The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (33 page)

He has no connexion in my mind with the Entwives. What had happened to them is not resolved in this book. He is in a way the answer to them in the sense that he is almost the opposite, being say, Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality.

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 (vol. II p. 79 refers to it
²
). They survived only in the ‘agriculture' transmitted to Men (and Hobbits). 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.

Hobbit-children were delightful, but I am afraid that the only glimpses of them in this book are found at the beginning of vol. I. An epilogue giving a further glimpse (though of a rather exceptional family) has been so universally condemned that I shall not insert it. One must stop somewhere.

Yes,
Sam Gamgee
is in a sense a relation of
Dr. Gamgee,
in that his name would not have taken that form, if I had not heard of ‘Gamgee tissue'; there was I believe a Dr. Gamgee (no doubt of the kin) in Birmingham when I was a child. The name was any way always familiar to me. Gaffer Gamgee arose first: he was a legendary character to my children (based on a real-life gaffer, not of that name). But, as you will find explained, in this tale the name is a ‘translation' of the real Hobbit name, derived from a village (devoted to rope-making) anglicized as
Gamwich (pron. Gammidge), near Tighfield (see vol. II p. 217).
³
Since Sam was close friends of the family of Cotton (another village-name), I was led astray into the Hobbit-like joke of spelling Gamwichy Gamgee, though I do not think that in actual Hobbit-dialect the joke really arose.

There are no precise opposites to the Wizards – a translation (perhaps not suitable, but throughout distinguished from other ‘magician' terms) of Q. Elvish
Istari.
Their origin was not known to any but a few (such as Elrond and Galadriel) in the Third Age. They are said to have first appeared about the year 1000 of the Third Age, when the shadow of Sauron began first to grow again to new shape. They always appeared old, but grew older with their labours, slowly, and disappeared with the end of the Rings. They were thought to be Emissaries (in the terms of this tale from the Far West beyond the Sea), and their proper function, maintained by Gandalf, and perverted by Saruman, was to encourage and bring out the native powers of the Enemies of Sauron. Gandalf's opposite was, strictly, Sauron, in one part of Sauron's operations; as Aragorn was in another.

The
Balrog
is a survivor from the
Silmarillion
and the legends of the First Age. So is
Shelob.
The
Balrogs
, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits of destroying fire, chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. They were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of
Thangorodrim,
his fortress in the North. But it is here found (there is usually a hang-over especially of evil from one age to another) that one had escaped and taken refuge under the mountains of Hithaeglin (the Misty Mountains). It is observable that only the Elf knows what the thing is – and doubtless Gandalf.

Shelob (English representing C.S ‘she-lob' = female spider) is a translation of Elvish
Ungol
‘spider'. She is represented in vol. II p. 332 as descendant of the giant spiders of the glens of
Nandungorthin,
which come into the legends of the First Age, especially into the chief of them, the tale of Beren and Lúthien. This is constantly referred to, since as Sam points out (vol. II p. 321)
⁴
this history is in a sense only a further continuation of it. Both Elrond (and his daughter Arwen Undómiel, who resembles Lúthien closely in looks and fate) are descendants of Beren and Lúthien; and so at very many more removes is Aragorn. The giant spiders were themselves only the offspring of Ungoliante the primeval devourer of light, that in spider-form assisted the Dark Power, but ultimately quarrelled with him. There is thus no alliance between Shelob and Sauron, the Dark Power's deputy; only a common hatred.

Galadriel is as old, or older than Shelob. She is the last remaining of the Great among the High Elves, and ‘awoke' in Eldamar beyond the Sea, long before Ungoliante came to Middle-earth and produced her broods there. . . . .

Well, after a long silence you have evoked a fairly long reply. Not too long, I hope, even for such delightful and encouraging interest. I am deeply grateful for it; and I hope all staying at Carradale
⁵
will accept my thanks.

Yours sincerely,

J. R. R. Tolkien.

13 May 1954

Thank you for sending me the projected ‘blurbs', which I return. The Americans are not as a rule at all amenable to criticism or correction; but I think their effort is so poor that I feel constrained to make some effort to improve it, though without much more hope of effect than in the case of the appalling jacket they produced for The Hobbit. I enclose a page of suggestions, which you might perhaps send on to Houghton Mifflin. . . . .

May I beg of you earnestly to try and make the publication July? I think it would be a pity to let the enthusiasm go off the boil. I also think that July is much the better date for many, especially scholastics and academics, who in July begin to lift up their heads and in September begin to bow them again under a load of cares. But I have some cogent private reasons. One of them is that I am
particularly anxious
that Vol. I should be in public existence before I arrive in Dublin to take the degree of D. Litt. on July 20 at the centenary celebrations. (Though the Irish have not much money for such expensive books, you might get Dublin to take a copy or two on the strength of the celebrations!)

It never rains but it pours (as I am sure Mr Butterbur must have said), and I am going to get a doctorate at Liége on October 2nd; but I suppose that Vol. I will be out at least before then. . . . .

I am pleased to find that the preliminary opinions are so good, though I feel that comparisons with Spenser, Malory, and Ariosto (not to mention super Science Fiction) are too much for my vanity! I showed your draft to Geoffrey Mure (Warden), who was being tiresome this
morning and threatening to eject me from my room in favour of a mere tutor. He was visibly shaken, and evidently did not know before what the college had been harbouring. He went so far as to say that Merton seemed to be doing well, though he doubted if I should get quite into the Roger Bannister class.
¹
Anyway my stock went up sufficiently to obtain me an even better room, even at the cost of ejecting one so magnificent as the Steward. So if you have any more appreciations which I have not seen, please let me have a look at them. I promise not to become like Mr Toad. . . . .

I am delighted to hear that all is going well. This is the second Merlin with whom I am acquainted. Professor Turville Petre's second son bears the names Merlin Oswald (not an Anglo-Welsh rapprochement; I think the Oswald is parental and grand-parental). I am sure you are right: Gandalf was of course always old. He was an Emissary, who had that shape from the first; but all things wear in Middle-Earth, so that he got older before his task was done. Not a name for a child of Men!

3 June 1954

I wish that I could say that I approve of the proofs of the jacket, herewith returned. I do not. I think they are very ugly indeed. But to be effective I should have been given an opportunity of criticism at an earlier stage.

What the jacket looks like is, I think, of much less importance now than issuing the book as soon as possible; and if I had had nothing to do with it, I should not much mind. But as the Ring-motif remains obviously mine (though made rather clumsier), I am likely to be suspected by the few who concern me of having planned the whole. . . . .

I tell you what I think, since I am asked: tasteless and depressing. But surely asking my opinion is a formality. I do not suppose that any of my criticisms could be met without serious delay.
I would rather have the things as they are than cause any more delay
. But
if this can be done without delay
, I would like a different type for the title-lettering at least (on the page; the spine is passable).

15 June 1954

It was a great moment yesterday when I received the advance copy of
The Fellowship of the Ring.
The book itself is very presentable indeed.

I think the jacket is now much improved, and is rather striking. I like the grey paper used, and much prefer it to the other colours. But the specimens of the jackets for II and III do bring home to me the point, which I had not fully appreciated: the need for differentiation. Since the same device is, for economy, to be used throughout, they do look too much alike; and choice of colour is perhaps less important than distinction. But this could perhaps better be achieved by varying the colour of the major lettering? Title and author in red?

I do not really myself mind at all, and leave it to you.

7 August 1954

I am afraid there are still a number of ‘misprints' in Vol. I! Including the one on p. 166. But
nasturtians
is deliberate, and represents a final triumph over the high-handed printers. Jarrold's appear to have a highly educated pedant as a chief proof-reader, and they started correcting my English without reference to me:
elfin
for
elven
;
farther
for
further
; try to say for
try and say
and so on. I was put to the trouble of proving to him his own ignorance, as well as rebuking his impertinence. So, though I do not much care, I dug my toes in about
nasturtians.
I have always said this. It seems to be a natural anglicization that started soon after the ‘Indian Cress' was naturalized (from Peru, I think) in the 18th century; but it remains a minority usage. I prefer it because
nasturtium
is, as it were, bogusly botanical, and falsely learned.

I consulted the college gardener to this effect: ‘What do you call these things, gardener?'

‘I calls them
tropaeolum
, sir.'

‘But, when you're just talking to dons?'

‘I says
nasturtians
, sir.'

‘Not
nasturtium
?'

‘No, sir; that's watercress.'

And that seems to be the fact of botanical nomenclature. . . . .

It has been (and continues to be) a crushingly laborious year! So many things at once, each needing exclusive attention. They are clamouring for
Gawain
.
¹
(It is being repeated next month.) And I am struggling to select from all the mass of private stuff about the languages, scripts, calendars and history of the Third Age, what may prove interesting to
those who like that sort of thing, and will go into the space (about 40 pages). Time runs on; for I have to go to Ireland again about mid-Sept. and then on to Belgium, and then it will be term. . . . .

9 September 1954

As for the reviews they were a great deal better than I feared, and I think might have been better still, if we had not quoted the Ariosto remark, or indeed got involved at all with the extraordinary animosity that C.S.L. seems to excite in certain quarters. He warned me long ago that his support might do me as much harm as good. I did not take it seriously, though in any case I should not have wished other than to be associated with him – since only by his support and friendship did I ever struggle to the end of the labour. All the same many commentators seem to have preferred lampooning his remarks or his review to reading the book.

The (unavoidable) disadvantage of issuing in three parts has been shown in the ‘shapelessness' that several readers have found, since that is true if one volume is supposed to stand alone. ‘Trilogy', which is not really accurate, is partly to blame. There is too much ‘hobbitry' in Vol. I taken by itself; and several critics have obviously not got far beyond Chapter I.