CotW: Appendix C, the Hobbit Family Trees

18 views
Skip to first unread message

aelfwina

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:26:13 PM8/1/05
to
Chapter of the Week: Appendix C, the Hobbit Family Trees

This is not a chapter that readily lends itself to summary, so I apologize
in advance for my unconventional treatment of it. I hope it's not too long,
but the more I worked on it, the more fascinated I became. I am afraid my
"summary" is actually longer than the Appendix, LOL!

The family trees as shown in Appendix C serve to give even more depth to
JRRT's creation of the Shire and Hobbits. In the introduction to the
chapter, JRRT says "The names given from these trees are only a selection
from many."

He makes note that most of the names were attendees at Bilbo's Last Birthday
Party or their ancestors.

In addition to Baggins, we also have Took, Brandybuck and Gamgee (Gardner)
family trees.

We know from various sources, particularly Vol. XII of HoMe, that JRRT gave
a good deal of time and effort into the family trees of the hobbits.

He went through several revisions of the included family trees, as well as
some which were not ultimately included. (Bolgers and Boffins)

I have some observations on each one of the family trees, and I put them
forth for discussion.

BAGGINS:

In spite of JRRT's claim that there are names not included on these family
trees, I feel that the Baggins chart is fairly complete for a number of
reasons. Comparing it to the Took and Brandybuck charts, we do *not* see any
names followed by "many descendants" "unnamed daughters", etc. with the sole
exception of--*not* Bagginses, but Goodbodies ("[various Goodbodies]") In
other words, there are no gaps among the Bagginses where unincluded names
could fit. A careful examination shows that the Baggins family name
dead-ends with Frodo. Frodo's descent is from the common ancestor Balbo
Baggins' fourth child, Largo, who was his great-grandfather. Largo's only
son was Fosco, who fathered Dora (a female), Drogo (Frodo's father) and
Dudo. Dudo's only child was a daughter, who married a Boffin. Balbo's third
child, Ponto, had one son and one daughter. The daughter married into the
Tooks, and became a common ancestress for Merry and Pippin. The son, Polo,
had one son, one daughter. Of Polo's two sons, the oldest had only a
daughter, while the second one remained unmarried. His third child was a
daughter and married into the Burrows. Balbo's oldest child, Mungo, sired
three sons and two daughters. His oldest son was Bilbo's father. Bilbo, of
course, had no issue. His next son, Longo's line ended with the deplorable
Lotho Sackville-Baggins, and his youngest son's line ended with a
granddaughter who married a Bolger.

IMHO, this was all very deliberate. First of all, it renders Frodo as the
only possible heir to Bilbo (according to the rules of inheritance set up in
Letter #214--it's another debate entirely as to whether he thought the rules
up to fit Frodo or the other way around) and it means that there are *no*
male Bagginses left with the exception of the rather elderly Ponto and Porto
to dispute *Sam's* inheritance of Bag End.

There are some other interesting things to be gleaned from this family tree.
For example, a comparison of the family tree with the Tale of Years shows
that *Otho Sackville-Baggins* would not have been of age at the time of
Bilbo's return from Erebor. Therefore it is likely that the effort to
declare Bilbo dead and take over Bag End was spearheaded by his father
Longo, rather than Otho himself. If he and Lobelia were married at that
time, it meant they wed before they came of age, something that appears to
have been rather unusual among hobbits, going by other indicated dates.

Another item of interest is that the family that appears to have been
married into most often by the Bagginses was the Bolgers.

TOOKS

The Tooks seem to have been very prolific, with the notable exception of a
few who died without issue, such as Isengrim III and Ferumbras III. It is
*this* which renders Pippin, the descendant of the Old Took's fourth child
Hildigrim, as eligible for the Thainship. It is among the Tooks that we find
many of the gaps into which unnamed relatives could fit: Isembold, the Old
Took's fifth child is simply listed as having "many descendants"; so is
Bandobras the Bullroarer, though it does specify that he was ancestor to the
North-tooks and thus Pippin's wife Diamond. Paladin's father had 3 unnamed
daughters before he had Paladin and Esmeralda. It is also among the Tooks
that we learn of who those hobbits Gandalf was accused of luring away on
adventure were. (Hildifons and Isengar)

One other thing to make note of: if we go *solely* by the date of death of
Ferumbras III it appears that Pippin's father Paladin had only been Thain
for three years before the Quest. Makes his success in keeping Ruffians out
of Tookland quite remarkable, and might go some way to explaining some of
Pippin's behavior.

BRANDYBUCKS

Again, we find the spots where extra relations could be found. The common
ancestor Gormadoc's oldest son Madoc is Merry's ancestor, but he had two
other sons who had "various" or "many" descendants. We can take note that
the Masters of Buckland went in for nicknames: "Proudneck", "Broadbelt" and
"Scattergold" are but a few. There is something rather Saxon about this, and
is a reminder that Merry thought there were things that Buckland had in
common with Rohan.

The naming practices of the Brandybucks are also interesting: *all* male
names end in -oc, -ac, -ic, or -as. And *all* the *born* females in the
Brandybuck line have flower/plant names. (The other families do have some,
but also include jewel names and fanciful names.)

It is also of note that early editions of the Brandybuck genealogy did not
include Merry's marriage to Estella Bolger (sister of Fredegar).

[As a side note, a friend of mine, Lesley G., received a letter from JRRT at
the time when he still answered such questions. She gave me permission to
quote her:

"I have read elsewhere about Merry's marriage being left off in some
editions, but what Tolkien explained to me was actually why Merry's son was
not named in the family tree - I was bothered by the fact that there was no
son listed there, yet he was mentioned later on when Merry handed his goods
over, so I wrote to Tolkien and asked. Betaing Tolkien at the age of 10,
lol! Tolkien kindly explained to me that the printers had no room to include
that next generation, but that Merry did indeed have issue."

She went on to tell me that the letter had been put aside for her for
"safekeeping" by an adult, and so it is now lost, but that she has a vague
thought that Merry's son was to have been named "Periadoc", although she
cannot now be certain that was also in the letter.]

GAMGEE (GARDNER)

Unlike the previous three families, whose genealogies begin with a single
ancestor of a common name, Sam's begins with three, of different names:
Hamfast of Gamwich, Holman the Greenhanded, and Cottar (no byname). Like the
Baggins family tree, there are no gaps for unnamed relatives to fit except
perhaps on the maternal side. If I have counted correctly, it appears that
Sam and Rose are fourth cousins, both descended from Holman the Greenhanded.

Sam has *no* relatives in common with any of the other three. He is clearly
of a completely different social circle.

We are given Sam's complete family: thirteen children, with the year of
birth for each of them.

We are not told if Sam's sister Marigold, and her husband, Rose's brother
Tom, have children, but if they did, their children and Sam's would have
been double cousins.

As a measure of how far Sam's family has risen in social stature, his middle
daughter Goldilocks marries Pippin's son Faramir, who will become Thain.

Is this something the Gaffer would *ever* have foreseen?

Just as a matter of interest, here are some websites I looked at while
preparing for this chapter.

http://www.mycinnamontoast.com/frodo/

http://www.obliquity.com/family/misc/cousin.html

http://www.genealogy.com/16_cousn.html

http://genealogy.about.com/library/tips/blcousins.htm


Prai Jei

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 3:54:37 PM7/31/05
to
aelfwina (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<11epuv2...@corp.supernews.com>:

> IMHO, this was all very deliberate. First of all, it renders Frodo as the
> only possible heir to Bilbo (according to the rules of inheritance set up
> in Letter #214--it's another debate entirely as to whether he thought the
> rules up to fit Frodo or the other way around) and it means that there are
> *no* male Bagginses left with the exception of the rather elderly Ponto
> and Porto to dispute *Sam's* inheritance of Bag End.

No Tar-Ancalimë law then?
--
A couple of questions. How do I stop the wires short-circuiting, and what's
this nylon washer for?

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

aelfwina

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 6:03:43 PM8/11/05
to

"Prai Jei" <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dcja0b$5fu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> aelfwina (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> <11epuv2...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> IMHO, this was all very deliberate. First of all, it renders Frodo as the
>> only possible heir to Bilbo (according to the rules of inheritance set up
>> in Letter #214--it's another debate entirely as to whether he thought the
>> rules up to fit Frodo or the other way around) and it means that there
>> are
>> *no* male Bagginses left with the exception of the rather elderly Ponto
>> and Porto to dispute *Sam's* inheritance of Bag End.
>
> No Tar-Ancalimė law then?

Apparently not for hobbits, LOL, although widows inherited before children.
I kept waiting for someone else to comment. *sigh* Thank you for taking the
time to do so.
Barbara

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 12:23:58 AM8/11/05
to
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:03:43 -0500, "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net>
wrote:

>
>"Prai Jei" <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:dcja0b$5fu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> aelfwina (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
>> <11epuv2...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>> IMHO, this was all very deliberate. First of all, it renders Frodo as the
>>> only possible heir to Bilbo (according to the rules of inheritance set up
>>> in Letter #214--it's another debate entirely as to whether he thought the
>>> rules up to fit Frodo or the other way around) and it means that there
>>> are
>>> *no* male Bagginses left with the exception of the rather elderly Ponto
>>> and Porto to dispute *Sam's* inheritance of Bag End.
>>
>> No Tar-Ancalimė law then?
>
>Apparently not for hobbits,

Nor have I heard the custom was otherwise elsewhere in Arnor.

> LOL, although widows inherited before children.
>I kept waiting for someone else to comment. *sigh* Thank you for taking the
>time to do so.

Uh... hobbits have silly names.

The couples Gerontius and Adamanta and, later, Sam and Rose, sure had a
lot of children for Middle-Earth supposedly being "sex-free". (And it
doesn't look like Sam was gay, either.)

Okay, underlined is "party guest", but what is ALL CAPS? Why are some
names [in square brackets]?


--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com

aelfwina

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 8:28:23 AM8/12/05
to

"R. Dan Henry" <danh...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:q9klf1l4ti0i40s7u...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:03:43 -0500, "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Prai Jei" <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:dcja0b$5fu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> aelfwina (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
>>> <11epuv2...@corp.supernews.com>:

(snip)


>>> No Tar-Ancalimė law then?
>>
>>Apparently not for hobbits,
>
> Nor have I heard the custom was otherwise elsewhere in Arnor.
>
>> LOL, although widows inherited before children.
>>I kept waiting for someone else to comment. *sigh* Thank you for taking
>>the
>>time to do so.
>
> Uh... hobbits have silly names.

They do seem so, yes. But many of the hobbit names have historical
antecedents in our world. Most of the names for the "Great Families" (i.e.
Tooks, Brandybucks and Bagginses, as well as Bolgers and Boffins) came from
Frankish/Merovingian sources.

>
> The couples Gerontius and Adamanta and, later, Sam and Rose, sure had a
> lot of children for Middle-Earth supposedly being "sex-free". (And it
> doesn't look like Sam was gay, either.)

LOL! No, it doesn't.
Rosie and all those kids are a kick in the pants to all the Frodo/Sam
'shippers out there! *grin*
I don't think Middle-earth was sex-free, anyway, just that JRRT wasn't
interested in those particular details, and never bothered to describe them.
He found food, liguistics and genealogy more interesting.

>
> Okay, underlined is "party guest", but what is ALL CAPS? Why are some
> names [in square brackets]?
>

ALL CAPS are for the five major hobbits: Bilbo, Frodo, Peregrin, Meriadoc
and Samwise, as well as Sam's wife and three of his children. I am not sure
why those latter four rated caps, but evidently something about them
elevated them to major character status by JRRT. The square brackets are
for where the five main hobbits appear on *other* family trees, e.g. where
Peregrin and Meriadoc appear on the Baggins family tree, or where Frodo
appears on the Brandybuck family tree.

And thanks for the comments!

Barbara

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 11:43:40 PM8/15/05
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:28:23 -0500, "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net>
wrote:

>"R. Dan Henry" <danh...@inreach.com> wrote in message
>news:q9klf1l4ti0i40s7u...@4ax.com...

>> Okay, underlined is "party guest", but what is ALL CAPS? Why are some


>> names [in square brackets]?

>ALL CAPS are for the five major hobbits: Bilbo, Frodo, Peregrin, Meriadoc
>and Samwise, as well as Sam's wife and three of his children. I am not sure
>why those latter four rated caps, but evidently something about them
>elevated them to major character status by JRRT.

Also "HAMFAST (Ham Gamgee) the Gaffer", which I can see. I'm not sure
why some of the kids, not really in the story as published, get so
marked and Tom Cotton and even Fredegar Bolger don't make the cut.

>The square brackets are
>for where the five main hobbits appear on *other* family trees, e.g. where
>Peregrin and Meriadoc appear on the Baggins family tree, or where Frodo
>appears on the Brandybuck family tree.

No, it is much more common than that. Not just the five main hobbits, as
it includes, for example, the "various Goodbodies" and Odo Proudfoot and
his two listed descendants. I'm not even convinced it is crossovers
between the family trees, unless it includes the unpublished trees, in
which case it certainly isn't very helpful unless you're digging through
HOME instead of just reading LOTR. But now that I think of the family
trees that were dropped, maybe that is it.

aelfwina

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 5:32:21 PM8/16/05
to

"R. Dan Henry" <danh...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:dtn2g15p6hq6dv031...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:28:23 -0500, "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"R. Dan Henry" <danh...@inreach.com> wrote in message
>>news:q9klf1l4ti0i40s7u...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Also "HAMFAST (Ham Gamgee) the Gaffer", which I can see. I'm not sure
> why some of the kids, not really in the story as published, get so
> marked and Tom Cotton and even Fredegar Bolger don't make the cut.
>
Hmm...missed noticing that. I did notice that though "Goldilocks" got
capitalized, her husband "Faramir Took" did not, and thought that rather
peculiar.

>>The square brackets are
>>for where the five main hobbits appear on *other* family trees, e.g. where
>>Peregrin and Meriadoc appear on the Baggins family tree, or where Frodo
>>appears on the Brandybuck family tree.
>
> No, it is much more common than that. Not just the five main hobbits, as
> it includes, for example, the "various Goodbodies" and Odo Proudfoot and
> his two listed descendants. I'm not even convinced it is crossovers
> between the family trees, unless it includes the unpublished trees, in
> which case it certainly isn't very helpful unless you're digging through
> HOME instead of just reading LOTR. But now that I think of the family
> trees that were dropped, maybe that is it.

I'm not sure now. Let me see: I took "various Goodbodies" as being regular
parentheses, not square brackets. But a magnifying glass shows that you are
right. Same for the Proudfoots and the four children of Milo Burrows--I
really need to make a copy of these pages and blow them up where my pathetic
eyes can see them. I thought the parenthese in these cases were simply to
show that we didn't have all the info on those individuals--i.e. d.o.b.,
d.o.d., marriage, etc. Now I'm not sure.

The info from HOME I had to get from taking notes from an interlibrary loan
copy; I didn't have a chance to photocopy the genealogies before I had to
return it.

I hope it comes out in a paperback US edition soon, so I can get a copy.

Barbara

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages