Path: nntp-server.caltech.edu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!emory!nntp.msstate.edu!Ra.MsState.Edu!fpa1 From: fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: FAQ Date: 6 May 1993 14:21:10 GMT Organization: Mississippi State University Lines: 1237 Message-ID: <1sb6sm$7f7@Tut.MsState.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ra.msstate.edu Keywords: FAQ Xref: nntp-server.caltech.edu rec.arts.books.tolkien:1855 alt.fan.tolkien:2809 Hey it's the beginning of the month, so why not post the FAQ. Remember that this is not my work, but the work of Bill Loos. I'm just posting it. Thorongil =============================================================================== =============================================================================== This is the first version of an FAQ list for various Tolkien groups. It is of course always open to additions, corrections, etc., but the plan is that this will be the general format of the final version, which will be bundled with an expanded version of the Booklist and other Tolkien-related information, including newsgroups and reading lists. Feel free to email any suggestions to me (though some perhaps require public debate?). I expect that question 12 in particular may need expansion. The average length of the answers is in general shoarter than I would like. I wanted give lots of detail and to let Tolkien do the talking, but it would have taken too long to do a thorough job on all the questions. I have settled on summaries with references, which may be expanded at some later date. [Note: the references aren't all gathered yet and are thus left out of this version. *** There will be full references *** in the final version (so there's no need to write telling me there's a need for references). ] There are a couple of concerns I have myself. One is whether the compression might have been so severe as to be misleading (I think not). The other is that these questions tend to be concerned matters people ask about once they've got past the basics. It may be that certain novice questions, which more exper- ienced types take for granted, have been left out. If anyone thinks any necessary basic questions have been left off, suggest away. [Questions on matters relating to specific newsgroups and reading lists operate will be in a different section.] William D.B. Loos loos@frodo.mgh.harvard.edu =============================================================================== =============================================================================== =============================================================================== COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS JRRT J.R.R. Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien M-e Middle-earth SA Second Age TA Third Age SR Shire Reckoning HM Houghton Mifflin Major Works: H The Hobbit LR, LotR The Lord of the Rings FR, FotR The Fellowship of the Ring TT, TTT The Two Towers RK, RotK The Return of the King Other Middle-earth Works: Road The Road Goes Ever On Letters The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien Silm The Silmarillion UT Unfinished Tales HoMe History of Middle-earth BLT,BoLT Book of Lost Tales Lays The Lays of Beleriand Treason The Treason of Isengard Guide The Guide to the Names in the Lord of the Rings (published in A Tolkien Compass) Minor Works: TB, ATB The Adventures of Tom Bombadil FGH Farmer Giles of Ham SWM Smith of Wootton Major OFS On Fairy-Stories TL Tree and Leaf HBBS The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son SGPO Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, Sir Orfeo Reference Works: Biography Tolkien: A Biography; by Humphrey Carpenter Inklings The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and Their Friends; by Humphrey Carpenter RtMe The Road to Middle-earth; by TA Shippey Atlas The Atlas of Middle-earth; by Karen Wynn Fonstad =============================================================================== CONVERSION TABLE All references to _The Lord of the Rings_ are taken from the Houghton Mifflin hardcover edition. In _The Atlas of Middle-earth_ Karen Wynn Fonstad provides a HM to Ballantine coversion table which is reproduced below. The "table" is actually a set of formulae in which HM page numbers are converted to Ballantine page numbers via arithmetic involving some empirically determined constants. Since these are discrete rather than continuous functions the results may be off by a page or two. HM Page Subtract Divide By Add ------------- -------- --------- ------- FR 10 to 423 9 .818 18 TT 15 to 352 14 .778 16 RK 19 to 311 18 .797 18 RK 313 to 416 312 .781 386 H 9 to 317 8 1.140 14 Silm 15 to 365 14 .773 2 Reference: Atlas, p. 192 =============================================================================== =============================================================================== FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS TOLKIEN AND HIS WORK 1) Who was J.R.R. Tolkien anyway? 2) Were the languages presented in _The Lord of the Rings_ real languages? 3) What does it mean when people (or Tolkien himself) speak of him as having been the "editor" of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? 4) How thoroughly realized was Tolkien's fiction that he was the "translator" of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? 5) Why is Tolkien's work, _The Lord of the Rings_ in particular, so difficult to translate (into other languages of our world)? 6) Did the events in _The Lord of the Rings_ take place on another planet or what? 7) Was the northwest of Middle-earth, where the story takes place, meant to actually be Europe? 8) Was the Shire meant to be England? 9) What were the changes made to _The Hobbit_ after _The Lord of the Rings_ was written, and what motivated them? 10) Was there a change of tone between Book I and the rest of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? 11) Why did Tolkien fail to publish _The Silmarillion_ during the eighteen years which followed the publication of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? 12) What is Canonical? GENERAL HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH 13) What exactly happened at the end of the First Age? 14) In terms of the larger worldview, what exactly took place at the Fall of Numenor? HOBBITS 15) Were Hobbits a sub-group of Humans? 16) Did Frodo and the others (Bilbo, Sam, and Gimli) who passed over the Sea eventually die, or had they become immortal? 17) Did Hobbits have pointed ears? 18) When was Bilbo and Frodo's Birthday? To what date on our own calendar does it correspond? 19) Was Gollum a hobbit? 20) In _The Hobbit_, Bilbo called the spiders Attercop, Lazy Lob, Crazy Cob, and Old Tomnoddy. What do the words mean? ELVES 21) Were Elves reincarnated after they were slain? 22) Was Glorfindel of Rivendell (whom Frodo met) the same as Glorfindel of Gondolin, who was slain fighting a Balrog? 23) Did Elves have pointed ears? 24) How were Eldar in Valinor named? HUMANS 25) What brought on the sinking of Numenor? 26) How could Ar-Pharazon of Numenor defeat Sauron while Sauron wielded the One Ring? 27) What happened to the Ring when Numenor was destroyed? 28) Where did the Southrons come from? Were they part of the Atani? DWARVES 29) What were the origins of the Dwarves? 30) If, as has been told, only Seven Fathers of the Dwarves were created, how did the race procreate? 31) Did Dwarf women have beards? ISTARI (Wizards) 32) Who were the Istari (Wizards)? 33) Of the Five Wizards, only three came into the story. Was anything known about the other two? 34) What happened to Radagast? BAD GUYS 35) What was the relationship between Orcs and Goblins? 36) What was the origin of the Orcs? 37) What was the origin of Trolls? MISCELLANEOUS 38) Who or what was Tom Bombadil? 39) Was there any definitive explanation given on what happened to the Entwives? 40) Who was Queen Beruthiel? (Aragorn mentioned her during the journey through Moria.) =============================================================================== =============================================================================== TOLKIEN AND HIS WORK 1) Who was J.R.R. Tolkien anyway? John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, Englishman, scholar, and storyteller was Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford (1925 - 1945) and Merton Professor of English Language and Literature (1945 - 1959). He was born of English parents at Bloemfontein, South Africa on Jan. 3, 1892, but the family returned to England in 1896. He died on Sept. 2, 1973. From an early age he was drawn to language in general and the languages of Northern Europe in particular, both ancient and modern. This love of Northern Europe led to a wide reading of the available literature, especially myths and legends, and of modern authors influenced by the traditions, such as William Morris and George MacDonald. From his affinity for language came both his professional interest, the study of Anglo-Saxon (Old English) and related languages (with emphasis on the dialects of Mercia, that part of England in which he had grown up) and his private hobby, the invention of languages. His wide study inspired various opinions about Myth, its relation to language, and the importance of Stories, some of which were shared by his friend C.S. Lewis. All these different perspectives came together with stunning effect when Tolkien began writing his stories, first legends to serve as background for his Elvish languages, and later his most famous works, _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_. ---------- 2) Were the languages presented in _The Lord of the Rings_ real languages? Most certainly they were, especially the Elven languages Quenya and Sindarin. "[These were] no arbitrary gibberish but really possible tongues with consistent roots, sound laws, and inflexions, into which he poured all his imaginative and philological powers..." (Obituary, in Scholar, p. 12). Furthermore, they were both derived from a "proto-Elvish" language, again in a linguistically realistic manner. [Sindarin was the "everyday" elvish language while Quenya was a kind of "elf-latin"; therefore, most Elvish words in LotR were Sindarin. Examples: most "non-English" (see Ques 4) place-names on the map (e.g. Minas Tirith, Emyn Beriad) were Sindarin, as was the song to Elbereth sung in Rivendell; Galadriel's lament was Quenya.] The language of the Rohirrim *was* a real language; it was Anglo-Saxon (Old English), just as their culture (except for the horses) was that of the Anglo-Saxons. (It was, however, not the "standard" West Saxon Old English but rather the Mercian equivalent.) Most other languages in LotR were much less fully developed: Entish, Khudzul (Dwarvish) and the Black Speech (language of Mordor, e.g. the Ring inscription). Adunaic, the language of Numenor, developed in 1946 while he was finishing up LotR, was said to be his fifteenth invented language. ---------- 3) What does it mean when people (or Tolkien himself) speak of him as having been the "editor" of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? The fiction Tolkien sought to maintain was that _The Lord of the Rings (and _The Hobbit_ and the Silmarillion) were actually ancient manuscripts (written by Frodo and Bilbo, respectively) of which he was merely the editor (a situation identical to his scholarly work). Thus, some parts of LotR (e.g. the Prologue) are written as though by a modern editor describing an ancient time. To further simulate a real situation he invented a manuscript tradition, i.e. he didn't have Frodo's original manuscript but rather one of a series of copies (see the Note on the Shire Records, FR p. 23). This was by no means a new idea: many authors have pretended that their fantasies were true stories of some ancient time. Tolkien, however, was uniquely qualified to also pretend to have been the "translator" of the manuscripts as well (see Ques 4). ---------- 4) How thoroughly realized was Tolkien's fiction that he was the "translator" of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? Very thoroughly indeed. The scenario was that "of course" the Hobbits didn't speak English; rather, they spoke their own language, called Westron (the Common Speech). Tolkien "translated" this language into English, which included "rendering" all the Common Speech place-names into the equivalent English place-names. The object of the exercise was to product the following effect: names in the Common Speech (which were familiar to the hobbits) were "rendered" into English (in which form they would be familiar to us, the English-speaking readers); names in other languages (usually Sindarin) were "left alone", and thus were equally unfamiliar both to the hobbits and to us. Since the story was told largely from the hobbits' point of view, that we should share their linguistic experience is a desirable result (especially for Tolkien, who was unusually sensitive to such matters). In portraying the linguistic landscape of Middle-earth he carried this procedure much further. The main example was his "substitution" of Anglo- Saxon for Rohirric. The "rationale" was that the Hobbits' language was distantly related to Rohirric; when hobbits heard Rohirric, they experienced a vague sense of familiarity. In an attempt to further "duplicate" hobbit linguistic perceptions Tolkien "substituted" that language of our world (Anglo-Saxon) which has (more-or-less) the same relation to English that Rohirric had to the hobbit version of Westron. There were many other linguistic nuances in the intricate and subtle web he devised (always, he carefully explained, in the interests of "reproducing" the linguistic map of Middle-earth in a way that could be easily assimilated by modern English-speaking readers). Thus: a) Archaic English roots were used in those Common Speech place-names which were given long before the time of the story (Tindrock, Derndingle). b) Some of the Stoors (who later settled in Buckland and the Marish) dwelt in Dunland at one time (App. B of RK, Third Age 1150 and 1630), and the men of Bree also came from that region originally (RK, p. 408). "Since the survival of traces of the older language of the Stoors and the Bree- men resembled the survival of Celtic elements in England" (RK, p. 414) the place-names in Bree were Celtic in origin (Bree, Archet, Chetwood). Similarly, the names of the Buckland hobbits were Welsh (Madoc, Berilac). c) Among hobbits some of the older Fallohide families liked to give them- selves high-sounding names from the legendary past (a sort fo hobbit joke). These names were represented by names of Frankish and Gothic origin (Isengrim, Rudigar, Fredegar, Peregrin). These matters and much else is explained in detail in Appendix F. ---------- 5) Why is Tolkien's work, _The Lord of the Rings_ in particular, so difficult to translate (into other languages of our world)? Because his interest in, skill with, and love of language are manifest at every level and indeed in almost every word of LotR to produce a result difficult if not impossible to duplicate. There is the matter described in Question 4 of how Common Speech names were "rendered" into English. The Guide to the Names in _The Lord of the Rings_, Tolkien's instructions for translators, does address this: it goes down the list of names in the index and specifies which should be translated (being Common Speech) and which should be left alone. It would require skillful translation to get even this far but that would only be the beginning. There are the other intricacies described in Question 4; for example, Rohirric would theoretically have to be replaced with an ancient language whose relation to the language of trans- lation is the same as that of Anglo-Saxon to modern English. On another level, there is the diction and style of everything said and told. Generally speaking, there is a strongly archaic flavor running through it, not an exact recreation of how Anglo-Saxon or medieval people actually spoke but rather as close as he could get while still remaining intellible to modern readers. This was not an accidental compromise but rather a deliberate and carefully devised one. Moreover, variations in speaking styles were not at all accidental, neither variations among different speakers (e.g. at the Council of Elrond) nor variations within the style of the same speaker at different times. It may be that a translator lives who would take such pains, but probably not ... Besides all of which, Tolkien's poetry, often far more complicated than it looks, is very possibly untranslatable. ---------- 6) Did the events in _The Lord of the Rings_ take place on another planet or what? They did not. Tolkien explicitly rejected this idea, and in fact the environment portrayed is clearly the familiar one. What he had done, he said, was to create a series of events taking place in an *imaginary time* of a real place, our own world. ---------- 7) Was the northwest of Middle-earth, where the story took place, meant to actually be Europe? Yes and no. The environment described is indeed very much like north- western Europe, and the legends and literature which inspired this setting certainly were those of Northern Europe (and Iceland). The geographies, however, are fairly dissimilar. Tolkien explained in one letter that the familiar setting was what he had had in mind but that the idea of explicitly equating Middle-earth with our world (see Ques. 6) didn't occur to him until it was too late to change the map. Thus, any given scene may be imagined as taking place in a landscape that might be found somewhere in Europe. Whether one thinks of Middle-earth as actually *being* Europe depends on suspension of disbelief with respect to the geographical differences. Tolkien himself may well have done so. ---------- 8) Was the Shire meant to be England? Yes. The climate, place-names, flora and fauna, terrain, food, customs, and the inhabitants themselves, were all English. The Shire was more or less an idealized version of the rural England of Tolkien's childhood in Worcestershire. In one letter he spoke of the Shire being "an imaginary mirror" of England. (On the matter of why, if it's England, it's not an island, see Ques. 7.) ---------- 9) What were the changes made to _The Hobbit_ after _The Lord of the Rings_ was written, and what motivated them? [This question refers to the major revisions made to the Gollum chapter, "Riddles in the Dark", not to the multitude of minor changes made elsewhere.] In the original 1937 edition of _The Hobbit_ Gollum genuinely intended to give Bilbo his ring if Bilbo won the riddle game. The original deal was that Bilbo would receive a "present" if he won. Gollum was dismayed when the ring turned up missing, thereby preventing him from keeping his promise. He showed Bilbo the way out as an alternative and they parted courteously. As LotR was written the nature of the Ring changed. No longer a "con- venient magical device", it had become the irresistable power object, and Gollum's behavior now seemed inexplicable, indeed, impossible. In the rough drafts of the "Shadow of the Past" chapter Gandalf was made to perform much squirming trying to make it appear credible, an attempt that was not altogether successful. Tolkien resolved the difficulty by simply re-writing the chapter into its present form, in which Gollum had never dreamed of giving up the Ring and the way out was always the stake. Also, Gollum was made much more wretched, and was now acting as one enslaved by the Ring might be expected to. At the same time, Bilbo's claim to the Ring seriously undercut (in the old version he really had won it fair and square). The remaining problem was that there now existed two versions of the episode. Tolkien made this circumstance part of the story by suggesting that in the original version **Bilbo was lying** (under the evil influence of the Ring) to strengthen his claim. This sequence of events inside the story is laid out clearly in "Of the Finding of the Ring" in the Prologue and is taken for granted thereafter for the rest of the story (e.g. in "The Shadow of the Past" and at the Council of Elrond). A final note is that _The Hobbit_ as now presented doesn't quite fit the new scenario. Tolkien (for quite sound literary reasons) kept this entire matter of Bilbo's dishonesty out of the earlier story (a large, unresolved, and essentially irrelevant complication, it would have thrown everything out of balance). Thus, when Bilbo tells his story to Gandalf and the Dwarves not only is there no hint that he isn't being fully candid, there is also some direct indication that the story he is telling is in fact the "true" one. In this regard, The Prologue is a necessary prelude to LotR. ---------- 10) Was there a change of tone between Book I and the rest of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? Yes. Originally, the world of the Hobbit was not the same as the world of the Silmarillion (Tolkien threw in a few names from it, like Gondolin and Elrond, for effect, but there was no explicit connection). Thus, when he began LotR, he thought he was writing a sequel to _The Hobbit, and the tone of the early chapters, especially Ch 1, reflect this (it has the same "children's story" ambience as _The Hobbit_). With the coming of the Black Riders and Gandalf's discussion of Middle-earth history and the Ring a change began towards a loftier tone and a darker mood, though much less serious elements remained (e.g. Tom Bombadil). After the Council of Elrond LotR was overtly a sequel to the Silmarillion. Oddly, Tolkien added new details but never changed the overall tone of Book I. He later claimed that the change in tone was intentional, that it was meant to reflect the changing perceptions of the hobbits as they became educated about the Wide World. This was certainly not his intention as he was writing. On the other hand, the tone of "The Scouring of the Shire" is very different from that of "A Long-expected Party", possibly indicating the altered perspective of the observers. ---------- 11) Why did Tolkien fail to publish _The Silmarillion_ during the eighteen years which followed the publication of _The Lord of the Rings_ ? No definitive answer is possible, but a several serious obstacles can be listed. They included: a) Technical difficulties. Tolkien's unmethodical habits of revision had made the manuscripts chaotic; it seemed impossible to make everything consistent. Characters introduced in LotR had to be worked in. Beyond these detailed questions, he contemplated many alterations, even to fundamental features of his mythology. b) The problem of depth. In LotR, his references to the older legends of the First Age helped produce the strong sense of historical reality. In the Silmarillion, which told the legends themselves, this method wouldn't be available. c) The problem of presentation. LotR had been basically novelistic, presenting the story sequentially from one character or another's point of view. But the Silmarillion was and was meant to be a bundle of tales which had more in common with the ancient legends he studied than with LotR. He feared that if he presented it as an annotated study of ancient manuscripts that probably many readers would have difficulty enjoying the tales as stories. d) No Hobbits. He feared (correctly) that many people expected another _Lord of the Rings_, which the Silmarillion could never be. ---------- 12) What is Canonical? Strictly speaking, only those works published during Tolkien's lifetime are canonical: _The Hobbit_, _The Lord of the Rings_, the Preface to _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_, and the notes to _The Road Goes Ever On_. "The Guide to the Names in _The Lord of the Rings_ was fully his work, and very probably accurately reflects his intentions. There also seems to be general willingness to accept much of what is in _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, since they usually fill in gaps in a wonderfully detailed way without serious contradictions with what is told elsewhere. _The Silmarillion_ (the published form) is another matter. As published, it is an interweaving of elements from different "phases" of revision so as to force consistency on the set of Tales, a result which Tolkien himself had never succeeded in producing. (In _The Lost Road_ Christopher describes the process in detail as applied to the story of Beren and Luthien, and it is made plain that the editorial intervention is far more extensive than had previously been apparent. _The (published) Silmarillion_, then, is probably dependable as an indicator of the general course of the various stories, but is should be used as a basis for detailed arguments only with great care. A better source is the various drafts as they exist, and these cannot be fully evaluated until all the material has been published. ---------- GENERAL HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH 13) What exactly happened at the end of the First Age? The Noldorin Elves had made war on Morgoth (referred to as "the Great Enemy" by Aragorn in "A Knife in the Dark") to recover the three Silmarils, which he had stolen, and had been totally defeated. The Valar then used their full power against Morgoth. In the resulting cataclysm Beleriand, the land in which the tales of the Silmarillion took place, was destroyed and sank under the Sea. There are thus various references to "lands under the waves". On the LotR map, Beleriand would have been far to the west, beyond the Blue Mountains (Ered Luin), which also appear at the far right of the Silm map. It is difficult to make an exact correlation because the mountain range was much altered, having been split when the Gulf of Lune created. Nogrod and Belegost, the ancient dwarf-cities, are located on the Silm map, and existed as ruins in the Third Age, but where they fall on the LotR map is not known (they were said to be "near Nenuail", which is only slightly helpful). Lindon was definitely the same land as Ossiriand, where Beren and Luthien once dwelt. [_The Atlas of Middle-earth_ includes a map showing how Eriador and Beleriand lay relative to each other.] ---------- 14) In terms of the larger worldview, what exactly took place at the Fall of Numenor? The world was changed from a flat medieval world to the round world of today. Middle-earth was meant to be our own world (Ques. 6), and Tolkien's overall conception was of a progression, with "Mythological Time" changing into "Historical Time". The events accompanying the Fall of Numenor were a major step in the process. Originally, the "fashion" of Middle-earth was the flat world of the medieval universe. Valinor (the equivalent of Heaven in that the "gods" dwelt there) was physically connected to the rest of the world and could be reached by ship. When Numenor sank (see Ques 25) "the fashion of the world was changed": the flat world was bent into a round one, with new lands also being created; and Valinor was removed "from the circles of the World", and could no longer be reached by ordinary physical means. The Elves alone were still allowed to make a one-way journey to Valinor along "the Straight Road". (An elven ship on such a journey would grow smaller and smaller with distance until if vanished rather than sinking over the horizon as a human ships do.) References to "bent seas", "bent skies", "the straight road", "straight sight", "the World Made Round", and the like all refer to the change in the world's "fashion". (The palantir at Emyn Beriad "looked only to the Sea. Elendil set it there so that he could look back with 'straight sight' and see Eressea in the vanished West; but the bent seas below covered Numenor for ever." (RK, p. 322) ---------- HOBBITS 15) Were Hobbits a sub-group of Humans? Yes, beyond question. Tolkien stated this explicitly both in Guide (entry for The Firstborn) and in Letters (p. 158). The most easily accesible statement, the one in the Prologue, is unfortunately far more vague: "It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves." (FR, p. 11). As a result the origin of Hobbits has been much debated. ---------- 16) Did Frodo and the others (Bilbo, Sam, and Gimli) who passed over the Sea eventually die, or had they become immortal? They remained mortal. Tolkien's conception was that a creature's natural lifespan was intrinsic to its spiritual and biological nature, and that this could not be altered save by a direct intervention of the Creator. There were three occasions when this did happen (Luthien, Tuor, Arwen), but it did not in the cases of Frodo & Co. Tolkien stated explicitly in more than one letter that Frodo's journey over the Sea was only a *temporary* healing, and that when the time came he and the others would die of their own free will. ---------- 17) Did Hobbits have pointed ears? Somewhat pointed. In a letter of instructions for illustrators to his American publishers he described the generic hobbit as " ... fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur." (His use of the word "elvish" to describe pointed ears refers to the elves of folklore of our world, since the recipients of the letter of course knew nothing of the Elves of Middle- earth.) _The Annotated Hobbit_ includes a reasonable illustration based on this description. ---------- 18) When was Bilbo and Frodo's Birthday? To what date on our own calendar does it correspond? The date on the Shire calendar was September 22. Taking into account both the different definitions of the months and the different correlation with the actual seasons (the summer solstice was between June and July on their calendar, June 21 on ours), the discrepancy in September is found to be 10 days, giving our September 12 as the equivalent date. (This result has some significance for the story: events occur ten days earlier in terms of the seasons than the dates would suggest to us. Thus, Oct. 6, when Frodo was wounded by the Black Riders, was the day we call Sept. 26, a difference which could be important when sleeping outside in autumn.) [In Appendix D Tolkien gives detailed information about long-term inaccuracies of the Shire Reckoning, which they dealt with differently than we do. Based on this, it is possible to conclude that the SR at the time of the story had accumulated either two days or four days of error, depending on whether the Hobbits made the Millennial Adjustment in TA 3000 (SR 1400). This result would make the equivalent date either September 14 or September 16, but other uncertainties raise questions about the accuracy of such calcu- lations, leaving September 12 as the best choice.] ---------- 19) Was Gollum a hobbit? Yes, beyond all doubt. Gandalf's opinion alone (in "The Shadow of the Past"; FR, p. 62) should be sufficient to settle this, but it is confirmed in several other places. The Tale of Years (App B) has the following entry: " 2463 About this time Deagol the Stoor finds the One Ring, and is murdered by Smeagol." (RK, p. 368) -- it was explained in the Prologue that the Stoors were one of the three branches of hobbit-kind (FR, p. 12). In "The Hunt for the Ring" it is told that Sauron concluded from his interrogation of Gollum that Bilbo must have been the same sort of creature (UT, p. 342) (indeed, Gandalf concluded the same thing about Gollum from his talks with Bilbo; FR, p. 63). The following passing reference shows that the author of "The Hunt for the Ring" takes Gollum's "hobbit-ness" as a given: [Sauron had concluded that Gollum was indomitable] "Ultimately indomitable he was, except by death, as Sauron guessed, both from his halfling nature, and from a cause which Sauron did not fully comprehend ..." (UT, p. 337). Perhaps Gandalf's archaic diction was part of the problem. When a reader suggested that perhaps '(1) Smeagol's people were *not* "of hobbit-kind" as suggested by Gandalf', Tolkien dismissed the suggestion. He added: "With regard to (1) Gandalf certainly says at first 'I guess' (FR, p. 62); but that is in accordance with his character and wisdom. In more modern language he would have said 'I deduce', referring to matters that had not come under his direct observation, but on which he had formed a conclusion based on study. ... But he did not in fact doubt his conclusion: 'It is true all the same, etc.' " (Letters, p. 289). ---------- 20) In _The Hobbit_, Bilbo called the spiders Attercop, Lazy Lob, Crazy Cob, and Old Tomnoddy. What do the words mean? Notes in _The Annotated Hobbit_ identify Attercop, Lob, and Cob as being taken from similar words in Old and Middle English for "spider". The Oxford English Dictionary definition of Tomnoddy is given as "a foolish or stupid person." As is well known, Tolkien used "Lob" again later. During the writing of Book IV he wrote to Christopher: "Do you think Shelob is a good name for a monstrous spider creature? It is of course only 'she + lob' ( == 'spider' ), but written as one, it seems to be quite noisome. ..." (Letters, p. 81) ---------- ELVES 21) Were Elves reincarnated after they were slain? Yes. In addition to a number of general statements to this effect at least two Elves are specifically said to have been "re-embodied" after being slain: Finrod Felagund and Glorfindel (see Ques. 22). ("Re-embodied" is used rather than "reincarnated" because in the case of Elves (unlike what's usually meant in a human context) the spirit was reborn in a body resembling the original and furthermore all its former memories would be substantially intact). ---------- 22) Was Glorfindel of Rivendell (whom Frodo met) the same as Glorfindel of Gondolin, who was slain fighting a Balrog? Yes. This result was, however, unplanned. Glorfindel entered LotR very early in its development, when Tolkien still thought he was writing a sequel to _The Hobbit_ (as opposed to the Silmarillion). Thus, he felt free to casually borrow names from the Silmarillion for effect (he had also done so in _The Hobbit_ -- Elrond is the main example). Even after the world of LotR (and _The Hobbit_) had been identifed as a later age of the Silmarillion world he retained the name, not noticing the questions raised by the death of a "Glorfindel" at the sack of Gondolin. Later, however, he did address this matter. Christopher reports that after much thought he decided that Glor- findel of Rivendell was indeed Glorfindel of Gondolin: he had been released from Mandos and returned to Middle-earth during the Second Age. ---------- 23) Did Elves have pointed ears? Somewhat pointed, anyway. In the Etymologies two meanings are given for the stem 'las' : 'leaf' and 'listen' . The entry for the first meaning ('leaf') includes the following note: "Some think this is related to the next and *lasse == 'ear'. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf- shaped than [human].) ---------- 24) How were Eldar in Valinor named? They had two given names ('essi'), one bestowed at birth by the father, the other later by the mother. The mother-names were said to have great significance, because "mothers of the Eldar had insight into the characters and abilities of their children", and foresight to boot. Eldar might also acquire an 'epesse', or 'after-name', which could be given by anyone and which was usually "a title of admiration or honour". Some elves were best-known by their epesse. The two most familiar were 'Gil-galad' ('Star of Radiance'), whose real name was 'Ereinion' ('Scion of Kings'); and 'Galadriel' (the Sindarin form of the Telerin 'Alatariel' and the Quenya 'Altariel' : 'maiden crowned with a radiant garland' ) -- her given father- and mother-names were, respectively, 'Artanis' ('noble woman') and 'Nerwen' ('man-maiden'). ---------- HUMANS 25) What brought on the sinking of Numenor? The Numenor story was Tolkien's re-telling of the Atlantis legend (the tale publshed in _The Silmarillion_ was entitled "The Akalabeth", which may be translated as "Downfallen"). Numenor was an island far to the West, a "land apart" given to the heroic Edain (humans) of the First Age who had aided the Noldor in the wars against Morgoth (see Ques. 13). [The Line of Kings of Numenor was descended from Elrond's brother Elros, who chose to be mortal; it led indirectly to Elendil the Tall, first King of Arnor and Gondor, and thus eventually to Aragorn son of Arathorn.] The theological situation was the "standard" one of a Ban and a Fall. The Numenoreans, despite having been granted a longer lifespan than other, humans, nevertheless had to remain mortal. They had also been ordered not to sail West to the Undying Lands (Valinor). After awhile (perhaps inevitably, as their power and wealth grew) the Numenoreans began to envy the Elves and to yearn for immortality themselves (so as to enjoy their situation longer). They managed to convince themselves that physical control of the Undying Lands would somehow produce this result (it would not have); however, they also retained sufficient wisdom not to attempt any such foolish action. Significantly, the more obsessed they became with death the more quickly it came as their lifespans steadily waned. Near the end of the Second Age King Ar-Pharazon the Golden pridefully challenged Sauron for the mastery of Middle-earth. The Numenoreans won the confrontation (see Ques. 26) and took Sauron to Numenor as a prisoner. Still wielding the One Ring, he swiftly gained control over most of the Numenoreans (except for the Faithful and their leaders, Amandil and his son Elendil). As King Ar-Pharazon's death approached ("he felt the waning of his days and was besotted by fear of death"; RK, p. 317) Sauron finally convinced him by deception to attack Valinor. This was a mistake. A great chasm opened in the Sea and Numenor toppled into the abyss. (Tolkien had a recurrent dream about this event; in LotR he gave it to Faramir, who described it in "The Steward and the King".) [See also Ques 14] ---------- 26) How could Ar-Pharazon of Numenor defeat Sauron while Sauron wielded the One Ring? He did not actually defeat Sauron himself. The invasion fleet of the Numenoreans was so powerful that Sauron's *armies* deserted him. Sauron merely pretended to humble himself; to be carried back to Numenor as a supposed hostage was exactly what he wanted. His plan was to weaken Numenor as a war power by maneuvering them into sending a fleet to attack Valinor, where it would presumably be destroyed. He succeeded up to a point, but the result was disastrously more violent than he foresaw, and he was caught in the Fall of Numenor. Only his physical body perished since by nature he was of the spiritual order. Tolkien: "That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. The indestructibility of *spirits* with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story." (Letters, p. 280). ---------- 27) What happened to the Ring when Numenor was destroyed? Nothing. Sauron carried it back to Middle-earth, though there might be some question as to how he managed it. Tolkien said he did, and Tolkien should know: "Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended." (Letters, p. 280). In fact, as far as we know all the spiritual beings (Valar and Maia) were perfectly capable of manipulating physical objects. ---------- 28) Where did the Southrons come from? Were they part of the Atani? Yes. All humans, East, West, North, or South, were. Humans first appeared in the east and spread westwards, with some eventually crossing the Blue Mountains into Beleriand. The entry for Atani in the Silmarillion index reads: Atani 'The Second People', Men (singular Atan). Since in Beleriand for a long time the only Men known to the Noldor and Sindar were those of the Three Houses of the Elf-friends, this name (in the Sindarin form Adan, plural Edain) became specially associated with them, so that it was seldom applied to other Men who came later to Beleriand, or who were reported to be dwelling beyond the Mountains. But in the speech of Iluvatar the meaning is 'Men (in general)'. [Humans were 'the second people' because Elves were the Firstborn.] ---------- DWARVES 29) What were the origins of the Dwarves? They were made by Aule, the smith and craftmaster of the Valar. This was against Eru's Plan: Aule had neither the authority nor indeed the power to create other souls (the result of his efforts was a group of what amounted to puppets). However, because he repented his folly at once and because his motives had been good (he desired children to teach, not slaves to command) Eru gave the Dwarves life and made them part of the Plan. The Elves were still to be the "Firstborn", though, so the Dwarves had to sleep until after the Elves awoke. ---------- 30) If, as has been told, only Seven Fathers of the Dwarves were created, how did the race procreate? In the _Silmarillion_ account of the making of the Dwarves, only the Seven Fathers are mentioned. In Letter no. 212 (p 287), however, Tolkien speaks of thirteen dwarves being initially created: "One, the eldest, alone, and six more with six mates." Thus, it seems that Durin really did "walk alone" as Gimli's song said. ---------- 31) Did Dwarf women have beards? It seems they did. In Appendix A it was said: "They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart." Since beards were part of the appearence, not the garb, of dwarf-men, we must conclude that dwarf-women did in fact have beards. ---------- ISTARI (Wizards) 32) Who were the Istari (Wizards)? The Wizards were Maiar (spiritual beings of lower "rank" than the Valar) sent to Middle-earth by the Valar in human form as Messengers to help in the struggle against Sauron: the term "incarnate angel" is approximately correct. Being incarnated limited their power, and intentionally so, because their mission was to organize the resitance and to inspire the peoples of Middle- earth to help themselves, not to do the job for them. Their main temptation, then, was to try to speed up the process by dominating other free wills -- a principle reason for their mission was to prevent such actions by Sauron. It was said that there were Five Wizards in the Order, but only three came into the story: -- Saruman ('Man of Skill') the White [Sindarin: Curunir ('Man of Skill'); Quenya: Curumo] -- Gandalf ('Elf of the wand') the Grey (later the White) [Sindarin: Mithrandir ('Grey Pilgrim'); Quenya: Olorin] -- Radagast the Brown [Quenya: Aiwendel] Gandalf was the only one who remained true to his missison, and in the end succeeded in bringing about Sauron's defeat. He was also the keeper of the Elven Ring Narya, the Red Ring (the Ring of Fire). ---------- 33) Of the Five Wizards, only three came into the story. Was anything known about the other two? Very little. No names given them in Middle-earth are recorded, just the title Ithryn Luin, 'The Blue Wizards' (for they were clad in sea-blue) (their names in Valinor were Alatar and Pallando). When the Istari first arrived in Middle-earth, Saruman and the Blue Wizards journeyed into the east, but only Saruman returned. The Essay on the Istari says: "whether they remained in the East, pursuing there the purposes for which they were sent; or perished; or as some hold were ensnared by Sauron and became his servants, is not not known." (UT, p. 390) Tolkien speaking as himself was only barely more explicit. In a letter he said that he knew "nothing clearly" about the other two: 'I think they went as emissaries to distant regions, East and South, far out of Numenorean range: missionaries to enemy-occupied lands, as it were. What success they had I do not know; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.' (Letters, p. 280). ---------- 34) What happened to Radagast? Radagast was said to also have failed his mission, but it's tempting to think that his "failure" was not as bad as that of the others. The Essay on the Istari: "Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures." (UT, p. 390) Radagast certainly never became evil. The above quote suggests, however, that his mission was not just to relate to wild creatures but also to build bridges between them and Elves and Men. He did, in fact, have his friends the birds gather much information, but since they were reporting to Saruman as the head of the Council that wasn't altogether helpful. On the other hand, it has often been suggested (though there is no direct textual evidence of any kind) that the way Eagles kept showing up at opportune times may have been partially his work. We know nothing of what happened to Radagast after the end of the Third Age. It seems conceivable, though, given the more ambiguous nature of his failing, that he might have been allowed back to Valinor eventually. ---------- BAD GUYS 35) What was the relationship between Orcs and Goblins? They are different names for the same race of creatures. Of the two, "Orc" is the correct one. This has been a matter of widespread debate and misunderstanding, mostly resulting from the usage in _The Hobbit_ (Tolkien had changed his mind about it by LotR but the confusion in the earlier book was made worse by inconsistant backwards modifications). There are a couple of statements in _The Hobbit_ which, if taken literally, to suggest that Orcs are a subset of goblins. If we are to believe the indications from all other areas of Tolkien's writing, this is not correct. There are: some fairly clear statements in letters, the evolution of his standard terminology (see next paragraph), and the actual usage in LotR, all of which suggest that "Orc" was the true name of the race. (The pedigrees in _Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia_ are thoroughly innaccurate and undependable.) What happened was this. The creatures so referred to were invented along with the rest of Tolkien's subcreation during the writing of the Book of Lost Tales (the "pre-Silmarillion"). His usage in the early writing is somewhat varied but the movement is away from "goblin" and towards "orc". It was part of a general trend away from the terminology of traditional folklore (he felt that the familiar words would call up the wrong associations in the readers' minds, since his creations were quite different in specific ways). For the same general reasons he began calling the Deep Elves "Noldor" rather than "Gnomes", and avoided "Faerie" altogether. (On the other hand, he was stuck with "Wizards", an "imperfect" translation of Istari ('the Wise'), "Elves", and "Dwarves"; he did say once that he would have preferred "dwarrow", which, so he said, was more historically and linguistically correct, if he'd thought of it in time ...) In _The Hobbit_, which originally was unconnected with the Silmarillion, he used the familiar term "goblin" for the benefit of modern readers. By the time of LotR, however, he'd decided that "goblin" wouldn't do -- Orcs were not storybook goblins (see above). (No doubt he also felt that "goblin", being Romance-derived, had no place in a work based so much on Anglo-Saxon and Northern traditions in general.) Thus, in LotR, the proper name of the race is "Orcs" (capital "O"), and that name is found in the index along with Ents, Men, etc., while "goblin" is not in the index at all. There are a handful of examples of "goblin" being used (always with a small "g") but it seems in these cases to be a kind of slang for Orcs. Tolkien's explanation inside the story was that the "true" name of the creatures was Orc (an anglicized version of Sindarin *Orch* , pl. *Yrch*). As the "translator" of the ancient manuscripts, he "substituted" "Goblin" for "Orch" when he translated Bilbo's diary, but for The Red Book he reverted to a form of the ancient word. [The actual source of the word "orc" is Beowulf: "orc-nass", translated as "death-corpses". It has nothing to do with cetaceans.] ---------- 36) What was the origin of the Orcs? A fundamental concept for Tolkien (and the other Inklings) was that Evil cannot create, only corrupt (the Boethian, as opposed to the Manichean, concept of evil). In Letter 153 he explained that to a first approximation, Treebeard was wrong ("Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves." TT, p. 89) and Frodo was right ("The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to Orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them ..." RK, p. 190). (Tolkien: "Treebeard is a *character* in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand." Letters, p. 190; "Suffering and experience (and possibly the Ring itself) gave Frodo more insight ..." Letters, p. 191.) ("To the first approximation" [above] because in that same letter Tolkien made some subtle distinctions between "creating" and "making", which cannot be gone into here.) Tolkien stated explicitly in that letter (and several other places) that the Orcs are indeed "a race of rational incarnate creatures, though horribly corrupted". Also that "In the legends of the Elder Days it is suggested that the Diabolus subjugated and corrupted some of the earliest Elves, before they had ever heard of the 'gods', let alone of God." (Letters, p. 191). In fact, _The Silmarillion_ does state that Orcs were Avari (Dark Elves) captured by Morgoth (p. 50, 94), though strictly speaking, the idea is presented as the best guess of the Eldar, no more. Some have rejected the statements on those grounds, that the Elvish compilers of _The Silmarillion_ didn't actually *know* the truth but were merely speculating. But since Tolkien himself, speaking as author and sub-creator, more-or-less verified this idea, it's probably safe to accept it, as far as it goes. It has been widely noted that this conception leaves several questions unresolved. 1) Re: procreation, _The Silmarillion_ says that "the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar" (p. 50), but nevertheless people continue to raise questions. For one thing, there was never any hint that female Orcs exist (there were two apparent references to Orc children, but both were from _The Hobbit_ , and therefore may be considered suspect). 2) There is the question of why, if Orcs were corrupted Elves, their offspring would also be Orcs (rather than Elves -- a somewhat horrifying thought). This question leads to discussions of brainwashing vs. genetics, which are not altogether appropriate to the world of Middle-earth. 3) Finally there is the question of whether Orcs, being fundamentally Elves, go to the Halls of Mandos when they are slain, and whether, like Elves, they are reincarnated. (This last would explain how they managed to replenish their numbers so quickly all the time.) There is also some reason to think that Orcs, like Elves, are immortal. (Gorbag and Shagrat, during the conver- sation which Sam overheard, mention the "Great Seige", which presumably refers to the Last Alliance; it is possible to interpret this reference to mean that they were there and actually remembered it themselves.) ---------- 37) What was the origin of Trolls? No one seems to know. Apparently, though, they were "made" (as opposed to "created" -- see Ques 36) by Melkor. Said Tolkien: "I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence ... they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls, beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested." (Letters, p. 191) "Counterfeits" here means more-or- less that the Trolls have no independant life of their own but are puppets animated in some way by an external Evil Will. As for the other kind of Troll, the Olog-hai, no reference to their origin has been found, except for Appendix F: "That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known." However, they were definitely true Trolls, not large Orcs. The Troll adventure in _The Hobbit_ should probably not be taken too literally as a source of Troll-lore -- it seems clear that it was much modified by the translator's desire to create familiarity. Thus, it seems unlikely that Trolls in Middle-earth spoke with Cockney accents, just as it seems unlikely that one of them would have been named "William". ---------- MISCELLANEOUS 38) Who or what was Tom Bombadil? This question has been a widely debated, sometimes far too vehemantly. Part of the difficulty is the complexity of Tom's literary history. Tom was originally a doll (with blue jacket and yellow boots) owned by Tolkien's son Michael. The doll inspired a story fragment, such as he often invented for his children's amusement. That fragment was in turn the basis for the poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil", published in 1933, which also introduced Goldberry, the barrow wights, and Old Man Willow (the poem was the source of the events in Chapters 6 through 8 of Book I). In a contemporary letter (1937) Tolkien explained that Tom was meant to represent 'the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside'. (Letters, no 19) Tolkien introduced Tom into LotR at a very early stage, when he still thought of it as a sequel to _The Hobbit_, as opposed to _The Silmarillion_ (see Ques 10). Tom fit the original (slightly childish) tone of the early chapters (which resembled that of _The Hobbit_), but as the story progressed it became higher in tone and darker in nature. Tolkien later claimed that he left Tom in he decided that however portrayed Tom provided a necessary ingredient (see last paragraph). Some very cogent reasons are produced in a couple of wonderful letters (Letters, nos 144 & 153). As to Tom's nature, there are several schools of thought. a) He was a Maia (the most common notion). The reasoning here is plain: given the Middle-earth cast of characters as we know it, this is the most convenient pigeonhole in which to place him (and Goldberry as well) (most of the other individuals in LotR with "mysterious" origins: Gandalf, Sauron, Wizards, and Balrogs did in fact turn out to be Maiar). b) He was Iluvatar. The only support for this notion is on theological grounds: some have interpreted Goldberry's statement to Frodo (F: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" G: "He is.") as a form of the Christian "I am that am", which really could suggest the Creator. Tolkien rejected this inter- pretation quite firmly. c) T.A. Shippey (in _The Road to Middle-earth_) and others have suggested that Tom is a one-of-a-kind type. This notion received indirect support from Tolkien himself: "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there amust be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Letters, p. 174) There are scattered references to other entites which seem to fall outside the usual picture. Whichever of these is correct, Tom's function inside the story was evidently to demonstrate a particular attitude towards control and power. "The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless." (_Letters_, p. 178). Tom represented "Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality." (Letters, p. 179). ---------- 39) Was there any definitive explanation given on what happened to the Entwives? No. At least, there was nothing within _The Lord of the Rings_. In a couple of letters Tolkien denied having any "definite" knowledge but his tentative suggestions were on the whole pessemistic. For one thing, he made the destruction of the Entwives' land seem more deliberate than had Treebeard, who merely said that "war had passed over it" (TT, p. 79). "I think that in fact the Entwives had disappeared for good, being destroyed with their gardens in the War of the Last Alliance (Second Age 3429-3441) when Sauron pursued a scorched earth policy and burned their land against the advance of the Allies down the Anduin ... Some, of course, may have fled east, or even have become enslaved: tyrants even in such tales must have an economic and agricultural background to their soldiers and metal-workers. If any survived so, they would indeed be far estranged from the Ents, and any rapprochement would be difficult -- unless experience of industrialized and militarized agriculture had made them a little more anarchic. I hope so. I don't know." (Letter no 144) ---------- 40) Who was Queen Beruthiel? (Aragorn mentioned her during the journey through Moria.) The reference is to Book II, Ch 4 "A Journey in the Dark": " 'Do not be afraid!' said Aragorn. There was a pause longer than usual, and Gandalf and Gimli were whispering together; ... 'Do not be afraid! I have been with him on many a journey, if never on one so dark; ... He is surer of finding the way home in a blind night than the cats of Queen Beruthiel.' " (FR p. 325). This is a striking case of Tolkien's creative process. It seems that the name meant nothing when it first appeared: it just "came" as he was writing the first draft of the chapter. Later, however, he "found out" whom she "actually" was, his conclusions being reported in UT. She was the wife of King Tarannon of Gondor (Third Age 830-913), and was described as "nefarious, solitary, and loveless" (Tarannon's childlessness was mentioned without explanation in the annals). "She had nine black cats and one white, her slaves, with whom she conversed, or read their memories, setting them to discover all the dark secrets of Gondor,... setting the white cat to spy upon the black, and tormenting them. No man in Gondor dared touch them; all were afraid of them, and cursed when they saw them pass." Her eventual fate was to be set adrift in a boat with her cats: "The ship was last seen flying past Umbar under a sickle moon, with a cat at the masthead and another as a figure-head on the prow." It is also told that "her name was erased from the Book of the Kings (`but the memory of men is not wholly shut in books, and the cats of Queen Beruthiel never passed wholly out of men's speech')." (UT, pp 401-402)