Hobbit2 - Chapter 03 - A Short Rest

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by jallanite

To assume anything is never reasonable.

If that's your stance then we will just have to go on agreeing to disagree, because that is just leading around in circles. My opinion, will always be, the text (whether it be LOTR, The Hobbit, Silm...etc) is evidence, but not always is there a nifty and explicit statement. That is to say, at times, we have to interpret and make inferences (assumptions, theories, deductions, whatever you want to call it) about the text, in order to have discussions or form opinions on what it all means. If that is not reasonable to you, then we're at an impass.

In this case, Elrond being called chief in A Short Rest, correct me if any of these statements about your posts are inaccurate:

1) Elrond being called chief (of "some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors") is slender evidence of Elrond being an interim Chieftain during Aragorn's minority years. And you have not made any claim that this is the only explanation.

or

2) Bilbo didn't correctly distinguish between the Dunedain and Elrond and his chilren.

Now the way that I'm coming at this is...

With 1, it is slender evidence based on Elrond being called "their chief." And in fact, saying this reference to "chief" means Elrond could have been an interim Chieftain, is an assumption based on the text. In my opinion, 1 looks an unlikely option.

With 2, personally, saying a character mixed something up/recorded incorrectly at every moment of confusion, or conflict, is a cop out excuse. Obviously, anyone can disagree with me about this, but I don't like using the argument in #2 unless there is no other possible conclusion.

However, with 1 feeling unlikely to me, and 2 only being a general option when nothing else makes sense to me, what is another explanation? I believe this was the purpose of Form's posts, to use the context of Elrond's relationship with the Dunedain and offer another interpretation to why he's called "their chief."

I should be clear, that this is also my position, "chief" being an informal courtesy to highlight Elrond's relationship with the rangers. You are correct that there is no explicit statement for this interpration, but that does eqaute to having no evidence for my interpretation.

Matters appear to be more complicated. Chief is from Old French and originally meant simply ‘head’ and later came to be used to mean ‘head man’, ‘leader’. Chieftain is from Old French chevetain ‘captain’, ‘leader’. According to Sir Walter Scott’s novel Rob Roy, published in 1818, a Highland chieftain is the head of a branch of a clan but a chief is the head of a whole clan. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_clan_chief . Perhaps others here know more about this than I do.

It was really my mistake for bringing this part about chief and chieftains up, because I'm not someone who likes debating definitions. My point was to say that chief can mean the formal (or "legal" if you prefer) head of a clan, but it can also be used in the general sense of "foremost" or "leading." Someone who isn't an actual leader in a position of authority, but is rather a respected figure of authority.

Now, the evidence I speak of, mostly comes out of looking in the Appendix and interpretting the way Tolkien uses "Chieftain." Chieftain is used strictly as the formal head of the Dunedain, and it's only specified to the heirs of Isildur. When Arnor broke up, the heirs can no longer have the position "King of Arnor," thus we get to the King of Arthedain. Once the Kingdom of Arthedain is destroyed, the heirs of Isildur need a new formal title of leadership (since they are still the legal heads of the Dunedain), for that Tolkien comes up with Chieftain:

After Arvedui the North-kingdom ended, for the Dunedain were now few and al lthe peoples of Eriador diminished. Yet the line of kings was continued by the Chieftains of the Dunedain, of whom Aranarth son of Arvedui was the first.~Appendix A: Eriador, Arnor, and the Heirs of Isildur

And from the same section of the Appendix:

There were fourteen Chieftains, before the fifteenth and last was born, Aragorn II, who became again King of both Gondor and Arnor.

Chieftain is thus a hereditary position, for the purpose of continuing the line of Isildur. By Dunedain custom, when Aragorn is born he is the next Chieftain in line. This, to me, means Elrond can not hold the title of Chieftain, not even on an interim basis.

Now, what is Elrond's position in this period when Arathorn II dies and the next Chieftain, Aragorn is 2 years old (and during the Hobbit I believe he'd be about 10-11?).

Arahael his [Aranarth] son was fostered in Rivendell, and so were all the sons of the chieftains after him; and there also were kep the heirlooms of their house...~ibid

So, since Elrond can't be titled "Chieftain of the Dunedain", why is he referred to as their chief in The Hobbit? To me, this is evidence supporting "chief" in the casual meaning of the word, marking Elrond's importance with the Dunedain, while yet not being their official leader (Chieftain). Also, taking into account that he is a respected figure, with an established relationship amongst the Dunedain, is further evidence suggesting chief is being used as a courtesy title.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If that's your stance then we will just have to go on agreeing to disagree, because that is just leading around in circles. My opinion, will always be, the text (whether it be LOTR, The Hobbit, Silm...etc) is evidence, but not always is there a nifty and explicit statement. That is to say, at times, we have to interpret and make inferences (assumptions, theories, deductions, whatever you want to call it) about the text, in order to have discussions or form opinions on what it all means. If that is not reasonable to you, then we're at an impass.

Then we are at an impass. I try to read everything critically, but do not always succeed and do not know everything. An assumption is fine for giving a personal opinion, but not to convince anyone of anything.

You have convinced me from your evidence that Elrond being recognized informally as a chief by the Dúnedain is also a possible explanation. With no explicit evidence, that is a far as you can reasonably expect to go.

I should be clear, that this is also my position, "chief" being an informal courtesy to highlight Elrond's relationship with the rangers. You are correct that there is no explicit statement for this interpration, but that does eqaute to having no evidence for my interpretation.

It equates to something like slender evidence. It makes sense, but other explanations make sense.

In Scottish highland usage chief is used for the leader of a clan and chieftain for the leader of part of a clan. If one takes the half-elven as a clan, then Elrond would be chief of a clan which consists of his own children and the descendants of his brother Elros. The leader of the descendants of Elros in the North would be leader of a part of a clan and quite reasonably be called a Chieftain. Accordingly Elrond would be both Chief and Chieftain of his own part clan consisting of himself and his children and only Chief, but not Chieftain, of the Dúnedain of the North.

By this logic Elrond ought to be Chief of the Gondorians as well. But this logic was not followed in Gondor and probably was not followed in the North until the destruction of Arthedain when this clan structure was recognized by Aranarth who was the first Chieftain of the Rangers of the North with Elrond as Chief of his clan.

This argument considers that the number of generations between Elros and Aranarth was such that it was considered that almost all or all of the Dúnedain of the North were descended from Elros.

This is yet another logical explanation.

But I believe it no more or less than the other explanations because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence trumps everything.

Chieftain is thus a hereditary position, for the purpose of continuing the line of Isildur. By Dunedain custom, when Aragorn is born he is the next Chieftain in line. This, to me, means Elrond can not hold the title of Chieftain, not even on an interim basis.

To me the problem is that anything put forward only as meaning something to you is an admission that it is being put forward without evidence, and accordingly, at best, is only good fan fiction. And someone will point out that Elrond is not a Chieftain but a Chief, which in this case may, or may not, be equivalent to Lord Protector or to Regent.

What was the view of Estel (Aragorn) of the governance of the Rangers before he learned the truth about his birth and his hereditary position? Tolkien doesn’t tell and so information is not available.

[Boromir88]

I almost forgot to add some general things after reading the chapter a few days ago.

At first, I thought "wow these Elves seem uncharistically silly, with a snobbish attitude." Like my comments about the dwarves in Roast Mutton, the Elves in A Short Rest were jarring if compared to LOTR. But, relatively quickly, I remembered Gildor, who gives us a similar impression, poking fun at hobbits and wizards:

"But we have no need of other company, and hobbits are so dull," they laughed.~Three is Company

They might come off a bit too cheery, but their teasing of dwarves and laughter doesn't bother me as much when considering Gildor's company having a similar personality. Perhaps, Gildor serves as a transition from Elves who are leaving the troubles of Middle-earth and are thus meant to annoy us with their joking and rather dismissiveness of Frodo's danger. Then, in Rivendell, Elrond and others have stayed and while they are more serious, their kindness is displayed in a willingness to "fight the long defeat."

It's similar to this chapter in several ways. Bilbo and the dwarves overcome their trouble with the trolls and starvation by getting to Rivendell for necessary rest and recovery. The Elves (in general) come off as annoying snobs, who like to laugh and joke about other races. Yet, they still receive a minor (but important) help in deciphering Thror's map from Elrond.

Elrond's description is one of my favorite character descriptions in the book. Smaug is, without question, my favorite character in The Hobbit, but the description of Elrond is pure gold:

He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer.

I've often joked with other members Elrond would be the one most likely to take in an orc baby, raise the orc in Rivendell, and try to prove they can be redeemed. And I think this description, where he has notable qualities from each of the Middle-earth races is just...lovely.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Given the importance of Rivendell in the first movie, would it do to rush too quickly by it in TH movie?

I wonder if Jackson will do the moon letters and Thror's map bit here. I believe Hugo Weaving is a confirmed cast member, so presumably there will be scenes in Rivendell. I'm not sure what else they could do for this part other than the Thror's map discussion, and maybe Elrond giving some standard wise counsel about their journey ahead. I am interested in seeing how they portray Elrond in the films. In the LOTR movies he was too much of a grump for me, but maybe time-travelling back 60 years, will lighten Elrond's grouchiness?