Why Genealogies?

[Bêthberry]

A very interesting thread, Esty, and a rare one, as I cannot recall seeing this topic discussed in the ancient days of the Barrow.

Selmo's response about the class-riddled nature of the English society upon which Tolkien based his Shire is a good point. It reminds me of a book I read as a youngster about young Victoria, someday queen and empress. Her tutors had been forbifdden to tell her where she stood in line to the throne but as she was filling out, at the age of 11, her personal family tree upon the death of her uncle George (the IV), and writing in Uncle William now as William IV, she asked her tutor how she should fill out heir apparent. At that point, her tutor broke with his instructions and informed her to write in her own name. What a welcome to puberty that must have been.

Yet who outside the British nobility and aristocracy kept family geneologies? In many Protestant families, family Bibles were used to record marriages, births, deaths--and how fitting, considering how often "begats" form the record of the early books of the Bible. Yet I don't think the record of family histories is so easily traced for the lower classes.

Yet kinship is a fascinating topic, for that is essentially what geneologies trace. And kinship became a focus of formal study only in the late Victorian era and was predominant in anthropology in the early twentieth century, when Tolkien was himself an academic involved in, if one may say, the geneology of languages. Certainly his own created languages display an interest in language trees.

For anthropology of the early twentieth century, studying kinship systems was limited to studying early cultures, not the so-called modern Western cultures. So study was focussed on such societies as the various Aboriginal tribes of North America, Inuit groups in the north, south Pacific societies, and some African and Australian groups. Was Tolkien influenced by this focus on so called "primitive" cultures to give his hobbits an extensive kinship system, as a way of differentiating them from the elevated societies of elves? If so, he does not really give us much sense of what obligations this kinship created, of what obligations were involved in the organising of society this way. We know that Bilbo adopted his nephew Frodo upon the death of Frodo's parents. And we know something about the Sackville-Baggins' view of the kinship, which seems to have developed through extensive intermarriage. But we aren't really sure if degrees of kinship are related to inheritance or succession or how they created, if at all, patterns of behaviour in The Shire.

In a recent post (which I don't have time to find at the moment), Squatter of Amon Rudh suggested that the hobbits were a faulty society which had forgotten their mythological origins, a form of learning and history not forgotten in Gondor. If one accepts this valuation, it does seem that the hobbits' interest in family trees is regarded as a petty learning. Yet we do know how Arwen was related to Aragorn and that she was lost to history upon her death--having chosen mortal men. The elven kinship seems clearly related to inheritance and succession and we don't know if the non-ruling elven families had the same interest in family trees that hobbit families had.

So, was Tolkien merely borrowing the anthropological focus on indigenous cultures to characterise his hobbits? Or was something more involved, something which would prompt a Frodo to accept an obligation to preserve the group?

[Gwathagor]

correct spelling: genealogy

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

correct spelling: genealogy

Oops! My English skills have obviously diminished since living in Europe. I will edit the title and my first post so that they are correct. Thanks, Gwath!

Thanks to all who have added their thoughts to the discussion - I very much enjoy reading them. Selmo brings in an important British cultural aspect which is quite relevant. Interesting thought on philosophical depth, Legate!

Thanks for the cultural and anthropological comparisons, Bb - lots of food for thought there. Ibrîn, that's a very good quote on the Gondorian relationship to genealogies. Your thoughts on the connection between family trees and immortality are fascinating. Legate carries on what the two of you began, reflections on Elves and family history. It is interesting to realize that their ancestors were often still alive! I wonder, are family trees only interesting when the people listed on them are dead and gone?

Selmo, your last thought is quote practical - we know how much easier it is to keep track of historical (and faux-historical) characters when we have a written family tree on which to locate them.

I'm very much enjoying all of the contributions here!

[skip spence]

It seems to me genealogy is important amongst all the free peoples of Middle Earth, Elves included. Ibrin has already noted how much lineage seem to matter for the ex-Numenorians, with the dogmatic principles regarding the succession to the throne as the obvious example. When Eärnur was lost and Mardil took over the governance, his Stewardship became inheritable, but despite the passing of more than a thousand years they never ascended the throne, which is remarkable and I would be surprised if a real-life parallel to this could be found.

As for the Elves, I suppose the formal study of genealogy is less needed, as has been noted, since they are immortal within the limitations of Arda, and since most of their ancestors still exist, in Middle Earth or in the West. Their memory is also near flawless, and as the mind of most Elves seem to linger in the past, their family history would be lucid without the need for any formal, academic study. Lineage and Kinship seem to matter as much to them as it does to the Numenorians though. Once again, the obvious example is the succession order. One would think Elrond should be entitled to the High Kingship of Noldor (something more than just a formal title, I'd say) being a direct descendant of Finwe, but I suppose he isn't considered because he isn't a descendant father to father (His grandmother Idril, daughter of Turgon, once High King, being the missing link).

Note also that Gildor introduces himself to the Hobbits as "Gildor Inglorin of the house of Finrod", indicating that kinship is a big deal also to Elves. When Elrond speaks of Frodo, he is also "Frodo, son of Drogo". If lineage mattered little to Elves, he would not name him like this, I believe. There are other examples I can think of but I will leave it as this for the moment.

[Lalwendë]

Selmo's probably right. Tolkien created them so he probably thought he might as well pop them into the books as well, as they'd be as useful to the reader as to the writer - and hands up all those who have had a go at writing fantasy and have drawn up family trees. Heh, I bet most people have - along with that other staple, drawing a map (which is something else Bilbo liked).

Though it's not quite as poetic a reason for having them, I'll admit.

I happen to think Hobbits maintained records of ancestry mostly for purposes of determining inheritance, though that doesn't stop it from being a fascinating pastime to look up who they may be related to and so on...

However, genealogy was an important area of study for the upper classes, as lineage determined not just inheritance of fortunes but of nations - take a look at the family trees descending from Edward III And for those concerned with 'bloodlines' they determine pedigree, class and breeding - look at Jane Austen's snootier characters like Lady Catherine De Bourgh.

These days genealogy is an absorbing pastime enjoyed by people from all sorts of backgrounds, and I like to think this is in part due to how families are now spread out on a national and global scale and yet people still like to have some sense of roots, which they hope to find through searching their ancestry. I think in particular it affects those who live in 'colonised' countries like the USA and Canada as even though families may have been there for centuries, it's always intriguing to think of how/why they got there in the first place.

Would ordianry Elves need to maintain family trees? After all, they could just go and ask their great-great-aunt, couldn't they?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I happen to think Hobbits maintained records of ancestry mostly for purposes of determining inheritance, though that doesn't stop it from being a fascinating pastime to look up who they may be related to and so on...

Interesting ideas all round here, especially the point that the elves didn't need written records as they had the original witnesses still around, for the most part.

Well, cultures the world over used genealogies to determine not only inheritance but to define the limits of incest--who could marry who. Given the fecunity of hobbits, this probably was also a valuable function.

The Gondorian attitude is clearly more political than the attitude in The Shire, which to me still seems to harken back more to aboriginal cultures. For instance, we have the example of Gollem/Smeagol's branch of the hobbits, which apparently is (was?) matriarchial and used shunning as a form of communal punishment, which was (is?) used by religious groups to condemn proscribed behaviours whereas Gondor seems to be more legalistic. Perhaps this is simply because of the role of the Stewardship, which takes central focus on Gondor, and we hear little about other families. Hobbits seem to be a form of social or cultural organisation that is still largely based on the extended family rather than the nuclear family. Of course, it still didn't stop denizens of The Shire from typecasting families, such as the Tooks. At the very least, the family trees in The Shire suggest a conservative culture.

Is anyone very conversant in kinship in Viking/Scandinavian cultures? All I know is the prevalent use of patronymics rather than surnames.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, cultures the world over used genealogies to determine not only inheritance but to define the limits of incest...

Hmmm...that puts a whole new slant on a phrase such as "Being Merry with Mr. Bilbo is not always Rosie. "

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Is anyone very conversant in kinship in Viking/Scandinavian cultures? All I know is the prevalent use of patronymics rather than surnames.

I'm not too conversant in Nordic cultural naming conventions, but patronymics are most prevalent (Gottfredson, Ericson, or the Icelandic/Faroese dottir for female descendants); however, it seems patronymics are just as endemic in English history (perhaps the Anglo-Saxon variant?), with naming conventions ending in -son (Smithson, Williamson, Johnson, etc.), and in Irish and Scots genealogy (the O prefix in O'Neil, or Mc or Mac in McClellan or MacDonald).

[Lalaith]

Icelanders still use patronyms, genetive form of father's name + son/daughter depending on gender of child. Women always keep their patronymic surname whether they marry or not.
Matronyms are sometimes used in today's egalitarian society and also occasionally in Viking/Old Norse times.
Vikings would also use nicknames, for example Aud the Deepminded was daughter of Ketil Flatnose.
This is a fascinating subject on which I have a LOT to say, when I have time. Be warned. Icelandic has a lot of names for different kinds of relations which I just can't *wait* to bore you with.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I'm not too conversant in Nordic cultural naming conventions, but patronymics are most prevalent (Gottfredson, Ericson, or the Icelandic/Faroese dottir for female descendants); however, it seems patronymics are just as endemic in English history (perhaps the Anglo-Saxon variant?), with naming conventions ending in -son (Smithson, Williamson, Johnson, etc.), and in Irish and Scots genealogy (the O prefix in O'Neil, or Mc or Mac in McClellan or MacDonald).

Umm, well, is there an English/Scottish/Welsh/Anglo Saxon version of the -dottir variant? I don't think so. We've got tons of -sons but no Stuartdottir or Jamesgirl. And Rosie was Rosie Cotton, not Tomsdaughter.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So, was Tolkien merely borrowing the anthropological focus on indigenous cultures to characterise his hobbits? Or was something more involved, something which would prompt a Frodo to accept an obligation to preserve the group?

I think it might perhaps be a bit of both, although I'm most inclined to think that Tolkien was attempting to make the Hobbits the "most English" of the peoples of Middle-earth. Genealogy appears to be a pastime of the mortals rather than the immortals, no doubt because there are more generations of Hobbits and Men than there are of Elves (and possibly of Dwarves, but being secretive in nature, we know less about them). There are certainly aspects of the importance of lineage among the descendants of the Numenoreans; remember Faramir's comment to Frodo, "Kings made tombs more splendid than houses of the living, and counted old names in the rolls of their descent dearer than the names of sons." I find it interesting that the tracing of family history is a common interest among the "lowly" Hobbits and the "high" Numenoreans, particularly since it seems a more wholesome pursuit among the Hobbits. The Men of Gondor seem to have made it into something not exactly twisted, but also not quite healthy. In the Hobbits, it feels more like a connection to life, remembering all your relatives as part of one large family. And among the Numenoreans, it feels like a preoccupation with death and an attempt to gain some kind of immortality, in memory if not in the flesh. I often think that the people I know who are genealogy buffs are like the Numenoreans, searching for the nobility of their ancestors so that they can become a part of a family tree that will never die, since they themselves will, and fear becoming forgotton.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Wow, Ibri, it does not allow me to give you a reputation right now, so let me say it just here that I find what you said here very well-thought and very well said, and I would agree with what you say here about both the Hobbits and the Númenoreans (or Men in general, with the kind of "wish to preserve immortality by setting their name into a part of something", either history or inscribing it into stone somewhere. Hey, do not - or did not, maybe? Not as much anymore nowadays? - humans actually do that always, trying to find themselves immortality as part of something that transcends them, a history of a noble family, or a history of a country, a history of a movement?). The only question here would be - how do the Elves fit into the picture? What role does genealogy play among their kind? Except for the status of e.g. inheriting the title of the King of Noldor, there seems not to be much point in that. So, for myself, I would say that the Elves, except for when it comes to inheriting such a title, would actually have little interest for the genealogy themselves, neither of their own (since they could as well just remember it anyway, who is whose cousin, with their long lifespan, even if it had any high importance which I somehow doubt) nor of any other peoples (simply as, said with Lindir, "they have more important matters on their hands"). Maybe with the slight exception of following the lineage of Lúthien, which, however, was just a single and special case. But otherwise, probably just this High King of Noldor heritage and such.
Anyway I still think it is kind of weird for the Elves to have any hierarchy of nobility (an inherited one, the more) in their society at all. But that would be for a different topic.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Anyway I still think it is kind of weird for the Elves to have any hierarchy of nobility (an inherited one, the more) in their society at all. But that would be for a different topic.

Actually, I've often thought that (especially when I read things that make much of Legolas being "an Elven prince" ). "Prince" can merely mean the son of a king, not necessarily someone being groomed to inherit a throne that may never be emptied. Perhaps it made more sense in Middle-earth, where the minions of evil made life more dangerous, and even Elven kings could be slain, never to return to their throne. Even so, I tend to feel that the Elves place less importance on such lineage, because of their immortality, and the fact that two out of three of their first kings are still alive. Some of their family trees are quite short, since few of the Elves appear to have had more than two or three children, and they appear to take a long time before they even decide to contemplate marriage. Because LotR is "Hobbit-centric," the ways of the Elves seem perhaps more mysterious, but to me, it feels as if they are more concerned with finding fulfillment in their own lives than in reflection on the achievements or station of their ancestors -- many of whom are still around and active. In fact, it seems to me that the Elves who do put too much stock in their lineage (as in Feanor and his sons) come to unhappy ends. But that, too, could well be for a different discussion.

[Selmo]

Another thought on the importance of Genealogies:

Perhaps Tolkien first created genealogies for the First Age and earlier simply as a writers tool to help him keep track of who was who among the large number of characters. Were they ever intended for publicatuion?

Having got into the habit he just carried on when he came to write LoTR.
Having the family trees avaiable, perhaps making Hobbits obsesive about family connections was just an afterthought on Tolkien's part, to add a little more colour to Hobbit society.
.