Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: loos@amber.mgh.harvard.edu (William D.B. Loos)
Subject: REPOST: Tolkien FAQ
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 07:18:00 GMT



This was the first release of the Tolkien Frequently Asked Questions list.
It is now in the process of being somewhat revised; there are, however, no
factual errors in this version.  Full references for each question are also
to be added.  Suggestions are still welcome.

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 
  Warwickshire.  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)