Minor Works -- 1 - Farmer Giles of Ham

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Which characters do you enjoy most? How do you like the abundance of Latin names used? What opinion do you have of the talking dog? Do you enjoy the parodic humour?

Let's stay with the first adventure for now - it paves the way for the events that follow.

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king.

Augustus Bonifacius Ambrosius Aurelianus Antoninus Pius et Magnificus, dux rex, tyrannusm et Basileus Mediterranearum Partium

My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

Anyways, I am mystified why a greek word appears in our story. I mean as far as I know it was never used in Latin...

Later we learn that the sword Tailbiter used to belong to the famed dragon-slayer Bellomarius, and now I am ready to go into conspiracy theory mode.

Bellomarius is such a strange name, and just too similar to Belisarius, the greatest Byzantine general of all time (instrumental in Justinian's attempt to reconquer the western half of the empire).

I look forward to see how the rise of Islam, Iconoclasm and the first crusade have been incorporated in the later stages of this book, as they no doubt have.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king....

My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

Anyways, I am mystified why a greek word appears in our story. I mean as far as I know it was never used in Latin...

The original meaning of "dux" was military leader (before it became attached to the aristocracy (duke in English, duc in French). So, King Arthur is referred to in some early texts as dux bellorum (war leader/general of battles). Given the pompous title Tolkien gives the king, I would consider dux rex to be "lord of all generals."

As far as the Greek basileus appearing in Tolkien's story (and the dragon's name Chrysophylax is Greek as well), basileus was used in the Eastern regions of the Roman Empire in reference to the Emperor in Rome (Imperator). The use of the term basileus survived in the West up until Charlemagne, who was recognized as "basileus Rhomaíōn" by the Byzantines as the titular ruler of Rome and emperor of the West.

It's basically the scruffy king of Mercia putting on airs, as evinced by the further title Mediterranearum Partium, usually in reference to the Mediterranean Sea, is here more a conveyance for imparting that the King reigns over the English Midlands, because Mediterranean literally means "in the middle of land, inland": medius ("middle"), terra ("land, earth").

Even the king's ponderous name Augustus Bonifacius Ambrosius Aurelianus Antoninus Pius (minus the titles) refers to the pre-Saxon Romano-British society of the Britons, and each aspect of the name concerns a certain personage in Briton history (Ambrosius Aurelianus, for instance, was a famous hero of Romano-British resistance to the invading Saxons).

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king.



My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

I too had noticed this oddity.

In the notes in the 50th Anniversary Edition it says thusly:

Basileus is also 'king', but with the suggestion of 'administrator'.

I must admit I had never seen basileus as carrying that connotation before that footnote, and I don't think I have ever seen it again. I'm not sure where the editors got that reference from.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I have finally the time to join in. Let me start just on the Foreword first...

Originally Posted by Inziladun

We have the scene set in England, but in a time that cannot be precisely set, much like Middle-earth (but much less removed).

It too struck me as obvious forerunner (well, or not exactly forerunner, rather, co-runner) of all the Aelfwine stuff and the attempt to frame also Middle-Earth into an "oh, this is real-world translated from ancient XY". Tolkien clearly was a lot into this, or at least he had a stage where he had been very much using that form.

It actually made me think not that it was just a satire, as some have mentioned here, but that perhaps he was simply following certain trends that had been there in 19th century and its echoes were probably still present, or it may have had enough influence on Tolkien in his youth and studies.

I am referring to the whole "hobby" many writers picked up around the time when all the national revivals were popping up around Europe and the renewed interest in trying to find old national myths. And that whole era marked with discoveries (and perhaps even more often, "discoveries") and renewed interest in national epics and stories (and not just among scholars, but exactly among the wide public) - ranging from real ones like the Niebelungenlied, through collected and admittedly modified ones like the Kalevala, to utter fakes presented as real things, like the Scottish Ossian or the Russian Slovo o pulku Igoreve (yes, I know it is still being debated, but I am with those that think that enough proofs have been made to show that it was fake).

I mean, did not Tolkien himself say that with his legendarium, he started with the ambition to write an "authentic" English myth? It is exactly the same kind of approach that the authors of the "fake myths" had, only admitted one. He had the advantage of having the distance of a hundred years from all that, but I can imagine how doing that would appeal to a writer with an interest in history and linguistics. Heck, it would appeal to one even now!

So Farmer Giles seems to me to be a by-product of the same "hobby". The "hobby" that many writers had had, well, since antiquity in fact (Journal of Dictys), but spiked again in recent past and could have been an inspiration to Tolkien, something he wanted to try. Obviously, Giles *is* framed as a joke, but that does not matter - it was an exercise utilising the same form, only not with a serious intent. But in technical terms it is no different from the fake manuscripts - an educated writer that knows something about a certain past era writes a completely imaginary story and plays with the ideas on how to connect it to existing places and other known myths.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In regards to the Forward, when Tolkien references the "Little Kingdom" I believe the conjecture is that he was referring to Surrey or Frithwuld's Surrey, a 7th century sub-kingdom of Mercia. Let the anachronisms begin with Giles' blunderbuss.

With my very generic knowledge of the history of Britain with many gaps, I always wondered whether "Little Kingdom" referred to something "real" (as in, that there was actually something called that, by whomever). So I take it that there wasn't, but if you wanted to take it as "real", you could identify it with something?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tolkien's Foreward satirises scholarly concerns at the time over the origins of fairy tales and nursery rhymes. King Coel is non other than a reference to the children's nursery rhyme about Old King Coel, who was a merry old soul, who called for his pipe and his bowl and his fiddlers three. There had been much scholarly ado trying to discover which historical character is referred to in the nursery rhyme but scholars came up empty handed (or dry penned?) Sir Walter Scott even joined the speculation There were attempts to link Coel with Arthur's legends. So all in all this little satirical reference shows Tolkien's own interest in the legends and possibly the mythology of his little island, an interest which produced what we now know as The Book of Lost Tales, while providing, significantly, a satirical slight on the study of nursery rhymes not as art or story or entertainment but as historical content
.

This is basically in line of what I was thinking. And nice, even with my only second-hand experience with English nursery rhymes, I immediately thought that this was referrence to Old King Coel - I am glad this confirms it.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Also, I'm a little saddened I only have the book in Finnish; while the translation is good, the story is so English that it seems already after the introduction that one is losing quite a bit by not reading it in the original. I'll cope, I guess!

Yes, there is no copy of English Farmer Giles in our house - I, on the other hand, am reading it in Czech translation. Nonetheless, I believe it is a quality one, and perhaps we are going to stumble upon something that will stand out differently in that way.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Now that I think of it, it's rather fascinating how he often wrote - in a way - for scholars and children at the same time, which is not really a common combination.

Really? I actually disagree. Or, okay, maybe it is not *as* common, but I think there is a lot of books - and that is actually the best kind of literature in my opinion - that are written "for children", but have some hidden jokes in there if not necessarily for scholars, then for the parents. And often these can be pretty elaborate, up to the point of being rather "for scholars" than for any "average parents". I'm thinking you might find probably something like that in the Moomins. But at least the "inside jokes for parents" is certainly a thing that is present in a lot of things written for very little children (it is probably there for the relief of parents who would otherwise have to plough through some stupidity just because their child does).

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Or how many others would bother to establish what language the story is written, and what they're telling us it was translated from? And the trope of the somewhat unreliable translator-narrator passing on an old story, obscuring the truth of what "really happened," is of course the second thing. It is very much like the whole narrative framing of the Red Book of Westmarch.

That is exactly what made me think about the "fabricated old epics" framework.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Farmer Giles has never felt quite Middle-earthen to me, which makes him stand stand out from both Roverandom and The Hobbit, which are its nearest comparisons in his catalogue.

Interestingly, Giles to me somehow seemed fairly Middle-Earthy on first reading: maybe it was because of the dragon. But let's see if I get the same impression this time.

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I know nothing of latin, but I have taken an interest in the Eastern Roman Empire (don't be surprised if I start a thread drawing comparisons with Gondor) and so I recognise the Greek title of Basileus in the title of the king.

My guess is that it is used in accordance with Byzantine customs to mean emperor. It could also just mean king, but rex is already part of the title so it seems unlikely.

Anyways, I am mystified why a greek word appears in our story. I mean as far as I know it was never used in Latin...

I think Morthoron has already addressed that; personally I recall (but do not have a source at hand) Basileus used somewhere in some circumstances in the medieval Latin-speaking world too, maybe as the sort of mix-and-match, and exactly redundantly in the sense like this. Otherwise at least as far as I can speak for 1-3rd century Greek, basileus was simply a "ruler" there. For that matter, the world "tyrannus" also was not originally Latin (although that was being used), and it just sounds like adding more redundant titles that just make it sound like "how many times can we say that I am a ruler in different ways to hammer the point". But if you read the King's name and simply swap "basileus" with "ruler", it sounds perfectly normal.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

With my very generic knowledge of the history of Britain with many gaps, I always wondered whether "Little Kingdom" referred to something "real" (as in, that there was actually something called that, by whomever). So I take it that there wasn't, but if you wanted to take it as "real", you could identify it with something?

I mentioned this in my very first post in this thread. The "Little Kingdom" Tolkien refers to is believed to be a real place: Frithwuld's Surrey, a 7th century sub-kingdom of Mercia.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And that is just as we are told that dogs did not have fancy names. Perhaps not by the standards of the Latin-centric "high culture". But I find it interesting that if we say that Garm is a "barbaric" name, then the cow already is much better - her name being Galathea, which points to the classical Greek mythology (and, in another of Tolkien's linguistic inside-jokes, means "milk-white". Of course you'd name a cow after something that has to do with milk. Now the next level question is, was Giles himself actually so educated that he did this on purpose?

Well, considering Giles could not decipher anything but the most basic "uncial" letters, and had to have the Parson read everything to him, I would suggest "Galathea" was a name he heard somewhere in a story (like the tales of the great dragon slayer Bellomarius he had loved as a child). It's a Tolkien joke, so let's not ascribe any classical Graeco-Roman learning to our stolid farmer.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The Blunderbuss and the Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford: Tolkien here quotes, verbatim, the Oxford English Dictionary definition. The 'four wise clerks' is a reference to the Dictionary's four editors-in-chief, Murray, Bradley, Craigie and Onions.

King Cole: Known from the nursery rhyme, yes, but Coel Hen also figures in Geoffrey of Monmouth's grand pseudo-history of pre-Saxon Britain, the Historia Regum Britanniae - the primary source for Arthurian legend (although there are a handful earlier and many later), which give point to T referencing Arthur in the same sentence. Geoffrey didn't invent him - he already existed in Welsh legend - but he made him the father of St Helena and thus the grandfather of the Emperor Constantine. The HRB also bequeathed literature such rulers as King Lear and Cymbeline.

Favorite Character: Chrysophylax. Tolkien's dragons are some of his best characters, full stop.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Favorite Character: Chrysophylax. Tolkien's dragons are some of his best characters, full stop.

Hear, hear!

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Estelyn

The first pages introduce two of the main characters - Giles and Garm - as well as the antagonist of the first adventure. After a few pages, Agatha joins them. Considerably later, the villagers, the King and his knights join them.

Which characters do you enjoy most? How do you like the abundance of Latin names used? What opinion do you have of the talking dog? Do you enjoy the parodic humour?

As for the characters - so far Farmer Giles reminds me of Farmer Maggot, the same archetype of a no-nonsense, steadfast farmer who doesn't back down in the face of danger, being either very brave or very stupid - or perhaps a bit of both - in standing up to a magnificient foe. (I see Legate made this same point, so we are in agreement!)

About the humour - to be fair, I don't think I ever got it. I don't have the context for whatever Tolkien is making fun of, so to me, the story comes of either serious but odd, or frivolous without a bigger point to make. The element of parody is sadly largely lost on me - and I dare say for many other readers less versed in English literature and history than Tolkien himself (a majority of us, I suppose).

Originally Posted by Rune

I think this scholarly approach is one of the reasons I still find Tolkien so fascinating. It is escapism, but it also speaks to the part of me that loves academia. Like Tolkien I prefer history, even if this history is imagined.

It certainly gives his work a lot more depth and a unique flair. And unlike with so many others of his ideas, not many later fantasy authors have tried to mimic it (or if yes, then rather lazily). The only other truly scholarly fantasy author I've come across is Susanna Clarke, whose novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell has footnotes throughout, referencing an imaginary history of magic in England in a wonderfully dry, academic manner. I would certainly recommend the book to anyone who loves the scholarly side of Tolkien's writing, even though it's certainly not even trying to be of equal depth as Tolkien's Middle-Earth Legendarium. I think it is rather comparable to Farmer Giles indeed - it blends actual English history and mythology with made up stories, but it doesn't create a whole new world with its own history and historiography.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Which brings us around to an important, and ironic, point...which Gildor might have made. For all the seeming physical and cultural isolation and parochialism of the Middle and Little Kingdoms, they retained evidences of wider experiences of the world.

I think this might have been the most interesting point to come out of the grand linguistic debate, and I think it's a rather clever little jab from Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Legate

I have one more remark about the first adventure. So we have painstakingly analysed the "real historical period" of when this takes place, figured out that it goes maybe into around 7th century or somesuch, and then we have Giles using a muskette. Um...? Talk about "suspending disbelief", Mr. Tolkien!

Yes, this confused me too. Certainly one of the humorous elements of the story that reveal it's tongue-in-cheek, but again, I feel like I lack the context to fully appreciate it. To be honest, sometimes reading Farmer Giles feels a little like reading someone else's inside joke. But I guess that's what it is, to a degree. (Even though, I guess you could say all writing is the author's "inside joke", but here it is perhaps more evident than usual.)

[littlemanpoet]

In this reading, I'm fascinated by Tolkien's word choices:

Distinguished

"There was more time then, and folk were fewer, so that most men were distinguished."

Distinguished, here, has a delicious double meaning: first, as in having a reputation; second, as in differences being apparent.

It is this second meaning that could escape one's notice, and has escaped mine until this reading. And of course, during the times in which Tolkien sets his story, there was much to distinguish one character from another, as he proceeds to do, by occupation, skills, character, and attitude. Giles, the Parson, the Miller, Garm, the Smith, the King - each are clearly delineated from each other as shall be seen with further reading.

Memorable events

"There was plenty to talk about, for memorable events occurred very frequently. But at the moment when this tale begins nothing memorable had, in fact, happened in Ham for quite a long time."

This makes me laugh every time I come across it, each reading. The first sentence is tongue in cheek because it's both true and not true, it depends on what one means by 'memorable.' If you can remember it as a distinguishable event as compared to others, then it's memorable. But there are degrees of memorable, and what is about to happen is so memorable that all of those other memorable events pale by comparison. Which is why the story is being told about this event rather than those.

The Giant

"...he had very few friends, owing to his deafness and his stupidity, and the scarcity of giants."

This also makes me laugh every time. What an interesting set of reasons. Deafness and stupidity are fair enough reasons for having very few friends. The scarcity of giants says, without saying so, that giants tend not to be friends of anyone but other giants. Which makes even more sense if they're stupid, and perhaps deaf into the bargain.

Then you get to "One fine summer's day..." and I notice that Tolkien has taken three full pages to set the scene, after the Foreword.

Garm and the Giant

"He had a fancy for moonshine...."

Cracks me up. I do not know if Tolkien was aware of the American slang meaning of the word moonshine, so I don't know if this is what he was hinting at. Still, I find it hilarious to think of Garm finding a way to get light in the head.

"In five minutes he had done more damage than the royal fox hunt could have done in five days."

This is a particularly damning socio-political commentary, and is offered so off the cuff that it could be missed.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The original meaning of "dux" was military leader (before it became attached to the aristocracy (duke in English, duc in French). So, King Arthur is referred to in some early texts as dux bellorum (war leader/general of battles). Given the pompous title Tolkien gives the king, I would consider dux rex to be "lord of all generals."

Sounds more likely than my interpretation, and I do like pompous and longwinded titles.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As far as the Greek basileus appearing in Tolkien's story (and the dragon's name Chrysophylax is Greek as well), basileus was used in the Eastern regions of the Roman Empire in reference to the Emperor in Rome (Imperator). The use of the term basileus survived in the West up until Charlemagne, who was recognized as "basileus Rhomaíōn" by the Byzantines as the titular ruler of Rome and emperor of the West.

Now this seems off to me. Yes basileus was used in the greek speaking parts of the roman empire, but to my knowledge not used by the latin speakers. Surely the west used "Imperator"?

Also, it seems very un-byzantine to recognize anybody else as Roman Emperor. They were pragmatic, so they might not always object to other powers encroaching on their turf, if it suited the political situation. Anyways I am straying off topic and will only add that to my knowledge they only acknowledge Charlemagne as Emperor of the Franks.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I too had noticed this oddity.

In the notes in the 50th Anniversary Edition it says thusly:

I must admit I had never seen basileus as carrying that connotation before that footnote, and I don't think I have ever seen it again. I'm not sure where the editors got that reference from.

That is a peculiar connotation, I wish there was a footnote to the footnote explaining the source.


All the pompous titles and names, especially those of the petty king, has an air of Erasmus Montanus about it (a central play in Scandinavian theater).