Why Genealogies?

[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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Umm, well, is there an English/Scottish/Welsh/Anglo Saxon version of the -dottir variant? I don't think so.

I don't believe I ever inferred there was. *shrugs*

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

We've got tons of -sons but no Stuartdottir or Jamesgirl. And Rosie was Rosie Cotton, not Tomsdaughter.

Well, as females were mere chattel in jolly old England, what would be the point of recognizing them?

*runs for cover in case of possible feminine animosity*

[Lalaith]

Apart from Icelanders, the only other people I know that still keep the male/female patronymic system are the Russians: ov/ova; ev/eva.