Minor Works -- 1 - Farmer Giles of Ham

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Well, I feel a bit like I'm talking to myself - what was that Gandalf said about speaking to the wisest person present?! But I like this story too much to quit yet...

Whoa, and here I have been waiting for a signal that we are moving to a next part of the story... I have paused at the second encounter with the dragon and waited, assuming we were still waiting for people to discuss about the earlier part.

Okay, I shall catch up onwards and meanwhile just comment on what I wanted to say about the second departure to the dragon's lair...

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Comparisons that remind me of other characters: "Mighty handy this rope has turned out in the end!" Giles' comment reminds me of Sam wishing for rope at the beginning of LotR and being thankful for it later on.

That was literally the first thing I thought about when reading the second part - when Giles is about to go and the parson reminds him of the rope. "Samwise only wished he had such a helpful advisor," I thought.

But that it just another in the line of "strange Tolkien tropes" - I think it might be interesting to list them all when we are done. Swords inscribed with runes, negatively-painted millers, the importance of ropes, wise men who slightly manipulate the main hero into doing something, simple farmers who are very comfortable in their ways but turn very heroic when faced with actual danger.

Oh and speaking of millers and such - somewhere halfway through I realised that my favourite character may very well be the smith. I originally just found it a possibly funny character trait that he took such delight in bad news, but him downright starting to sing when there had been no news about Giles and the royal party for several days, that is just so absurd that it is actually great.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Some years ago, I realised that there were numerous similarities between the tale of Giles and the movie Shrek. I found the thread in which I shared the insights I found (and lectured on in German), so I won't duplicate them here. Check out Honey, I Forgot to Kill the Dragon

I am not a particular fan of Shrek and it's been ages since I have seen it, but I think when it comes to the tone of the whole story, you hit the nail on the head! And it is not just that these both subvert fairytales - there are many different ways to subvert fairytales, but these subvert them in the same, let's say, style. With very similar "moral points", or how should one say that. Certainly a good and interesting catch!

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Finally, I find Giles's defiance of the king (who comes to reap the fruits he didn't sow) echoed, across time and genres and most likely without any conscious influence, in the end of the manga AKIRA by Katsuhiro Otomo: the apocalypse brought about by a bunch of kids with superhuman powers is over at last, UN forces land in Japan to re-establish peace and order, only for Kaneda (teenage misfit turned into hero), backed by an army of his peers with machine guns and bazookas, to tell them "Get out of our country!" Tolkien being Tolkien, of course, his story ends with a Little Kingdom ruled by a benign monarch rather than the glorious anarchy of the Great Akira Empire, but I suppose that was the best that could be hoped for.

Now that is a kind of comparison I absolutely did not expect, but I'd just say that it is a nice example how far across different genres some themes can echo...

But okay! I shall read onwards and be back with more comments today or tomorrow.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Alright, allow me to add a short excursion about one thing that somewhat emerged on its own as I was reading: Biblical parallels.

It started when I noted the character of the grey mare being the "reasonable one" (if not straightaway the wise one), especially the way it was underlined when Giles and the knights were about to approach the dragon's lair. That reminded me of the story of Bileam in his donkey in Numbers 22. There, Bileam is also riding off to do something stupid (notably also at the request of a corrupt king), is riding oblivious to a danger (there represented by a sword-wielding angel blocking the road) that the wise she-donkey perceives, unlike her master. Eventually, the donkey speaks to rebuke her master.

There are of course notable differences in the stories, but you could say they contain the same patterns (and it is just as well possible that the story of Bileam may have been one of Tolkien's conscious or unconscious sources of inspiration). The mare in Giles's story does not speak aloud, but we see her thoughts in direct speech. The stupid ones are in Giles's story rather all the knights than Giles himself, so they are Bileam more than Giles is.
At the same time, however, Giles is actually a lot like Bileam himself. In that particular Biblical story, Bileam is essentially the good guy. I already noted the parallel between Augustus Bonifacius and the evil king Balak. And just like Giles sets off with the premise to fulfil the king's command and slay the dragon, Bileam sets off with the premise to fulfil Balak's wishes and set a curse upon the people he wished to destroy, but ends up blessing them instead.

The second thing that struck me as similar were the dealings between Giles and the king. Again: you could say that the "man of the people defies the monarch and becomes a hero, founding his own kingdom" is a trope we find in many stories (to stay close, one could mention King Arthur - even though that also is already n-th down the line of being built on previously existing myths). But of the more significant stories in Tolkien's cultural environment, it is also reminiscent of the story of David versus Saul. You could point out many similarities, such as Giles recruiting the "leftovers" or the promising young lads (a very Davidic trope), being the "popular king" versus the by-law one, etc. But it was notably the dynamic between them - specifically the way Augustus Bonifacius speaks - that reminded me of the Biblical Saul a lot. The outburst of anger, followed by the desire to just kill Giles in person after an unsuccessful military campaign just gave me a very similar vibe. And at the same time, Giles shows a very "Davidic" attitude by telling the king to just go home and cool his head, just like David refused to kill Saul when he had the chance.

These are perhaps a stretch and I absolutely do not want to put an equation between (these parts of) the story of Giles and the abovementioned stories. Nonetheless, at the very least you can say that they draw upon the very same tropes (the David thing) and it is possible, if not probable, also given Tolkien's erudice and background, that he got either unconsciously or consciously inspired by them. And I especially like the case of the Bileam story, because if you asked who was the hero of that one, the answer should truly be "Why, the she-donkey, of course!"

[Thinlómien]

Well, interesting that Esty should ask about parallels and Legate about the grey mare - because I was just thinking of the scene with the grey mare being the only one who did not flee from the dragon being a lighter precursor of the scene with Shadowfax and the Witch-King. I don't usually enjoy psychoanalyzing writers, but I do wonder if there was some great instance of equine bravery that Tolkien witnessed in the war that made a lasting impression on him.

The other thing that caught my eye was the mention that Chrysophylax ate the younger dragon who had tried to claim his lair in his absence. What's this with humans and dragons alike eating dragons in this story?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What's this with humans and dragons alike eating dragons in this story?

That dragon is really tasty? After all, when the court all averred that Mock Dragon's Tail was better than the real thing, they only said so to please the Royal Cook.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There is an actual battle scene in the story, where Giles and the knights ride to the dragon's cave. Once again the knights are so concentrated on matters of "precedence and etiquette" that they did not realize they were endangered. This time Chrysophylax does not bother with "warning or formality" before attacking. The scene is quite short in the tale (Peter Jackson would make half a movie of it, I presume ), and it ends when the original opponent, Giles, stands up to the dragon - thanks to his mare.

It amuses me that Giles and Chrysophylax now echo the greeting of their first meeting with reversed roles. First time, Chrysophylax: "Excuse my asking, but were you looking for me by any chance?" Giles: "No, indeed! Who'd a' thought of seeing you here? I was just going for a ride." Chrysophylax: "Then we meet by good luck. The pleasure is mine."

Second time, Giles: "Excuse me, but were you looking for me, by any chance?" Chrysophylax: No, indeed! Who would have thought of seeing you here? I was just flying about." Giles: "Then we meet by good luck, and the pleasure is mine..."

The fact that both of them begin the conversation with the formula "Excuse me" is amusing, and adds another aspect of the conventions of etiquette and politeness to the tale. That would by a major subject to examine!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

There is an actual battle scene in the story, where Giles and the knights ride to the dragon's cave. Once again the knights are so concentrated on matters of "precedence and etiquette" that they did not realize they were endangered. This time Chrysophylax does not bother with "warning or formality" before attacking. The scene is quite short in the tale (Peter Jackson would make half a movie of it, I presume ), and it ends when the original opponent, Giles, stands up to the dragon - thanks to his mare.

It amuses me that Giles and Chrysophylax now echo the greeting of their first meeting with reversed roles. First time, Chrysophylax: "Excuse my asking, but were you looking for me by any chance?" Giles: "No, indeed! Who'd a' thought of seeing you here? I was just going for a ride." Chrysophylax: "Then we meet by good luck. The pleasure is mine."

Second time, Giles: "Excuse me, but were you looking for me, by any chance?" Chrysophylax: No, indeed! Who would have thought of seeing you here? I was just flying about." Giles: "Then we meet by good luck, and the pleasure is mine..."

The fact that both of them begin the conversation with the formula "Excuse me" is amusing, and adds another aspect of the conventions of etiquette and politeness to the tale. That would by a major subject to examine!

When I read those interactions, I considered Tolkien was parodying the more stylized and formulaic knightly challenges preceding a tilt that one finds in Mallory or Chrétien de Troyes. That both Giles and Chrysophylax are lying through their teeth is patently evident, but that does not preclude them from exchanging pleasantries before sallying forth.

In a different vein, but along the same lines, T.H. White in The Once and Future King, used the same flowery chivalric challenge to comedic effect in the duel between King Pellinore and Sir Grummore (but stayed closer to the style of Mallory):

"Fair knight," said King Pellinore, "I pray thee tell me thy name."

"That me regards," replied Sir Grummore, using the proper formula.

"That is uncourteously said," said King Pellinore, "what? For no knight ne dreadeth for to speak his name openly, but for some reason of shame."

"Be that as it may, I choose that thou shalt not know my name at this time, for no askin'."

"Then you must stay and joust with me, false knight."

"Haven't you got that wrong, Pellinore?" inquired Sir Grummore. I believe it ought to be 'thou shalt.' "

"Oh, I'm sorry, Sir Grummore. Yes, so it should, of course. Then thou shalt stay and joust with me, false knight."

Now, you could see the courtly knights of the King's court using this formula, so Giles and the dragon had to use a less stylized manner of greeting.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Well, interesting that Esty should ask about parallels and Legate about the grey mare - because I was just thinking of the scene with the grey mare being the only one who did not flee from the dragon being a lighter precursor of the scene with Shadowfax and the Witch-King. I don't usually enjoy psychoanalyzing writers, but I do wonder if there was some great instance of equine bravery that Tolkien witnessed in the war that made a lasting impression on him.

Nice catch. I similarly wanted to point out that there is something weird about Tolkien and baggage ponies etc. In The Hobbit, you have the famous thing with first the Goblins stealing and eating the Dwarven baggage ponies in the Misty Mountains and later the dragon similarly scattering and eating the new ones. In a very similar manner that Chrysophylax scatters the baggage horses of the knights' company.

But why I am saying is that I believe that an unusually large - I daresay - proportion of the story is devoted to talking about the baggage horses/ponies (both here and in The Hobbit, and actually also in the Fellowship with Bill the Pony, who has the same function). I mean, nothing against them and they certainly serve an important function - especially realistically. But I would say that Tolkien probably treats them with a slightly above-average amount of attention.

Obviously, it is "common sense" that you need baggage ponies when you are travelling somewhere, but I daresay not every writer would be as aware of the problem. I wonder, therefore, alongside Lommy's remark, whether Tolkien simply had such an experience from the war (provisions transportation) that made him conscious of this issue, or whether he had perhaps even some closer knowledge of some particular bunch of ponies or whatnot.

So, I am putting this on the list of questions alongside what both myself, Pitchwife and Lommy wondered about here about whether Tolkien's family/friends/neighbours had a dog that Garm, Roverandom etc. were modelled after (and the loyal Huan???). There surely are some Tolkienologists who have answers to both of these questions.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, Roverandom was based on one of JRRT's children's toy dog, that was lost at the beach. The dog's adventures were made up to comfort him and explain where the dog had gone. I'm not aware of a real dog who could have been a precursor.

I've been thinking about the wisdom of knowing when enough is enough - first Giles was smart enough to stop bargaining before he demanded too much for the dragon to bear. Then later he knew that it was time to let him go - aggravated of course by the cost of feeding him! I'm trying to remember if Tolkien wrote of a character whose downfall was greed? At any rate, Giles did not succumb to that particular sin.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Well, Roverandom was based on one of JRRT's children's toy dog, that was lost at the beach. The dog's adventures were made up to comfort him and explain where the dog had gone. I'm not aware of a real dog who could have been a precursor.

Yes, the toy dog is a known one, but I was exactly wondering about a live one: given how very specific Tolkien's dogs' behaviour is, and how Roverandom and Garm have very similar mannerisms (nearly identical), and as others have remarked here, it almost feels like there was a specific real-life dog "character" behind all this.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

I've been thinking about the wisdom of knowing when enough is enough - first Giles was smart enough to stop bargaining before he demanded too much for the dragon to bear. Then later he knew that it was time to let him go - aggravated of course by the cost of feeding him! I'm trying to remember if Tolkien wrote of a character whose downfall was greed? At any rate, Giles did not succumb to that particular sin.

Well, how about everyone in The Hobbit, for starters? Meaning everyone involved in the Battle of the Five Armies - Thorin specifically, although he got his redemption, but it was a bit too late. But it is likely they would have been better prepared for the Goblin assault had they not been bickering among themselves (and nearly killed each others first).

One could however say that for example Bard is more on the Giles side (and Bilbo, to a degree), having set the line "enough is enough".

Mutatis mutandis, the same thing with Thingol and about half the people somehow involved with the Silmarils. The fall of Doriath being the most glaring example.

Otherwise, I am not sure if for example Lotho Sackville-Baggins might qualify? Probably it is a bit of a stretch, although we do not know what were the exact circumstances of his negotiating with Sharkey et al.

In any case, "greed as the cause of downfall" is certainly a theme that repeats itself throughout Tolkien's works, and the people who manage to resist are the main heroes, or the most positive characters of all. Giles, Bilbo - I'd also say that (even though other aspects are at play there too) the problem with the Ring qualifies too. Gandalf stresses how important it was that Bilbo gave it up willingly. If you disregard the whole Dark Lord connection for a moment, it would almost seem like "the way to break the spell of the Ring is to let go and stop being possessive of it". (For that matter, since I have already mentioned the Silmarils, it would probably apply to them as well.)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Setting aside his "ROTC" stint with King Edward's Horse, Tolkien could hardly have been unaware of the ubiquitousness of horses and ponies, in and out of war! He grew up in an animal-powered world, and this persisted in Britain throughout his young adulthood (Britain did not automobilize nearly as quickly as the USA), and certainly in France he couldn't have ignored those of the half-million British Army horses there which he would have seen every day. And, yes, that meant seeing the poor beasts being killed.

As for "an example of equine courage" underlying the mare or Shadowfax- perhaps less likely. Tolkien would never have seen horses in combat,* and moreover cavalry's employment in battle is never, ever as "stalwart defense" (a horseman brought to a halt is a dead horseman).

*While cavalry was certainly used in WWI in its intended role in more open campaigns like Palestine, Mesopotamia and Russia, the 1914 Battle of the Frontiers quickly put an end to its use on the Western Front. Useless in trench warfare. The Germans transferred all of theirs to the east, or converted horse regiments to infantry, as did the British in many cases (my wife's great-uncle was killed with the 6th Dragoon Guards as a de facto infantryman). It is true that for the Somme the plan included a division of cavalry to exploit the breach in the German lines, but since no breach was made the cav remained in reserve, well back from the front)