Farmer Maggot's Dogs

[Inziladun]

First off, there's no evidence that the dogs ever "savaged" anyone. As Frodo said:

'I daresay the beasts knew their business and would not really have touched me.'

And as Pippin noted,

'But after all, folk down here are near the border and have to be more on their guard.'

So yes, I think Maggot was reasonable to keep dogs for that alone, mushrooms aside.

As for the Ringwraith encounter, it was hardly likely to end in death. They were in the Shire covertly, and I can't see them killing any hobbits just for grins.

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

First off, there's no evidence that the dogs ever "savaged" anyone. As Frodo said:



And as Pippin noted,



So yes, I think Maggot was reasonable to keep dogs for that alone, mushrooms aside.

As for the Ringwraith encounter, it was hardly likely to end in death. They were in the Shire covertly, and I can't see them killing any hobbits just for grins.

I think Maggot makes it clear to Merry that he was going to set his dogs on anyone who was caught trespassing after the encounter with the Nazgul, of whom he also said nearly ran him over with his horse had he not got out of the way at the last moment. Lucky for Maggot that this was not the Lord of the Nazgul. He was never going to frighten a Nazgul with his three dogs.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

I think Maggot makes it clear to Merry that he was going to set his dogs on anyone who was caught trespassing after the encounter with the Nazgul, of whom he also said nearly ran him over with his horse had he not got out of the way at the last moment. Lucky for Maggot that this was not the Lord of the Nazgul. He was never going to frighten a Nazgul with his three dogs.

Well, Nazgûl were a bit out of Maggot's experience, so he can be forgiven for not appreciating the danger. I don't think the wraith meant to kill him by running him down: just a friendly was of telling him "thanks for nothing".

Then again, Maggot is credited by both Merry, and more importantly, Bombadil, as being more aware and knowledgeable than the usual hobbit. Think of the way he was quick to connect the Nazgûl with Bilbo's adventure decades before. Maggot almost certainly didn't know the nature of the Ringwraiths, but he knew or intuited that they were evil, and not merely nosy about Baggins gossip.

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Well, Nazgûl were a bit out of Maggot's experience, so he can be forgiven for not appreciating the danger. I don't think the wraith meant to kill him by running him down: just a friendly was of telling him "thanks for nothing".

Then again, Maggot is credited by both Merry, and more importantly, Bombadil, as being more aware and knowledgeable than the usual hobbit. Think of the way he was quick to connect the Nazgûl with Bilbo's adventure decades before. Maggot almost certainly didn't know the nature of the Ringwraiths, but he knew or intuited that they were evil, and not merely nosy about Baggins gossip.

It is admirable that Maggot did stand up to the Nazgul. But it was foolish, and if it not were but for the fact that they were still absent of the Ring, they may well have killed him, or even used the morgul blade on him. The Lord of the Nazgul may not have been as merciful as that other Nazgul, but neverthless they had more pressing concerns than seeing Maggot dead. The dogs were of little defence. Perhaps Maggot had learned something from the power of Bombadil that may have had some part to play in sending the Nazgul on his way without too much fuss. It is said that the Nazgul had little physical power over the fearless.

I can suggest that the dogs may have unsettled, and even wounded, the steed which the Nazgul rode, but that was the limit of their use. It is still questionable whether Maggot had the right and authority to threaten anyone with his dogs, even if trespassing by mistake.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

It is still questionable whether Maggot had the right and authority to threaten anyone with his dogs, even if trespassing by mistake.

As master of his lands, Farmer Maggot had complete authority to drive trespassers off his lands, with dogs or with weapons, for matter. Up until very recent times in Britain, poachers were summarily shot or hanged. Property rights trumped personal liberties for centuries, laws supporting landlords were harsh, and considering Maggot lived on the marches of the Shire, there was practically no law save for what he considered proper to protect his interests.

[Mithalwen]

Morth, where did you find that? Poaching hasn't been a capital offence in England for nearly 200 years. Are you an elf?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Morth, where did you find that? Poaching hasn't been a capital offence in England for nearly 200 years. Are you an elf?

I've read of instances occurring in the mid-19th century, Mith. In fact, in Cornwall there is a sign that reads the following:

Take notice that as of from today's date poachers shall be shot on first sight and if practicable questioned afterwards. By order: J.R. Bramble, Head Gamekeeper to His Grace the Duke of Gumby. 1st November 1868

Humorous, I know, but even after death sentences were repealed for poaching, the Night Poaching Act of 1828 provisioned as a sentence transport to Tasmania. In any case, the "recent times" I was referring to is in contrast to when the Shire existed, which would be distant indeed.

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As master of his lands, Farmer Maggot had complete authority to drive trespassers off his lands, with dogs or with weapons, for matter. Up until very recent times in Britain, poachers were summarily shot or hanged. Property rights trumped personal liberties for centuries, laws supporting landlords were harsh, and considering Maggot lived on the marches of the Shire, there was practically no law save for what he considered proper to protect his interests.

Maggot is what I would like to think of as a gentleman, and not a brutal enforcer of punishment. His friendship with Bombadil would go out of the window if the dogs were used to effect as he threatened to on hobbits or the big folk unmercifully. Sooner or later the tables would turn and his own farm would be attacked by a greater enemy and all his kindred slain if he had killed a trespasser previously. Did he have the right to protect his land? Yes. Did he have the right and authority to kill trespassers at unawares with his dogs? In my book absolutely not.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Maggot is what I would like to think of as a gentleman, and not a brutal enforcer of punishment. His friendship with Bombadil would go out of the window if the dogs were used to effect as he threatened to on hobbits or the big folk unmercifully. Sooner or later the tables would turn and his own farm would be attacked by a greater enemy and all his kindred slain if he had killed a trespasser previously.

Again, there is no evidence that the dogs ever killed, or even injured, anyone. Pippin and Merry were friends of Maggot's, knowing full well that he had dogs guarding his land. Obviously, that was not out of the ordinary, at least for that part of the Shire near the Old Forest.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Lucky for Maggot that this was not the Lord of the Nazgul. He was never going to frighten a Nazgul with his three dogs.

Oh, I don't know about the Witch-king. There was that ol' prophesy about him, "...and not by the hand of man shall he fall." which potentially could been applied by any of the three dogs or their master.

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

First off, there's no evidence that the dogs ever "savaged" anyone. As Frodo said:



And as Pippin noted,



So yes, I think Maggot was reasonable to keep dogs for that alone, mushrooms aside.

As for the Ringwraith encounter, it was hardly likely to end in death. They were in the Shire covertly, and I can't see them killing any hobbits just for grins.

There is such a thing as drawing fire with fire, and Maggot and his three large dogs would have been over matched by an enemy eventually if they openly threatened anyone who entered his land. I think he would have been wiser to use a more subtle approach on the outskirts of the Shire.

Originally Posted by IxnaY AintsaY

Oh, I don't know about the Witch-king. There was that ol' prophesy about him, "...and not by the hand of man shall he fall." which potentially could been applied by any of the three dogs or their master.

I can't see how the dogs could successfully defeat the Witch-king. The prophecy was only a prediction by Glorfindel, not necessarily a reality, but Maggot was not Tom Bombadil. Who knows what he could do?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

There is such a thing as drawing fire with fire, and Maggot and his three large dogs would have been over matched by an enemy eventually if they openly threatened anyone who entered his land. I think he would have been wiser to use a more subtle approach on the outskirts of the Shire.

It depends whether you're talking about the Ringwraiths specifically or trespassers in general. Wolves or trespassing Big Folk might have been seen as a possible threat, but Orcs had not entered the Shire in nearly three hundred years. The dogs would probably be enough to keep troublemakers at bay, which was probably the extent of his or indeed many hobbits' thinking on the subject, as wise as Maggot himself was. Maggot obviously had no knowledge of the Ringwraiths so I fail to see how he could be expected to take any other plan of action except one according to his own wisdom and knowledge of the situation. It may not have been effective, but he can hardly be expected to have taken a Ringwraith-specific plan of action given that he didn't know what they were.

It is still questionable whether Maggot had the right and authority to threaten anyone with his dogs, even if trespassing by mistake.

Given that there was no real government Maggot, much like any other hobbit, had the right and authority to do as he pleased, constrained more by the bounds of common sense than any law or constitution.

Perhaps Aragorn ought to have arrested him for keeping such large and dangerous animals?

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Perhaps Aragorn ought to have arrested him for keeping such large and dangerous animals?

I was going to ask the same question before I saw your post.

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I was going to ask the same question before I saw your post.

I think the Council, and other great powers like Lorien and Gondor, had better things to do than arrest Maggot for killing a trespasser with his dogs. But he may have been tried by the highest power available in the Shire?

[Mithalwen]

It is clear to me from the scouring of the shire that the vilent death of hobbits in their own land was pretty much unheard of. Also that Magots dogs were not truly dangerous from Frodos words - alarm and deterrent not offensive weapons. To suggest that Buckland was some lawless violent and anarchic badland is ludicrous. Had Maggot been a danger to the community, no doubt the Master would have taken action but really this sort of extrapolation is the realm of speculative fan fic.

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is clear to me from the scouring of the shire that the vilent death of hobbits in their own land was pretty much unheard of. Also that Magots dogs were not truly dangerous from Frodos words - alarm and deterrent not offensive weapons. To suggest that Buckland was some lawless violent and anarchic badland is ludicrous. Had Maggot been a danger to the community, no doubt the Master would have taken action but really this sort of extrapolation is the realm of speculative fan fic.

I think you have got carried away here. The visit by the Nazgul had made Maggot exceptionally sensitive to trespassers, and the dogs would be used unmercifully from then on, that is the impression he gave to Merry.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

the highest power available in the Shire?

There was no power. There was no government. Both the Mayor and the Thain were, at least by that point, almost purely ceremonial positions.