What ain't there and ought to be. - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Child of the 7th Age · 01-27-2005, 01:06 AM

Bethberry -

What fascinating stuff! I love how you've tied in Tolkien's process of creation with the actual history of the woodlands and managed hillsides. And I think you are right.

I am reminded of one other piece of historical evidence that supports what you are saying, if only indirectly. At one time historians saw the enclosure movement as reaching a peak in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. More recent studies have pushed those dates back considerably, at least for certain parts of England. In the north, for example, where the enclosure movement was fueled by individual agreements between manorial lords and tenents (rather than the later Acts of Parliament) historians feel that the process was well under way by 1500. When it started is anyone's guess, but surely several hundred years before, as things like this take time.

If you stop and think about it, enclosure makes no sense unless you're talking about a countryside that has been largely stripped of trees. You need great expanses of fens, moors, commons and heath (to say nothing of arable fields and pasturelands) in order for enclosure to work--anything but dense forest. We generally think of the north as one of the "less tame" parts of GB, at least when compared with the southeast. Yet it's quite clear enclosure was proceeding apace in that part of the county during the medieval period: vast tracts of woodlands simply didn't exist.

It's interesting. When I lived/studied in Britain for a considerable chunk of time in the late 60s and early 70s, the Forestry Commission was throwing up connifers on every remote hillside, ostensibly to reforest and recapture the "old" landscape. The truth was that such areas were truly ugly. Miles and miles of a single type of tree hold absolutely no charm. There was nothing natural about it: it looked totally fake! I don't know if they still do this, but hopefully they don't.
I far preferred the "well tended gardens", country footpaths, and enclosed fields reminiscent of The Shire.

In the context of the Shire, it almost seems as if Tolkien could laud the individual tree like the party tree or the mallorn, yet still understand why the Bucklanders felt compelled to keep the wilder forest at bay. A forest like Fangorn or Greenwood or Lorien was a wonderful and mysterious thing....but it was still something to be kept on the other side of a well ordered hedge.

So I guess that's one more thing that's missing in the Shire: a truly wild wood. Of course there's Tuckborough and the Greenhill Country extending east to Woody End. But I never had the impression that this was anything more than a pleasant country woodland. It measures about 40 miles long but was no more than 10-12 miles wide. The Elves traipsed through it on their way west, so it was a special place in the Shire, but definitely not the wild wood that stood outside Buckland and in places like Greenwood.

Lalwendë · 01-27-2005, 10:37 AM

Bethberry and Child have prompted me into some 'mad' thinking again.

The wildwood of the UK had already started to disappear when people began farming, so the existence of an extensive wildwood is indeed well beyond the annals of history. Yet even now, 2% of the UK is said to be covered by 'wildwood', so it definitely exists, even if it is not as extensive, although it will rarely be a place of peace as it will be beset with pleasure seekers, as are the remnants of Sherwood today, sadly. But tales of the wildwood do exist, and this suggests that such tales must have been carried down through the ages.

When Tolkien claimed he wanted to create a mythology for the English he set out his stall very clearly, yet I always hope that when he made that impressive statement of intent that he meant a particular type of mythology, i.e. a written one. This is something which is lacking in comparison to some other cultures, but I hope that he did only mean this, as the English never have lacked a mythology. There is a wealth of myth and legend in England, much of it never written down, and which as a result has shifted over time through invasion, impositions of language (e.g. with the Normans, Latin was imposed for 'formal' use), religious oppression and change, and finally, early urbanisation in comparison to most other countries.

What myths already exist? There are the Robin Hood tales, which may not have been formalised until the medieval period, but we can say the same of tales about Arthur, and we accept that such tales must have existed orally before they were formalised. Robin Hood may have developed from a number of figures, who go by a variety of names including The Green Man, Cernunnos, The Horned God, John Barleycorn etc. Unfortunately, written tales simply did not exist, and so instead of a 'mythology', we have instead a 'folklore', the preserve of the ordinary people. One good source of older information might be found in folk song, which is particularly rich in images and was mostly untainted by the kind of religious or social impositions that might have restricted the kind of ideas presented in books or manuscripts.

The sense of the wildwood has never fully left English culture, even though it does not exist, and we can see this in how tales of Robin Hood, descended from those of the Old Gods, have remained popular to this day. Possibly, even the English obsession with gardening stems from a sense of something 'lost', that we all seek a little piece of wildwood of our own? On a small island, without much room for an extensive Wildwood, there are still some pockets existing today, and they are attractive to visitors, as anyone who has been in Sherwood on a Sunday will agree - though there is a deep irony in seeing queues of cars creeping along just to disgorge people who wish to visit the Major Oak and eat an ice cream as they gawp.

Yes, the English countryside had very definitely been 'tamed' thousands of years ago, but the stories remain to this day. And I do like to think that Tolkien knew this, and that he did mean he was creating, specifically, a written mythology. The evidence that he made use of 'the Old Gods' in his work is so strong that I cannot help thinking he was keenly aware that their stories had never been written down, that he wanted to include their stories in his work.

littlemanpoet · 01-27-2005, 02:52 PM

The thing that's tickling my brain now, based on the previous three posts, is that the Shire with its Hobbits, mediates Middle Earth to us. How could it (and they), unless it (and they) feel like where we are (like people we know of - if not ourselves)?

It's interesting (to me at least) that when I first read the account of Bilbo and the Dwarves passing through open, wild country between Hobbiton and Rivendell, my mind made an immediate connection between these wild forests, and those of continental Europe - Germany? The Black Forest?

So yes, I am intrigued by the "ain't there"-ness of wild woods, too. Bit of a ramble here.

Fordim Hedgethistle · 01-27-2005, 03:26 PM

It strikes me that perhaps in the descriptions of a wild and untamed forest we don't have a reflection of a much more modern European history: that of imperialism and colonial control. A recurring theme or motif in colonialist and imperialist literature is that of the "civilised" European entering into a landscape that in its sheer scale dwarfs the human. The "primitive" or "untamed" nature of such landscapes is a common idea in these accounts -- accounts which, of course, miss entirely the fact that these lands were not "untamed" or "wild" but very much in use by the inhabitants, just in ways and through methods that were different from the European models.

When the hobbits go into the Old Forest or Fangorn and see this foreign, frightening, and apparently uninhabited place, there is an unmistakable resemblance to the accounts of European travellers arriving in my own country way back in the day. The forests were thought to be 'unused' when, on the contrary, the native peoples had vast trading networks, large agricultural works and extensive hunting practices. They had not enclosed the land and subjected it to crop rotation, and so the Europeans saw it as "wild" -- by which they meant simply that it was different.

It's this same fear of difference or of otherness that really afflicts the denizens of the Shire. The Old Forest and Fangorn are inhabited, but they are inhabited by beings so different and "strange" from the hobbits that they are frightened by their "wildness".

I am not suggesting that Tolkien meant by these episodes to reflect in any conscious way on the nature of history of European colonial encounters, but there is an interesting analog possible. . .

davem · 01-28-2005, 04:43 PM

Wasn't the Wild Wood always a place of danger & magic? It was never a safe, comfortable place. Its not a place characters live, its a place they go to, & have adventures . There shouldn't be wildwood in the Shire because the Shire is not a place where one has adventures. Adventures are what you find when you've left the safety of the Shire.

For me, Tolkien displays the proper respect for the wildwood by not giving it a place in his safe little Shire. When it appears it is always depicted as a place of power & magic. It is awe-full. No-one ever leaves it as they entered. They emerge transformed - as they should.

littlemanpoet · 05-14-2005, 09:32 PM

Here's a new one: butchers.

There are a few lists of various this's and that's in the Shire, some of which are types of employment. There are farmers, millers, gardeners, mayors, postmen, shirriffs, innkeepers, cartwrights, smiths, ropers, et cetera. But no butchers. See page 15 of FotR for an example of a such a list. Is this another example of Tolkien's overly idyllic Shire? Or is a matter of "it wasn't in the story so it wasn't in the story"? Or is it a matter of farmers being the butchers in the Shire?

Celuien · 05-20-2005, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Here's a new one: butchers.

There are a few lists of various this's and that's in the Shire, some of which are types of employment. There are farmers, millers, gardeners, mayors, postmen, shirriffs, innkeepers, cartwrights, smiths, ropers, et cetera. But no butchers. See page 15 of FotR for an example of a such a list. Is this another example of Tolkien's overly idyllic Shire? Or is a matter of "it wasn't in the story so it wasn't in the story"? Or is it a matter of farmers being the butchers in the Shire?

Quote:

Dictionary.com...
butch·er. n.:

1.

a. One who slaughters and dresses animals for food or market.
b. One who sells meats.

2. One that kills brutally or indiscriminately.
3. A vendor, especially one on a train or in a theater.
4. One who bungles something.

[Middle English bucher, from Old French bouchier, from bouc, boc, he-goat, probably of Celtic origin.]

Perhaps it's the negative connotation associated with definition 2 that kept butchers out of the Shire. Even though we're clearly talking about the meat-seller definition, butcher isn't a neutral word when it comes to the connotation. I think it jars with the atmosphere of the Shire to introduce a word that could conjure up images of brutality. Hence, maybe butchers are left out of the Shire not because of an overly idyllic setting but rather because the word's associations don't fit with the portrayal of Hobbits.

01-27-2005, 01:06 AM	#1
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,133	Bethberry - What fascinating stuff! I love how you've tied in Tolkien's process of creation with the actual history of the woodlands and managed hillsides. And I think you are right. I am reminded of one other piece of historical evidence that supports what you are saying, if only indirectly. At one time historians saw the enclosure movement as reaching a peak in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. More recent studies have pushed those dates back considerably, at least for certain parts of England. In the north, for example, where the enclosure movement was fueled by individual agreements between manorial lords and tenents (rather than the later Acts of Parliament) historians feel that the process was well under way by 1500. When it started is anyone's guess, but surely several hundred years before, as things like this take time. If you stop and think about it, enclosure makes no sense unless you're talking about a countryside that has been largely stripped of trees. You need great expanses of fens, moors, commons and heath (to say nothing of arable fields and pasturelands) in order for enclosure to work--anything but dense forest. We generally think of the north as one of the "less tame" parts of GB, at least when compared with the southeast. Yet it's quite clear enclosure was proceeding apace in that part of the county during the medieval period: vast tracts of woodlands simply didn't exist. It's interesting. When I lived/studied in Britain for a considerable chunk of time in the late 60s and early 70s, the Forestry Commission was throwing up connifers on every remote hillside, ostensibly to reforest and recapture the "old" landscape. The truth was that such areas were truly ugly. Miles and miles of a single type of tree hold absolutely no charm. There was nothing natural about it: it looked totally fake! I don't know if they still do this, but hopefully they don't. I far preferred the "well tended gardens", country footpaths, and enclosed fields reminiscent of The Shire. In the context of the Shire, it almost seems as if Tolkien could laud the individual tree like the party tree or the mallorn, yet still understand why the Bucklanders felt compelled to keep the wilder forest at bay. A forest like Fangorn or Greenwood or Lorien was a wonderful and mysterious thing....but it was still something to be kept on the other side of a well ordered hedge. So I guess that's one more thing that's missing in the Shire: a truly wild wood. Of course there's Tuckborough and the Greenhill Country extending east to Woody End. But I never had the impression that this was anything more than a pleasant country woodland. It measures about 40 miles long but was no more than 10-12 miles wide. The Elves traipsed through it on their way west, so it was a special place in the Shire, but definitely not the wild wood that stood outside Buckland and in places like Greenwood. __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 01-27-2005 at 08:42 AM.

01-27-2005, 10:37 AM	#2
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Bethberry and Child have prompted me into some 'mad' thinking again. The wildwood of the UK had already started to disappear when people began farming, so the existence of an extensive wildwood is indeed well beyond the annals of history. Yet even now, 2% of the UK is said to be covered by 'wildwood', so it definitely exists, even if it is not as extensive, although it will rarely be a place of peace as it will be beset with pleasure seekers, as are the remnants of Sherwood today, sadly. But tales of the wildwood do exist, and this suggests that such tales must have been carried down through the ages. When Tolkien claimed he wanted to create a mythology for the English he set out his stall very clearly, yet I always hope that when he made that impressive statement of intent that he meant a particular type of mythology, i.e. a written one. This is something which is lacking in comparison to some other cultures, but I hope that he did only mean this, as the English never have lacked a mythology. There is a wealth of myth and legend in England, much of it never written down, and which as a result has shifted over time through invasion, impositions of language (e.g. with the Normans, Latin was imposed for 'formal' use), religious oppression and change, and finally, early urbanisation in comparison to most other countries. What myths already exist? There are the Robin Hood tales, which may not have been formalised until the medieval period, but we can say the same of tales about Arthur, and we accept that such tales must have existed orally before they were formalised. Robin Hood may have developed from a number of figures, who go by a variety of names including The Green Man, Cernunnos, The Horned God, John Barleycorn etc. Unfortunately, written tales simply did not exist, and so instead of a 'mythology', we have instead a 'folklore', the preserve of the ordinary people. One good source of older information might be found in folk song, which is particularly rich in images and was mostly untainted by the kind of religious or social impositions that might have restricted the kind of ideas presented in books or manuscripts. The sense of the wildwood has never fully left English culture, even though it does not exist, and we can see this in how tales of Robin Hood, descended from those of the Old Gods, have remained popular to this day. Possibly, even the English obsession with gardening stems from a sense of something 'lost', that we all seek a little piece of wildwood of our own? On a small island, without much room for an extensive Wildwood, there are still some pockets existing today, and they are attractive to visitors, as anyone who has been in Sherwood on a Sunday will agree - though there is a deep irony in seeing queues of cars creeping along just to disgorge people who wish to visit the Major Oak and eat an ice cream as they gawp. Yes, the English countryside had very definitely been 'tamed' thousands of years ago, but the stories remain to this day. And I do like to think that Tolkien knew this, and that he did mean he was creating, specifically, a written mythology. The evidence that he made use of 'the Old Gods' in his work is so strong that I cannot help thinking he was keenly aware that their stories had never been written down, that he wanted to include their stories in his work. __________________ Gordon's alive!

01-27-2005, 03:26 PM	#4
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	It strikes me that perhaps in the descriptions of a wild and untamed forest we don't have a reflection of a much more modern European history: that of imperialism and colonial control. A recurring theme or motif in colonialist and imperialist literature is that of the "civilised" European entering into a landscape that in its sheer scale dwarfs the human. The "primitive" or "untamed" nature of such landscapes is a common idea in these accounts -- accounts which, of course, miss entirely the fact that these lands were not "untamed" or "wild" but very much in use by the inhabitants, just in ways and through methods that were different from the European models. When the hobbits go into the Old Forest or Fangorn and see this foreign, frightening, and apparently uninhabited place, there is an unmistakable resemblance to the accounts of European travellers arriving in my own country way back in the day. The forests were thought to be 'unused' when, on the contrary, the native peoples had vast trading networks, large agricultural works and extensive hunting practices. They had not enclosed the land and subjected it to crop rotation, and so the Europeans saw it as "wild" -- by which they meant simply that it was different. It's this same fear of difference or of otherness that really afflicts the denizens of the Shire. The Old Forest and Fangorn are inhabited, but they are inhabited by beings so different and "strange" from the hobbits that they are frightened by their "wildness". I am not suggesting that Tolkien meant by these episodes to reflect in any conscious way on the nature of history of European colonial encounters, but there is an interesting analog possible. . . __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.

01-28-2005, 04:43 PM	#5
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	Wasn't the Wild Wood always a place of danger & magic? It was never a safe, comfortable place. Its not a place characters live, its a place they go to, & have adventures . There shouldn't be wildwood in the Shire because the Shire is not a place where one has adventures. Adventures are what you find when you've left the safety of the Shire. For me, Tolkien displays the proper respect for the wildwood by not giving it a place in his safe little Shire. When it appears it is always depicted as a place of power & magic. It is awe-full. No-one ever leaves it as they entered. They emerge transformed - as they should. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

01-27-2005, 02:52 PM	#3
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	The thing that's tickling my brain now, based on the previous three posts, is that the Shire with its Hobbits, mediates Middle Earth to us. How could it (and they), unless it (and they) feel like where we are (like people we know of - if not ourselves)? It's interesting (to me at least) that when I first read the account of Bilbo and the Dwarves passing through open, wild country between Hobbiton and Rivendell, my mind made an immediate connection between these wild forests, and those of continental Europe - Germany? The Black Forest? So yes, I am intrigued by the "ain't there"-ness of wild woods, too. Bit of a ramble here.

05-14-2005, 09:32 PM	#6
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Here's a new one: butchers. There are a few lists of various this's and that's in the Shire, some of which are types of employment. There are farmers, millers, gardeners, mayors, postmen, shirriffs, innkeepers, cartwrights, smiths, ropers, et cetera. But no butchers. See page 15 of FotR for an example of a such a list. Is this another example of Tolkien's overly idyllic Shire? Or is a matter of "it wasn't in the story so it wasn't in the story"? Or is it a matter of farmers being the butchers in the Shire?