly scattering and eating the new ones. In a very similar manner that Chrysophylax scatters the baggage horses of the knights' company.

But why I am saying is that I believe that an unusually large - I daresay - proportion of the story is devoted to talking about the baggage horses/ponies (both here and in The Hobbit, and actually also in the Fellowship with Bill the Pony, who has the same function). I mean, nothing against them and they certainly serve an important function - especially realistically. But I would say that Tolkien probably treats them with a slightly above-average amount of attention.

Obviously, it is "common sense" that you need baggage ponies when you are travelling somewhere, but I daresay not every writer would be as aware of the problem. I wonder, therefore, alongside Lommy's remark, whether Tolkien simply had such an experience from the war (provisions transportation) that made him conscious of this issue, or whether he had perhaps even some closer knowledge of some particular bunch of ponies or whatnot.


Not just Bill, we hear quite a lot about Merry's ponies from Buckland to Bree.

It never struck me as odd, or out of proportion though.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Not just Bill, we hear quite a lot about Merry's ponies from Buckland to Bree.

It never struck me as odd, or out of proportion though.

Good point!

And it also never struck me as in any way remarkable on its own, but once I started thinking about it, if you just look at it quantitatively, the attention paid to ponies is remarkable.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, Tolkien, like anyone born in 1892, would have spent his entire childhood and youthful ambulations avoiding stepping in road apples. The equine presence was kind of all-pervasive.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interest in this discussion seems to be dying down, but before we move on, I will add my favourite lines, almost at the end of the story - which inspired me to cosplay Queen Agatha: His wife made a queen of great size and majesty, and she kept a tight hand on the household accounts. There was no getting round Queen Agatha - at least it was a long walk. That is such a funny, pithy description of a character who plays a rather minor role in the story otherwise, and it tickles my fancy!

JRRT did begin a sequel to this tale, with Giles' son George (Georgius Draconarius) as the main character. Only a few paragraphs were actually written, plus an outline of possible developments. This is included in the Scull/Hammond edition I have and can be read there.

As with the previous CbC threads, this one remains open for later additions - anyone is welcome to post at any time!

[littlemanpoet]

I've been meaning to post about this for a few days. I've been thinking about Tolkien's treatment of animals in FGoH, which has been commented on by others on this thread.

When Tolkien wrote and published Giles, it was the time between Darwin and Goodall, when the scientific viewpoint was that animals were little more than machines. We may forget how much this viewpoint dominated intellectual opinion.

Tolkien's evocation of the Mare and Garm with so much personality was a radical departure from the norm, and for him I think that it was natural because of his Catholic sensibility.

Although Lewis' The Discarded Image was not published until 1964, I think the evidence is clear that Tolkien and Lewis shared the viewpoint of that image, which can be called "Incarnational."

That the evocation appeared in a comical work like Giles may have given leave to Tolkien's listeners to regard the animal personalities as 'of the times,' but I don't think Tolkien regarded it so. We know that he loved horses from experience, having worked with them during WW1. His knowledge and love of dogs is shared by most of us.

So I just wanted draw attention to Giles as a radical departure from the accepted norm of how one might write about animals. I have not looked into how other writers of Tolkien's time wrote them, which would be an interesting comparative study. Maybe it has already been done.

[Formendacil]

My desire to reply to this topic hasn't been delayed so much as my reading has! The anticipation of Progeny #2 somehow left less reading time than his appearance has, so I am now caught up on Farmer Giles. Two different things stood out to me between holding the infant and being fussed at by the small child.

1. The first is this sentence:

Garm was both proud and afraid of Giles, who could bully and brag better than he could.

It's a somewhat filtered description: this is Garm's view of Giles more than being strictly the narrator's, but I'm not sure that it's discordant with Giles as we come to know him. I'm of two minds here: on the one hand, Giles is presented as very much a "people's hero": practical, down-to-earth, reluctant to face the dragon, and much more a haggler than anyone else. Is he really then a bully and a braggart?

I wonder a bit about how much is Garm and how much is "true," not least given that both "bully" and "braggart" are words that do not have a positive connotation--certainly not in 2021, but I don't think they were exactly the words to describe a hero in 1930. And while Giles' threatening words every time Garm turns up (though, notably, never doing anything) might suggest that he has a less-than-enlightened attitude toward animals, perhaps the point here isn't that Giles IS a bully or a braggart, but that a very foolish dog thinks he is. The counterpoint for any bullying is Giles relationship with the Old Grey Mare (and maybe even with Chrysophylax).


The other thing that occurred to me was less of a question mark topic than that--more of an observation. Tolkien is sometimes identified as being a rather idealistic dreamer who wanted to return to some medieval vision and who is therefore not quite "Modern" or up-to-date. Certainly, his own stated preference in the Letters for anarcho-monarchism and various statements of being generally conservative in his biases do play into this. However, his view of the kings and knights in this story should be weighed heavily before taking that as unthinking idealism.

While it is certainly included as part of the humour of the tale, I don't think that the money-focused king or the etiquette-driven driven knights are JUST humour. Tolkien is undercutting the fairytale/Arthurian romantic view of how things were as much as he is also drawing on it. In this sense, even in this smaller, comedic story there's a recognition of human nature, a Denethor to go with Giles's Aragorn (a Master of Laketown to go with Giles's Bard). It is idealistic, but more in the sense of being aspirational--i.e. of knowing that it's not the norm than of thinking it ever was.

[Kuruharan]

Certainly, his own stated preference in the Letters for anarcho-monarchism and various statements of being generally conservative in his biases do play into this. However, his view of the kings and knights in this story should be weighed heavily before taking that as unthinking idealism.

I've always read that as resignation on Tolkien's part that all systems are each failures in their own way and that anarcho-monarchism was, in his view, the least bad rather than being particularly good because no system meets the standard of being "good."

A point of view I am not unsympathetic toward...but, taking a grim view of the world is practically de rigueur for being a true diehard Tolkien fan.

Congratulations and commiserations on Progeny #2.

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure which minor works thread to post this, but I figure I'll start here.

The Preamble: I heard an intriguing paper this morning on "Pardoning Saruman". It used medieval definitions and original research using Tolkien's drafts and manuscripts. It examined the nature of "queer". It was a very well argued, intelligent paper. So that led me off to look for more work from the presenter, Christopher Vacarro.

He has edited a book called "Tolkien and Alterity" which examines Tolkien's treatment of the "Other", with a positive conclusion for Tolkien's acceptance of the Other. I haven't read it, but I noted a chapter which hit on all the minor works. Maybe someone has read it?

The point to my post: Stephen Yandell, "Cruising Fairy: Queer Desire in Giles, Niggles and Smith". I have no idea how good it is, but if Vacarro edited it, I suspect it is worth at least a look-see.

[Bêthberry]

I"ve found a review of "Tolkien and Alterity" which provides some explanation of the paper on Tolkien's minor characters, Giles, Niggle, and Smith. I'll provide a quotation here for those interested in examining these characters from an outsider or "Other" perspective.

The third essay in this Part, Stephen Yandell’s “Cruising Faery: Queer Desire in Giles, Niggle, and Smith”(149-79) argues that Giles, Niggle and Smith, heroes of Tolkien’s shorterworks, “embody a range of non-straight positions while negotiating theiroutsider status within society”(152). The themes of marginalized individuals, mainstream conformity, and hidden lives recur in theseworks; the autobiographical aspect of Farmer Giles and Smith also becomes relevant in that professionally Tolkien explored “the margins of his already marginalized fields of medieval literature and language”(153), while the Middle-earth works were “a queer project, consistently challenging ‘segregation of the Other’”(154). Yandell points to the queering device of the manuscript in Farmer Gilesand Giles’s “negotiat[ing of]a range of shifting boundaries”(157); how Niggle’s “queerness is brandished as a strength”(163) and the male companionship (reminiscent of the Inklings) that he needs for his creative work; Smith’s “closeted class of faeries”(166) and how “narrativizing the desires of Faery [is] ‘faerying’ the text” (a wonderful term; 164). All this,he argues, show these characters’ trips to their respective Otherworlds as a form of “cruising”: “pursu[ing] forms of pleasure tied to non-straight character traits, follow[ing] desires that grow from internal conflicts, and respond[ing] actively to the ways in which their desires place them at odds with mainstream society”(169). Yandell’s paper is another type of exploration in how the symbolically sexualized aspects of characters and narratives can be used to detect the queerness, the alterity of the fantastic, and is a very welcome addition to the corpus of works dealing with Tolkien’s shorter fiction.

Some very interesting things to say about the protagonists of the minor works!

I might also point out that for many of these papers, "queer" is not necessarily a sexual status.

Kisor’s survey on “Queer Tolkien”emphasizes that queer need not be understood in terms of sexuality (although it can), but can also cover any kind of emphatic “difference.”The articles she includes provide various examples of these usages, but perhaps the most important point is the mention of Tison Pugh’s Queering Medieval Genres(26-7): Pugh’s contention that the queer has a “propensity . . . to subvert genre expectations” and “to destabilize narrative”(26) seem particularly applicable to Tolkien’s fictitious genres, which mix and interact with each other, thus not only “queering” the text by their “medievalness,”but even within that, by their use of difference to include in the fiction the interactions of those genres as themselves frustrating expectations.

The collection of essays is a celebration of Jane Chance's contributions to Tolkien Studies.

If anyone is interested in the review, it can be found here: https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=journaloftolkienresearch