Why Genealogies?

[shadowfax]

Just my own irrelevant observations here.

In contrast to the Elves of Dwarves, the Hobbits didn't have much of a heroic mythology they could refer to or justify their nationhood with. They didn't like or seek out adventures and things stayed more or less the same for generations.

Now mythologies are important things for nation building. Americans have a fascination for the Founding Fathers, the Civil War, the Civil Rights era etc and especially the individual leaders who moved and changed things during those crucial periods. The Germans do similarly with Charlemaigne, their great philopshers, heroes of the anti-Nazi resistance etc. The French have Joan of Arc, the philosophers and heroes of the Revolution, Chales de Gaulle etc. In any town you can find streets, schools and monuments named after these figures. Quoting their words is almost akin to quoting from the Bible. I'm intentionally leaving out England here as I think England doen't really have a culture of worshipping heroes. Smaller nations who have had a less warlike history need to look to less mythological figures to define their nationhood. Quite often this means people behind smaller invetions and people who achieved smaller things.

So not having mythology, the next best thing is to study the smaller deeds of your great-grand uncles. Cue Merry's ability to entertain Theoden with the back-history of the Hornblower leaf.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by shadowfax

Just my own irrelevant observations here.

In contrast to the Elves of Dwarves, the Hobbits didn't have much of a heroic mythology they could refer to or justify their nationhood with. They didn't like or seek out adventures and things stayed more or less the same for generations.

Now mythologies are important things for nation building. Americans have a fascination for the Founding Fathers, the Civil War, the Civil Rights era etc and especially the individual leaders who moved and changed things during those crucial periods. The Germans do similarly with Charlemaigne, their great philopshers, heroes of the anti-Nazi resistance etc. The French have Joan of Arc, the philosophers and heroes of the Revolution, Chales de Gaulle etc. In any town you can find streets, schools and monuments named after these figures. Quoting their words is almost akin to quoting from the Bible. I'm intentionally leaving out England here as I think England doen't really have a culture of worshipping heroes. Smaller nations who have had a less warlike history need to look to less mythological figures to define their nationhood. Quite often this means people behind smaller invetions and people who achieved smaller things.

So not having mythology, the next best thing is to study the smaller deeds of your great-grand uncles. Cue Merry's ability to entertain Theoden with the back-history of the Hornblower leaf.

The Hobbits have tales of Bullroarer Took and the war with the wargs and goblins in the Battle of Greenfields, but that's about it. I suppose Gerontius Took was a well known figure, too.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by shadowfax

In contrast to the Elves of Dwarves, the Hobbits didn't have much of a heroic mythology they could refer to or justify their nationhood with. They didn't like or seek out adventures and things stayed more or less the same for generations.

Did Hobbits have a very strong concept of "nationhood"? The structure of their society seems in some ways to have circumvented the concept of the State (a concept of which Professor Tolkien appears to have disapproved - see Letter 52) particularly in its lack of formal government.

The interest in genealogies evokes to me the notion presented in the Prologue that Hobbits "liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions." It seems to me to be associated with that not-entirely-involuntary myopia which seems to have been a characteristic of Hobbit society's psychological survival in a dangerous world: establishing what they did know, and convincing themselves that that was all there was to know, or all that anyone would ever need to know.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

The interest in genealogies evokes to me the notion presented in the Prologue that Hobbits "liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions." It seems to me to be associated with that not-entirely-involuntary myopia which seems to have been a characteristic of Hobbit society's psychological survival in a dangerous world: establishing what they did know, and convincing themselves that that was all there was to know, or all that anyone would ever need to know.

Yes, indeed. I think the Hobbits had become so comfortable and contented with their state in the world that their insularity was a foregone conclusion.
Other races, such as the Dwarves and exiled Númenóreans set a lot of store by ancestry, but that seems to have been mainly confined to establishing links to royalty and "noble" blood.
Hobbits were, of course, only afforded the luxury of being able to focus on mundane matters through the efforts of Gandalf and the Rangers. I know of no other group in Middle-earth that could allow themselves to focus so inwardly for so long.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Inziladun:

I know of no other group in Middle-earth that could allow themselves to focus so inwardly for so long.

Except, perhaps, the Ents.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by radagastly

Except, perhaps, the Ents.

Well, that's true. Due to their shrinking population and having their dwelling-place protected by an aura of fear, they were pretty much unthreatened. I'd put them apart from Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits though.
Also, Ents don't seen concerned with genealogies, probably because their family trees (ha!) would only have had a branch or two, due to their longevity and slow rate of breeding.

[shadowfax]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Well, that's true. Due to their shrinking population and having their dwelling-place protected by an aura of fear, they were pretty much unthreatened. I'd put them apart from Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits though.
Also, Ents don't seen concerned with genealogies, probably because their family trees (ha!) would only have had a branch or two, due to their longevity and slow rate of breeding.

And such things would have taken a long long time to recite.

As far as we know, Ents didn't write anything down. I suppose they didn't need to as their memories stretched back virtually to the dawn of time.

[Mithalwen]

I don't think Ents would approve much of writing on paper, probably not think it was worth killing trees for... though you can, write on parchment which involves killing animals... maybe they could have used paper made from oliphaunt dung with a clear conscience ( I was givem some elephant dung stationery once).