Essay, chapter 2
Since this chapter grew,um, rather bulky, I'm dividing it into two sections, each with its own footnotes. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are the more theoretical parts here, just so you're warned. ;) I hope you'll continue to enjoy reading this and look forward to all thoughts and comments.
(This is as much as I've got written right now, and since I'll be pretty busy over the next two weeks, it's going to take a while until I'll finish chapter 3. Apologies in advance, and all suggestions for topics or questions that should be brought up in the later chapters will be very welcome.)
Chapter 2: Family, Marriage, and Sex in the Shire: Elementary
2.1 'Good characters are chaste': Continence, Sam's tryst with the beer-barrel and some fallacies of argument
From Tolkien's personal ethics emerges an ideal of continence and self-restraint that is also reflected in his statements on the elven attitude towards lust and desire. In LACE, he writes of elves that "they are seldom swayed by the desires of the body only, but are by nature continent and steadfast" and: "Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them." The underlying standard obviously encompasses more than erotic desire: Elven nature, as Tolkien envisioned it, leans towards a dominance of spiritual inclination over physical impulse. But, as the Middle-earth texts demonstrate in abundance, neither are all other races equipped with a continent nature, nor do all cultures and individuals subscribe to such ethics. To quote Tyellas: "Men in Tolkien's backstory seem to 'wive by force' a lot more. Rape and forced marriage are plot points in several stories of Men." (TOES). Of course, rape (whether motivated by unbridled lust or sociopolitical ambitions) is by Tolkien's ethical standards an abominable crime.[1] But whether other cultures equally valued restraint towards all physical desires and pleasures has yet to be examined.
Dwarves, while sometimes chastised for their greed, obviously value material possessions and the accumulation of wealth. In LOTR, this tendency is exposed as both questionable and fraught with destructive consequences (the deep-delving of the dwarves in Moria wakened the Balrog[2]), and the foundation for specific aesthetic sensibilities, revealed in Gimli's highly poetic speech about the glittering caves at Helm's Deep. Legolas' response to this (you move me; TTT: The Road to Isengard) indicates that this central element of dwarven culture is two-faced: While desire for material wealth can degenerate into destructive greed, it can also give rise to a commendable appreciation (and creation) of beauty. Furthermore, dwarves are said to be fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples (SIL: Of Aulë and Yavanna). Even from these few details, a complex picture emerges: of a culture that is well able to overcome and control certain needs of the body and yet does not consider continence the ultimate goal in every area of existence.
Hobbits, this much emerges clearly from LOTR and The Hobbit, do not practice an overall restraint of bodily needs and pleasures either. Their love for food and drink is well-documented,[3] and their custom of exchanging and accumulating mathoms points to a general appreciation of material possessions as well. Like dwarves, they are able to overcome physical needs when faced with adversity:
...they were, perhaps, so unwearyingly fond of good things not least because they could, when put to it, do without them, and could survive rough handling by grief, foe, or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further than their bellies and their well-fed faces (LOTR: Prologue 1. Concerning Hobbits).
Tolkien describes them as "contented and moderate"[4], which generally precludes the occasional excess of greed as witnessed among dwarves. But how much does this imply about the hobbits' attitude towards erotic desire and sex? Does a general leaning towards moderation equal an ethic that prohibits, for instance, extra-marital sex of any kind?
Let me explain briefly why Tolkien's comments about elven continence can't be transferred to hobbit culture. While elves rarely have sex out of physical desire alone, the "union of love is indeed to them great delight and joy" (LACE). Continence among elves obviously means that sexual pleasure ideally involves heart and spirit as well, which makes it a 'union of love.' However, elven custom also allows for a spontaneous form of marriage (and its consummation), once two adults have discovered their mutual love. Hobbits, as outlined in Chapter 1, have no such custom, and marriage among them involves greater formality.[5] Does their general penchant for moderation then stand against a 'union of love' outside marriage? Or does it merely mean that they are not excessively lustful?
Once again, it is easy to get trapped in a circular argument. If it is assumed that no positively drawn character in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings could possibly have had sex outside marriage, then the texts' silence on sexual acts will automatically be construed as proof for the initial assumption. This is exactly what shapes Tyellas' argument when she quotes Sam's 'farewell to the beer-barrel' in Bag End's cellar[6] as an example of morally admirable restraint (since Sam might have indulged himself with Rose Cotton instead, but refused to do so).[7] There are several fallacies to this argument: At this point in the story, no connection whatsoever exists between Sam and Rose. Since Rosie has not even been mentioned yet, nothing at all can be known about Sam's feelings for her, if in fact such feelings exist. To interpret his interlude with the beer-barrel as an instance of self-restraint and sexual abstinence means to conjecture a number of elements for which there is no evidence in the text: an existing erotic attraction to Rosie; a personal relationship between Sam and Rosie that would make it expectable for Sam to take his leave of her rather than disappear without a word; and finally a general code of behaviour that prompts Sam to resist a sexual impulse and direct his attention elsewhere.
Tyellas' argument rests entirely on the tenet that sex can and should occur only within marriage, and the fact of Sam's marriage to Rose after his return to the Shire. However, ROTK does not establish whether this marriage is even in part motivated by erotic desire, and the scant information given about Sam and Rosie's pre-marital association is in itself contradictory (see section 2.6). No connection whatsoever is drawn between Sam's beer-drinking on the eve of departure and any other desires he may harbour. That he indulges his love of ale prior to leaving the Shire can easily be taken as an expression of the hobbits' known penchant for pleasures of the palate: This conclusion at least does not require conjecture of any sort.
Sam, in the scene discussed above, is not presented as a particularly continent character, yet there is also no implication that the occasionally evidenced delight he takes in food and drink is morally questionable. Rather, the trials he undergoes in the course of the ring-quest bear witness to the statement that hobbits value physical pleasures because they are also able to do without them. If we want to generalise from Sam's attitude towards food and drink, we might speculate that he would enjoy sexual pleasure while being equally able to live without it when necessary. Such a conclusion may be a reasonable transferral of hobbit moderation into the realm of sex, but it offers no clues to the question whether marriage provides the only approved access to sexual acts and pleasures. To avoid circular argument, a different approach is necessary. Since there are no explicit statements about the connections between sex and marriage in hobbit culture, we can only approach this issue by examining the information given about hobbit marriages and their purpose. But before I discuss the established facts, I will outline my approach to interpreting the textual evidence and the theoretical framework for analysing 'sex' and erotic desire.
2.2 Cultural difference and the historical 'otherness' of Middle-earth societies
Tolkien's project of presenting a plausible 'English mythology' relies on the historical layering of the world he describes. His Middle-earth texts show an extreme diligence in the portrayal of foreign cultures (especially elven cultures) with their own languages, social structures, aesthetic sensibilities and modes of symbolic representation. Many of the tangible influences in Tolkien's writing -- from the style of Victorian prose to the key features of medieval epics -- are skillfully employed to sustain the construction of a historically different world with its own integrity. Overall, the world of Middle-earth is presented as distinctly pre-modern, and bears a basic likeness to the European middle ages. The predominance of agriculture and limited intercultural trade, the absence of a generalised money economy and abstract forms of wealth, the range of available technologies, the feudal hierarchies witnessed in many societies, limited social mobility, the prevalence of oral rather than written traditions and limited literacy -- to name only the basic traits -- all point to a medievalised concept of Middle-earth. Tolkien presents a pre-industrialised world that knows neither the printing press nor the concepts that define modernity, such as an understanding of labour (or sex) as merchandise, or a concept of selfhood based on exclusive individuality.[8] However, some important social and cultural forces that shaped the middle ages are equally absent: First and foremost, the orthodox Christian church and with it institutionalised religion as a whole (indeed there seem to be no religious cults or rituals in Middle-earth whatsoever).
As a medievalist, Tolkien evidently drew on many pre-modern sources, incorporating and modifying not only themes and motifs but also fundamental concepts and systems of meaning. Analysis of Tolkien's texts can therefore profit from considering the medieval analogies and source concepts. There are, at the same time, a number of other factors that shape Middle-earth's 'otherness', such as the existence of 'magic' (rather than science, even in the medieval sense), of immortal races with their specific abilities, and not least a geography that includes the Immortal Realm of Valinor. Finally, certain 'romantic' concepts, a set of ethics and aesthetics that belong to the Nineteenth (rather than the Twentieth) Century can also be traced across Tolkien's works.
By making the 'otherness' of Middle-earth the vantage point of my interpretations, I want to acknowledge a fundamental principle of Tolkien's works. Most important to this principle is its potential of establishing a dialogue between the pre-modern and the modern, between historically different concepts and ideologies that are not reducible to the author's personal set of beliefs. As I've already indicated in Chapter 1, Tolkien's textual construction generates a complexity of meanings, including foreign concepts and ideologies that may unsettle our contemporary understanding of universal or 'natural' truths. But this effect is at the same time a central (and intended) quality of Tolkien's Middle-earth texts.
What do these theoretical considerations contribute to the question of hobbit sexuality? First of all, the Shire towards the end of the Third Age is not identical with a medieval European culture, yet there are some important structural parallels.[9] Some of the social and cultural patterns witnessed here are common to agricultural, stratified societies (i.e. hierarchically organised, based on class distinction) beyond the middle ages, and indeed persist from late antiquity to the Eighteenth Century.[10] Based on the approach I've outlined here, I will take a look at hobbit sexuality in terms of its 'pre-modern otherness' and consider how Tolkien's portrayal engages in a dialogue with modern concepts of love, intimacy, friendship and marriage. What remains to be clarified is how 'sexuality' can be conceptualised within this context.
2.3 What is sex and how do we define it for Middle-earth?
As Tyellas points out, Tolkien "deliberately did not place modern sexual dynamics or mores into Middle-earth" (WBAG 13). But to acknowledge this also means that we can't simply draw on our contemporary understanding of sexuality to fill the gaps where Tolkien's works are silent on sexual or erotic matters. But what frame of reference can we draw on? When Tyellas discusses the portrayal of Frodo and Sam, she states "It was in no way Tolkien's intent to present Sam and Frodo as homosexual. To clarify his intent with these characters, we need to examine the Victorian and medieval ideals of friendship." (WBAG 5). In the following, one Victorian model of 'romantic friendship' is outlined briefly, while medieval concepts aren't discussed at all.
I very much agree to this general choice of approach, yet there are some troubling implications in Tyellas' argument as well. To describe Frodo and Sam as 'gay' or 'homosexual' would obviously mean to project Twentieth Century standards onto Tolkien's texts and generate an anachronistic reading. However, to present an alternative of "Gay or Victorian?", as Tyellas does, implies that the terms are somehow mutually exclusive. Yet 'romantic friendships' in the Victorian context hardly align to a single (non-sexual) standard, and it's still a matter of contention among scholars whether and to what an extent the concepts and realities of male friendship encompassed erotic possibilities.[11] The same general caveats apply to the perception of male-male friendships in the middle ages (I will discuss them more fully in connection with Tolkien's friendship concepts in Chapter 3).
When we look towards historical models of love, intimacy, or friendship as a means of interpreting Tolkien's works, the scope and character of these models have to be established first. Above all, we need to be very clear on the terms and categories of interpretation. Nowhere in his Middle-earth texts does Tolkien employ the vocabulary that defines our contemporary discourse of sex: 'Sexuality,' 'heterosexual,' 'homosexual,' the common Twentieth Century terms for sexual acts and erotic desire are all absent -- as absent as they are from medieval (and most Victorian) descriptions of love, romance or friendship. My approach here is based on the understanding that Tolkien drew on historical models in order to establish unfamiliar Middle-earth specific concepts rather than transferring contemporary categories. But this approach also requires some theoretical clarifications.
The concept of 'sexuality' as an independent set of feelings, behaviours and experiences (regardless of the type of relationship or the social context within which sex occurs) is a recent and distinctly modern invention. It centres on the idea of locating the individual's sexuality at the core of the self, so that a person's most private truth is intrinsically connected with an innate 'sexual orientation'.[12] As the works of countless historians and literary critics have shown, the Nineteenth-Century categories of 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' -- as the two basic concepts of sexual orientation -- cannot be viewed as 'natural' or universally true facts: These categories are themselves based on specifically modern gender roles and identity concepts. However, the absence of these restraining categories does not imply that sex in other cultures is in any sense more 'liberated' or more 'natural.' Every culture applies certain codes of meaning and behaviour to personal relationships and family ties in particular, including sexual codes.
In his works on the History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault introduces a generalised but crucial distinction between a pre-modern understanding of 'sexual acts' and a modern understanding of 'sexual identity.'[13] The fundamental difference I'd like to stress here is the absence of a 'sexual self' in a pre-modern context. Only when sexual choices and acts are viewed as crucial to a person's individual identity does it become necessary to create and uphold an absolute distinction between homo- and heterosexual. Only within such a context does engaging in sexual intimacy with a partner of the same or the other sex become an identity-defining choice.
With specific attention to the perception of masculinity, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick has outlined a history of the modern split between heterosexual and homosexual identities. In her influential study Between Men, Sedgwick argues that pre-modern (and early modern) cultures knew a continuum of 'homosocial desire', ranging from political ties to non-sexual friendships and love to intimate relationships that include sexual acts. The important point here is that no absolute boundaries are maintained between the different types of relationships. It is, in other words, possible to 'slide' along the continuum without being forced to re-define one's identity. As a consequence, pre-modern and early modern cultures and literatures present us with various forms of intense male bonding that defy our contemporary categories.
Within this framework, it would indeed be anachronistic to describe Sam and Frodo's relationship as 'homosexual', but neither is it possible to identify Sam as 'heterosexual' because he married and had children. On the other hand, the modern categories were a part of Tolkien's contemporary reality and may well have contributed to his portrayal of Middle-earth. How then do the historical and theoretical concepts I've introduced here pertain to an interpretation of Tolkien's works? As I've argued in the previous section, Tolkien's literary texts engage in a dialogue between pre-modern traditions and systems of meaning and their modern counterparts, and it is this dialogue that I intend to analyse in the following chapters. But before I return to hobbit culture, I would like to give some more thought to the presence of a 'sexual self' or 'sexual acts' in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings. To what extent does the one text in which Tolkien discusses sexuality in Middle-earth imply the concept of a 'sexual identity'?
In LACE, erotic desire is almost indistinguishable from the overarching ideal of personal love and commitment that incorporates a number of other factors. Tolkien's statement that elves "have many other urges of body and mind which their nature urges them to fulfill" indicates that the sexual urge does not occupy a privileged position in their understanding of self either. While there is no mention of same-sex relationships or a division between hetero- and homosexual orientation, the differences between the genders are minimised when compared to other Middle-earth cultures: "there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals." As a consequence, their society leans towards a greater equality of the sexes when it comes to social status, division of labour, etc. Considering to what an extent the modern perception of sexual identities relies on a fundamental difference of gender roles, this may imply that any concept of a 'sexual self' among elves is also more fluid than its Twentieth Century counterpart. But does elven culture rely on such an identity-defining sexual truth at all?
I think Tolkien's description amounts to a more comprehensive perception of the self and significant personal relationships. Sexual acts and pleasures are incorporated into personal bonds and contribute to their meaning, but there is no indication that specific erotic desires or sexual activities distinguish individual identities. What emerges from LACE is a concept of sexual love as an integrated phenomenon which may also explain why there is no specialised 'sexual vocabulary' in Tolkien's literary works. That he refers to sexual acts as 'the union of love' in LACE, that we encounter 'embraces' or a couple's mutual 'joy' rather than explicit descriptions of sensual pleasures can of course be viewed as an expression of 'prudishness' that prefers to employ vague euphemisms. But it is equally possible to interpret Tolkien's chosen language of love and eroticism as a translation of an integrated view, as outlined above.[14]
How then can we speak of 'sex' in Tolkien? To acknowledge the constructive presence of historical models in Tolkien's Middle-earth texts, it is necessary to base all further considerations on one crucial principle: Only the facts of procreation are the same across all cultures and historical periods. Everything else that surrounds 'sexuality' -- the range of sentiments, sensations, gestures and practices that are considered and experienced as sexual, the language of eroticism, the meanings attributed to sexual pleasures and the connections between sexual activities and personal/social relationships -- depend on each culture's specific codes and concepts.
An overview of Tolkien's works immediately shows that references to unquestionably sexual acts are rare. For hobbits, they can only be deduced from the given facts of procreation. In the following, I will therefore refer to 'sex' and sexual acts only in this limited context, rather than speculate that descriptions which may carry erotic connotations also imply sexual activity. But, now that I have questioned the existence of 'sexual identities' and admitted the absence of 'sexual acts' in Tolkien's works, what is left to discuss? A great variety of topics: While marriage customs and family structures may be the most obvious sites for sexual matters, the concepts of love and friendship, the language and gestures of affection within close personal relationships, the spheres of intimacy and the individuals' attitudes towards bodily needs and pleasures can all offer additional insights. At the same time, I don't intend to reduce any of these issues to their sexual or erotic implications and will instead attempt to chart the scope of their diverse aspects and meanings.
2.4 Kinship structures and marriage among hobbits: known and unknown factors
For elven culture, Tolkien conceptualised an ideal balance of emotional, spiritual and physical desires, so that sex can be experienced as a comprehensive expression of love. The value placed on the individual's emotions and personal choices is directly mirrored in the society's customs: the choice of partner itself constitutes a legitimate marriage. Hobbits, on the other hand, are not legally married after the personal declaration of intent. Do we then assume that personal choice was considered less valuable or meaningful in their culture and that social approval played a bigger role for their understanding of marriage? Or, if we suppose that the ideal of sex as an expression of emotional/spiritual love applies to hobbits as well, what ethical or social code prohibits the consummation of a love bond prior to, or outside of, marriage? This is precisely where the 'sex belongs in marriage' rule shows its limited applicability to the customs and ethics of other Middle-earth cultures. After taking a closer look at the known facts of hobbit marriages in this section, I will address love and romance in the next.
Information about the making of a hobbit marriage and descriptions of wedded life and families are scant in LOTR (and entirely absent from The Hobbit). From the Prologue we learn that
The houses and the holes of Shire-hobbits were often large, and inhabited by large families. (...) Sometimes, as in the case of the Tooks of Great Smials, or the Brandybucks of Brandy Hall, many generations of relatives lived in (comparative) peace together in one ancestral and many-tunnelled mansion. All Hobbits were, in any case, clannish and reckoned up their relationships with great care. They drew long and elaborate family-trees with innumerable branches.
I will therefore begin with the family-trees featured in LOTR Appendix C and sum up what they reveal about hobbit families, match-making and gender relations.
1. Hobbits generally marry within their own 'class' or social sphere.[15] The family-trees of the wealthy and politically important clans of the Shire and Buckland -- the Tooks, the Brandybucks and the Bagginses -- show that these clans occasionally intermarried, and that the range of families providing wives or husbands is somewhat limited. The Tooks intermarry with Baggins, Chubb, Banks, Brandybuck and the North-Tooks of Long Cleeve; the Brandybucks with Tooks, Baggins, Bolger, Bracegirdle, Goldworthy, Goold and Burrows; the Bagginses with Grubb, Bolger, Bunce, Hornblower, Goodbody, Sackville, Proudfoot, Chubb, Bracegirdle, Brownlock, and Boffin (beside Tooks and Brandybucks).[16] This longer list of related families may indicate that some Bagginses chose spouses whom neither Tooks nor Brandybucks would have considered of suitable social station, and this in turn might reflect the greater social eminence of the latter two clans whose respective heads bear the titles of 'Took and Thain' and 'Master of Buckland.' Yet this observation could also point to a geographic scattering of the Bagginses. FOTR: A Long-expected Party mentions that some of Bilbo's relatives arrived from distant parts of the Shire and had never travelled to Hobbiton before. As Bilbo's official rank is Esquire (according to The Hobbit, p. 282), all three families are firmly placed among the hobbit 'gentry.'
The pattern of class-exclusive marriage is underscored by Sam Gamgee's family-tree. None of the names of ancestors and relatives -- Gamwich, Roper, Greenhand, Cotton, and Goodchild -- make an appearance in the other family-trees, nor do the first names of male children overlap. While the Tooks and Brandybucks in particular favour elaborate names that bear a distinct likeness to names preferred among the medieval nobility (such as Ferumbras, Isembold, Hildibrand, Sigismond and Gormadoc, Marmadoc, Rorimac, Seredic respectively), the first names in the Gamgee, Roper and Cotton clans are simpler and more humble (Hamfast, Cotman, Hob, Tolman, Carl).[17] A similar distinction is noticeable among the female children whose names are generally derived from flowers or precious stones: Amarantha, Salvia, Pimpernel, Camelia, Esmeralda on the one hand; May, Rose, Daisy, and Bell on the other. However, the occasional overlap of female names (Rosamunda, Rosa and Rose; Belladonna, Mirabella and Bell) indicates that for female hobbits, social distinction depends on the family name (i.e. the husband's name) more than the first name. Among the Bagginses, the first names of males and females generally seem less elaborate (e.g. Ponto, Otho, Drogo; Pansy, Linda, Popppy), and the list includes two female names -- Daisy and Lily -- that also appear in the Gamgee/Cotton family-tree. Again, this may imply that the Bagginses' social status is somewhat inferior to that of Tooks and Brandybucks. On the whole, there is no evidence for mésalliances among hobbits (i.e. marriages between partners of different classes) and therefore no implication of upward mobility or class-transcending social advancement through marriage.
2. Equally obvious is a patrilinear (a dominance of the father's lineage over the mother's) understanding of the family structure. Each family-tree traces the male descendance and focuses on the lineage of the male 'family head'. Upon marriage, female hobbits adopt the male family name and are integrated into the husband's clan.[18] The fact that the family-trees often omit the names of wives to represent only male descent in itself shows that wives (and daughters[19]) are not considered equally important to the constitution of the family and the laws of inheritance: Titles and property appear to be transferred from one male heir to the next, with a preference for the eldest son, as the Took genealogy shows most clearly. This patrilinear slant seems more pronounced in the Gamgee family-tree, as male children are often named directly after their fathers, sometimes by adding a -son suffix (e.g. Hob/Hobson, Andwise/Anson, Hamfast/Hamson). While female names may also appear more than once within a family, there seems to be no similar custom that would indicate an equally strong sense of matrilateral lineage.[20] However, it seems likely that this practice of passing on the father's name compensates for the absence of hereditary property or a socially significant legacy (such as offices and titles) among the 'poor and unimportant families' (FOTR: A Long-expected Party).
3. That an unmarried status is exceptional emerges from the family-trees as well: Only a few (male) individuals remained unmarried (or died without heirs), as added entries specify.[21] While the genealogies do not include a complete list of descendants, this feature implies that all (male) individuals married and had children unless otherwise noted.[22] Bachelors, it appears, are not entitled to bequeath titles and property by choice: As the line of Thains shows, the title reverts to the family of the eldest surviving brother in such a case. While FOTR details how Bilbo adopted Frodo as his heir and subsequently left him all his possessions, the (obviously rare) practice of adoption is not reflected in the family-trees. Frodo's status is not likened to that of a son, nor is his adoption even referred to.
Additional information about the hobbits' clannish society structure can be found in Letter 214 (p. 291ff.),[23] where Tolkien discusses some central anthropological features of their culture and provides details that are not included in LOTR or The Hobbit:
- wedding celebrations don't involve gifts other than flowers, but the parents of bride and groom assist in furnishing the couple's home;
- a married couple doesn't necessarily move to a new home but may remain with the larger family, whether or not this involves separate apartments;
- if a spouse dies young, hobbits sometimes, albeit rarely, remarry;
- the larger family and household are governed by a 'dyarchy' of master and mistress, both commanding separate spheres of responsibility while entitled to act as each other's legal representative;
- while the title of family head (the 'headship') can be passed on to a hobbit's widow, this 'titular' status is distinguished from control over the family's property and its management;
- the family head is usually the eldest male within a clan and the title is passed on to his immediate male heirs (albeit after his widow's death, if his wife happens to survive him);
- if there are no male heirs, a daughter can pass on the title to the eldest grandson (this custom, Tolkien adds, is practiced only by some clans);
- some hereditary titles and offices, such as Took and Thain, can only be passed on to male heirs (in other words, a Took widow could never become acting Thain);
- whether or not the position of family head can be influenced by adoption is a matter of contention among hobbits (thus the Sackville-Bagginses' protest when Bilbo instated Frodo as his heir);
- 'matriarchal' clan structures and polyandry (i.e. one female taking several husbands) are firmly excluded.
In this letter, Tolkien describes hobbit families as "'patrilinear' rather than patriarchal" (p. 293), but the listed features themselves, and the descriptions given in LOTR, argue against this distinction: Not only are the laws of inheritance and the transfer of names dominated by the male side of the family, the range of social responsibilities and privileges also favours male hobbits. Female hobbits gain (limited) access to control over family and property through marriage alone, and only the widow of a family head can achieve a position of social influence, as her deceased husband's representative. Tolkien's insistence that the term 'matriarch' (once used by Gandalf in FOTR: The Shadow of the Past, and applied to Gollum's grandmother) doesn't refer to "a strictly 'matriarchal' system, properly so-called" (p. 296) is equally telling.[24] Finally, all existing political offices are held by male hobbits, nor do females act as bounders or shirriffs, or partake in the fighting during the Scouring of the Shire in ROTK.
While Tolkien doesn't elaborate on the master and mistress's separate functions within the family household, the text of LOTR offers further clues about gender relations in the Shire. While we encounter a variety of professions (millers, ropers, gardeners, farmers, shirriffs etc.) and offices, none of these is ever occupied by a female hobbit. The only female prominently (and vocally) involved in social affairs, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, is cast as a negative character from the outset, a thief of silverware and a resentful, unpopular individual (FOTR: A Long-Expected Party). While Mrs. Maggot, Mrs. Cotton and her daughter Rosie make brief appearances in FOTR and ROTK respectively, they are each connected (if not confined) to the house and home, whereas Farmer Maggot and Farmer Cotton are not only given much more dialogue but also play an active role in the events. Mrs. Maggot is shown to serve drinks and dinner and prepares provisions; as her husband engages in conversation with Frodo and his companions, she 'hustles in and out'. When the farmer accompanies the travellers into the night, his wife stays behind, worriting (FOTR: A Short Cut to Mushrooms 109, 111). Guarded by Nibs, the youngest Cotton boy, Mrs. Cotton and Rosie also remain in the house, while Farmer Cotton plays a leading part in the first scuffle with the ruffians in ROTK. Wife and daughter may be present during the strategy discussions that ensue, but have no say in them. Equally, female hobbits make no appearance in the two tavern scenes featured in the first chapter of FOTR.
Taken together with the information provided by the family-trees and Letter 214, the image of a male-dominated society emerges from these scenes: matters of social and political importance are negotiated exclusively among male hobbits; social hierarchies and family structures are shaped by homosocial (male-male) relationships of various types (see also Chapter 3). The "cultural separation of women and men" which Tyellas identifies as a common trait in Tolkien's Middle-earth texts (WBAG 3) is certainly visible in hobbit society as well. Necessarily, these basic conditions also shape the perception of marriage, match-making and partner choice, and the reality of married life.
From this first survey, two central characteristics of marriage can be established. Marriage, procreation and kinship are closely linked: The importance of the clan both to the social structures and the hobbits' mindset (witnessed by their specific attention to kinship connections and degrees, and the fact that genealogies are among the few traditions they preserve in written form[25]) tell us that much. Ideally, a marriage serves not only the purpose of procreation but also stabilizes and expands relationships within the larger social network.[26] Secondly, marriage and family life determine the social status of female hobbits and the range of their activities to a large extent, if not exclusively. Their responsibilities and priorities are centred on the household, whereas the life of male hobbits encompasses a greater variety of professional, social and political activities. As a consequence of gender separation, male and female hobbits share only a limited amount of the experiences, ambitions and expectations that pattern their individual lives. This, I think, is a characteristic which deserves to be stressed since it contradicts our contemporary concept of marriage: Not only a basic equality of husband and wife, but also an accord of shared expectations and experiences, and the desire for emotional intimacy shape our understanding of marriage as the centre of our private lives. However, the living conditions of hobbit culture neither afford nor require such a sphere of privacy or intimacy for the married couple: I will return to this topic in Chapter 3, but it is already clear that the average hobbit household includes a group of relatives beyond the couple's children (possibly several generations) and servants or farmhands[27] as well.
That hobbits marry within their own social circles can be viewed in two different ways: Either the patterns of social interaction informally suggest such a partner choice through opportunity (assuming that unmarried hobbits spend most of their time among company of similar social status); or appropriate spouses are selected by family heads and elder male relatives.[28] Of course a combination of both elements is also conceivable. Considering that married couples often live with the larger family, and that a multitude of kinship and friendship ties connect the larger clans, it seems unlikely that the choice of spouse would be regarded an entirely private and individual affair. This does not necessarily imply that individual preferences are overruled by paternal authority, however, or indeed that hobbits would perceive a basic conflict between collective and individual desires. Rather it means that the family's wishes and well-being are an integral and self-evident part of the individual's choices from the outset. What we already know is that the formal marriage proposal is a male privilege, but there is no information about the rights of female hobbits to agree or refuse, or the factors that determine the choice of spouse, beyond certain social and gender-specific limitations. I will therefore conclude this section by listing several unknown variables that prompt further questions.
The family-trees trace lineage through blood relations and alliance (i.e. kinship established by marriage), and marriage is obviously reserved for male/female couples. While a variety of male homosocial bonds is implied in the genealogies and the scenes discussed above, their social and emotional meaning is yet barely tangible. That no formal recognition of same-sex bonds exists and furthermore, that adoption of a male heir presents a rare and legally complicated case, indicates a general perception of the family as based on bloodlines, male/female alliance and procreation, within a patrilinear/patriarchal framework. Beyond this trait, the examined sources don't suggest anything about the perception and experience of intimate relationships, regardless of gender, or the meaning of emotional ties between individuals. That love and affection govern personal relationships is certainly clear in LOTR, but what is the hobbit concept of love? To what an extent is love a foundation for marriage, and does it involve a concept of 'romance'?
Footnotes
[1] When faced with the threat of rape, elves chose to 'reject bodily life and pass to Mandos' (LACE, footnote 5). It appears, then, that rape is the ultimate crime driven by a base physical need and forms the exact opposite to the elves' continent nature. The threat rape poses to their identity and integrity is so immediate that they prefer to end their physical existence rather than endure such a violation.
Interestingly, this response is by no means in keeping with the traditional Christian/Catholic teachings concerning suicide: Church Father St. Augustine, whose writings Tolkien may well have known, specifically addresses the question whether it is legitimate to commit suicide in order to avoid rape and concludes that it is not (cf. Civitas Dei, I.20 ff.).
[2] Cf. Gandalf's description in FOTR: A Journey in the Dark: The Dwarves tell no tale; but even as mithril was the foundation of their wealth, so also it was their destruction: they delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled, Durin's Bane.
[3] To quote only from the introductory description: Their faces were as a rule good-natured rather than beautiful, broad, bright-eyed, red-cheeked, with mouths apt to laughter, and to eating and drinking. And laugh they did, and eat, and drink, often and heartily, being fond of simple jests at all times, and of six meals a day (when they could get them). They were hospitable and delighted in parties, and in presents, which they gave away freely and eagerly accepted. (LOTR: Prologue 1. Concerning Hobbits).
[4] Growing food and eating it occupied most of their time. In other matters they were, as a rule, generous and not greedy, but contented and moderate, so that estates, farms, workshops, and small trades tended to remain unchanged for generations. (LOTR: Prologue 1. Concerning Hobbits).
[5] The first draft of The Long-expected Party (HoME 6: The Return of the Shadow, p. 16f.) offers a peculiar description of 'wedding habits' among hobbits. Here, Bilbo ends his birthday speech by announcing that he'll get married, and the narrator comments that hobbits kept their wedding intentions secret: Then they suddenly went and got married and went off without an address for a week or two (or even longer). However, this element is introduced to create a plausible explanation for Bilbo's disappearance (and subsequently dropped from the text, as the ring came into play), and the draft as a whole differs in several fundamental respects from later drafts and the published version of the chapter. In addition, the habit of eloping contradicts all other descriptions of hobbit marriages and family life in Tolkien's works (see especially the footnote to Letter 214, p. 292, where Tolkien refers to the celebration of hobbit weddings).
[6] Before he leaves the Shire with Frodo. The Fellowship of the Ring (abbr. FOTR): Three is Company.
[7] WBAG 3: "Honourable characters do not try to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage. It is telling that Sam Gamgee needs to be called to join Frodo at his departure from Bag End not because he had his hand down Rosie's blouse, but because he was saying goodbye to the beer-barrel."
[8] This extremely abbreviated summary of key differences between pre-modern and modern societies in Europe is to a large extent based on the works of Niklas Luhmann. See for instance: "The Individuality of the Individual: Historical Meanings and Contemporary Problems." In: Thomas C. Heller / Morton Sosna / David E.Wellbery (eds.): Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought. Stanford, Ca. 1986, p. 313-325; Social systems. Stanford, Ca. 1995; Theories of Distinction. Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Stanford, Ca. 2002.
[9] Cf. Tolkien's introductory remarks about hobbits in the Prologue: They do not and did not understand or like machines more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand-loom, though they were skilful with tools. This isn't the place to discuss Tolkien's 'Victorianisms' in any detail, but of course there are traits in his portrayal of hobbit culture that remind us of a 19th century rural idyll (in Letter 181, p. 235, Tolkien acknowledges that it was in part modelled on rural life in Warwickshire). Most of these 'anachronisms' are fascinating to contemplate, and could also be viewed as a result of the co-existence of differently developed societies in Middle-earth and the cultural transfer between them.
[10] Or even longer, in some rural communities. Medievalist Jacques LeGoff has developed a complex model to describe the different historical exstensions of social and economical structures. See Jacques LeGoff: Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages. Chicago 1980.
[11] Cf. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick: Between Men. English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York 1985. Richard Dellamora: Masculine Desire. The Sexual Politics of Victorian Aestheticism. Chapel Hill, London 1990.
[12] Cf. Michel Foucault: The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York 1978.
[13] Michel Foucault: The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York 1978; The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality Vol. 2. New York 1985; The Care of the Self: The History of Sexuality Vol. 3. New York 1986. These are not historical studies in the strict sense, but they remain the most engaging and challenging philosophical works about the way we perceive ourselves and our society through a 'sexual' lens. See also: Robert Padgug: "Sexual Matters. On Conceptualizing Sexuality in History". In: Edward Stein (ed.): Forms of Desire. Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy. New York 1992, p. 43-67; Louise Fradenburg / Carla Freccero (eds.): Premodern Sexualities. New York 1996.
[14] Either approach has far-reaching consequences for discussing sexuality in Tolkien's works. If an interpretation is based on the idea that 'Victorian' ethics dictated euphemisms or outright silence, then all the missing information about sexual acts and their meanings will have to be supplied by drawing on a single (idealised) frame of reference that lies completely outside of Tolkien's writings, literary and otherwise. Such an approach seems problematic to me because it necessarily reduces the 'pre-modern otherness' of the depicted societies to surface accessories, and therefore also neglects a defining force in Tolkien's texts about Middle-earth.
[15] Class distinction between hobbit 'gentry' and 'commoners' is also marked by profession ('commoners' are generally tradesmen or farmers) and underlined by distinctly different speech patterns: The dialogue of Sam, the Gaffer, Farmer Maggot and Farmer Cotton, to name only the most prominent examples, feature colloquialisms, grammatical incorrectness and slang elements that are absent from the speech patterns of Bilbo, Frodo, Merry and Pippin.
[16] Most of these names also occur where the relatives attending Bilbo's farewell party are listed in FOTR: A Long-expected Party: There were many Bagginses and Boffins, and also many Tooks and Brandybucks; there were various Grubbs (relations of Bilbo Baggins' grandmother), and various Chubbs (connexions of his Took grandfather); and a selection of Burrowses, Bolgers, Bracegirdles, Brockhouses, Goodbodies, Hornblowers and Proudfoots. And in Bilbo's speech: My dear Bagginses and Boffins, he began again; and my dear Tooks and Brandybucks, and Grubbs, and Chubbs, and Burrowses, and Hornblowers, and Bolgers, Bracegirdles, Goodbodies, Brockhouses and Proudfoots. Compared to the family-tree, the name Bunce is missing, while Brockhouse is added.
[17] Cf. Tolkien's notes on translating hobbit names from the Westron in Appendix F.II, 1169: "In some old families, especially those of Fallohide origin such as the Tooks and the Bolgers, it was, however, the custom to give high-sounding first-names."
[18] Tolkien elaborates on this in Letter 214; see my discussion below, in this section.
[19] In two instances, 3 daughters (fathered by Adalgrim and Adleard Took respectively) are only summarily referred to rather than being included by name. That the descendants of Mirabella Took remain unnamed (six children) indicates a related neglicence towards matrilinear descent. However, one such summary listing also occurs for Sadoc Brandybuck's heirs (two sons).
[20] Only a few wives and female children are listed in the Gamgee family-tree: Sam's sister May seems to have been named after the Gaffer's sister, and Rose Cotton after her great-grandmother, wife of Cotman. Only one of Sam's children was named directly after her mother, but since several of his sons also received names that belonged to the socially elevated clans, this choice may be owed to Sam's unique biography rather than a commonly observed custom.
[21] Among the Tooks: Isengrim III (died young, no children); Hildigard (died young); Hildifons (went off on a journey and never returned); Ferumbras III (unmarried).
[22] This conclusion seems less cogent for female hobbits. In the Prologue, Tolkien only refers to male bachelors, and the limited significance that the family-trees accord matrilinear descent may imply that an unmarried status among females is not considered important enough to deserve specific mention. Since there is no matrilinear inheritance, the absence of female heirs is irrelevant for the genealogies' focus.
[23] While drafted as a personal missive, this letter consists only of anthropological commentary on hobbit culture. Tolkien explicitly speaks as the 'recorder' of Third Age history, thereby re-adopting the role of narrator/translator from LOTR. Both this adopted speaker role and the content place this letter among the essays, notes and drafts that accompany Tolkien's Middle-earth texts, rather than his personal correspondence, in which we hear his biographical self speak.
[24] Tolkien specifically replies to the suggestion that matriarchal clan structures may have developed among the Stoors and rejects such a possibility.
[25] Cf. Prologue 1, p. 20; 4, p. 26f.
[26] By their very nature, genealogies never represent the full reality of kinship in a given society: they articulate the society's ideal of the family and the patterns that shape its order. In this sense, the hobbit family-trees don't tell us that no Brandybuck ever married a serving maid, or that same-sex couples never set up a shared household, but they do show that alliances of this kind are not considered valid within the ideal system of kinship.
[27] Cf. the presence of two farmhands (also belonging to the farm-household) at the Maggots' supper table in FOTR: A Short Cut to Mushrooms, 109.
[28] In WBAG 3, Tyellas lists the 'paternal authority figure' as a recurring feature in Tolkien's stories of love and marriage. While accounts of hobbit marriage are scant, paternal authority is unquestionably present in their culture: witness the many instances when Sam quotes his father's opinions and judgments.
(This is as much as I've got written right now, and since I'll be pretty busy over the next two weeks, it's going to take a while until I'll finish chapter 3. Apologies in advance, and all suggestions for topics or questions that should be brought up in the later chapters will be very welcome.)
Chapter 2: Family, Marriage, and Sex in the Shire: Elementary
2.1 'Good characters are chaste': Continence, Sam's tryst with the beer-barrel and some fallacies of argument
From Tolkien's personal ethics emerges an ideal of continence and self-restraint that is also reflected in his statements on the elven attitude towards lust and desire. In LACE, he writes of elves that "they are seldom swayed by the desires of the body only, but are by nature continent and steadfast" and: "Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them." The underlying standard obviously encompasses more than erotic desire: Elven nature, as Tolkien envisioned it, leans towards a dominance of spiritual inclination over physical impulse. But, as the Middle-earth texts demonstrate in abundance, neither are all other races equipped with a continent nature, nor do all cultures and individuals subscribe to such ethics. To quote Tyellas: "Men in Tolkien's backstory seem to 'wive by force' a lot more. Rape and forced marriage are plot points in several stories of Men." (TOES). Of course, rape (whether motivated by unbridled lust or sociopolitical ambitions) is by Tolkien's ethical standards an abominable crime.[1] But whether other cultures equally valued restraint towards all physical desires and pleasures has yet to be examined.
Dwarves, while sometimes chastised for their greed, obviously value material possessions and the accumulation of wealth. In LOTR, this tendency is exposed as both questionable and fraught with destructive consequences (the deep-delving of the dwarves in Moria wakened the Balrog[2]), and the foundation for specific aesthetic sensibilities, revealed in Gimli's highly poetic speech about the glittering caves at Helm's Deep. Legolas' response to this (you move me; TTT: The Road to Isengard) indicates that this central element of dwarven culture is two-faced: While desire for material wealth can degenerate into destructive greed, it can also give rise to a commendable appreciation (and creation) of beauty. Furthermore, dwarves are said to be fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples (SIL: Of Aulë and Yavanna). Even from these few details, a complex picture emerges: of a culture that is well able to overcome and control certain needs of the body and yet does not consider continence the ultimate goal in every area of existence.
Hobbits, this much emerges clearly from LOTR and The Hobbit, do not practice an overall restraint of bodily needs and pleasures either. Their love for food and drink is well-documented,[3] and their custom of exchanging and accumulating mathoms points to a general appreciation of material possessions as well. Like dwarves, they are able to overcome physical needs when faced with adversity:
...they were, perhaps, so unwearyingly fond of good things not least because they could, when put to it, do without them, and could survive rough handling by grief, foe, or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further than their bellies and their well-fed faces (LOTR: Prologue 1. Concerning Hobbits).
Tolkien describes them as "contented and moderate"[4], which generally precludes the occasional excess of greed as witnessed among dwarves. But how much does this imply about the hobbits' attitude towards erotic desire and sex? Does a general leaning towards moderation equal an ethic that prohibits, for instance, extra-marital sex of any kind?
Let me explain briefly why Tolkien's comments about elven continence can't be transferred to hobbit culture. While elves rarely have sex out of physical desire alone, the "union of love is indeed to them great delight and joy" (LACE). Continence among elves obviously means that sexual pleasure ideally involves heart and spirit as well, which makes it a 'union of love.' However, elven custom also allows for a spontaneous form of marriage (and its consummation), once two adults have discovered their mutual love. Hobbits, as outlined in Chapter 1, have no such custom, and marriage among them involves greater formality.[5] Does their general penchant for moderation then stand against a 'union of love' outside marriage? Or does it merely mean that they are not excessively lustful?
Once again, it is easy to get trapped in a circular argument. If it is assumed that no positively drawn character in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings could possibly have had sex outside marriage, then the texts' silence on sexual acts will automatically be construed as proof for the initial assumption. This is exactly what shapes Tyellas' argument when she quotes Sam's 'farewell to the beer-barrel' in Bag End's cellar[6] as an example of morally admirable restraint (since Sam might have indulged himself with Rose Cotton instead, but refused to do so).[7] There are several fallacies to this argument: At this point in the story, no connection whatsoever exists between Sam and Rose. Since Rosie has not even been mentioned yet, nothing at all can be known about Sam's feelings for her, if in fact such feelings exist. To interpret his interlude with the beer-barrel as an instance of self-restraint and sexual abstinence means to conjecture a number of elements for which there is no evidence in the text: an existing erotic attraction to Rosie; a personal relationship between Sam and Rosie that would make it expectable for Sam to take his leave of her rather than disappear without a word; and finally a general code of behaviour that prompts Sam to resist a sexual impulse and direct his attention elsewhere.
Tyellas' argument rests entirely on the tenet that sex can and should occur only within marriage, and the fact of Sam's marriage to Rose after his return to the Shire. However, ROTK does not establish whether this marriage is even in part motivated by erotic desire, and the scant information given about Sam and Rosie's pre-marital association is in itself contradictory (see section 2.6). No connection whatsoever is drawn between Sam's beer-drinking on the eve of departure and any other desires he may harbour. That he indulges his love of ale prior to leaving the Shire can easily be taken as an expression of the hobbits' known penchant for pleasures of the palate: This conclusion at least does not require conjecture of any sort.
Sam, in the scene discussed above, is not presented as a particularly continent character, yet there is also no implication that the occasionally evidenced delight he takes in food and drink is morally questionable. Rather, the trials he undergoes in the course of the ring-quest bear witness to the statement that hobbits value physical pleasures because they are also able to do without them. If we want to generalise from Sam's attitude towards food and drink, we might speculate that he would enjoy sexual pleasure while being equally able to live without it when necessary. Such a conclusion may be a reasonable transferral of hobbit moderation into the realm of sex, but it offers no clues to the question whether marriage provides the only approved access to sexual acts and pleasures. To avoid circular argument, a different approach is necessary. Since there are no explicit statements about the connections between sex and marriage in hobbit culture, we can only approach this issue by examining the information given about hobbit marriages and their purpose. But before I discuss the established facts, I will outline my approach to interpreting the textual evidence and the theoretical framework for analysing 'sex' and erotic desire.
2.2 Cultural difference and the historical 'otherness' of Middle-earth societies
Tolkien's project of presenting a plausible 'English mythology' relies on the historical layering of the world he describes. His Middle-earth texts show an extreme diligence in the portrayal of foreign cultures (especially elven cultures) with their own languages, social structures, aesthetic sensibilities and modes of symbolic representation. Many of the tangible influences in Tolkien's writing -- from the style of Victorian prose to the key features of medieval epics -- are skillfully employed to sustain the construction of a historically different world with its own integrity. Overall, the world of Middle-earth is presented as distinctly pre-modern, and bears a basic likeness to the European middle ages. The predominance of agriculture and limited intercultural trade, the absence of a generalised money economy and abstract forms of wealth, the range of available technologies, the feudal hierarchies witnessed in many societies, limited social mobility, the prevalence of oral rather than written traditions and limited literacy -- to name only the basic traits -- all point to a medievalised concept of Middle-earth. Tolkien presents a pre-industrialised world that knows neither the printing press nor the concepts that define modernity, such as an understanding of labour (or sex) as merchandise, or a concept of selfhood based on exclusive individuality.[8] However, some important social and cultural forces that shaped the middle ages are equally absent: First and foremost, the orthodox Christian church and with it institutionalised religion as a whole (indeed there seem to be no religious cults or rituals in Middle-earth whatsoever).
As a medievalist, Tolkien evidently drew on many pre-modern sources, incorporating and modifying not only themes and motifs but also fundamental concepts and systems of meaning. Analysis of Tolkien's texts can therefore profit from considering the medieval analogies and source concepts. There are, at the same time, a number of other factors that shape Middle-earth's 'otherness', such as the existence of 'magic' (rather than science, even in the medieval sense), of immortal races with their specific abilities, and not least a geography that includes the Immortal Realm of Valinor. Finally, certain 'romantic' concepts, a set of ethics and aesthetics that belong to the Nineteenth (rather than the Twentieth) Century can also be traced across Tolkien's works.
By making the 'otherness' of Middle-earth the vantage point of my interpretations, I want to acknowledge a fundamental principle of Tolkien's works. Most important to this principle is its potential of establishing a dialogue between the pre-modern and the modern, between historically different concepts and ideologies that are not reducible to the author's personal set of beliefs. As I've already indicated in Chapter 1, Tolkien's textual construction generates a complexity of meanings, including foreign concepts and ideologies that may unsettle our contemporary understanding of universal or 'natural' truths. But this effect is at the same time a central (and intended) quality of Tolkien's Middle-earth texts.
What do these theoretical considerations contribute to the question of hobbit sexuality? First of all, the Shire towards the end of the Third Age is not identical with a medieval European culture, yet there are some important structural parallels.[9] Some of the social and cultural patterns witnessed here are common to agricultural, stratified societies (i.e. hierarchically organised, based on class distinction) beyond the middle ages, and indeed persist from late antiquity to the Eighteenth Century.[10] Based on the approach I've outlined here, I will take a look at hobbit sexuality in terms of its 'pre-modern otherness' and consider how Tolkien's portrayal engages in a dialogue with modern concepts of love, intimacy, friendship and marriage. What remains to be clarified is how 'sexuality' can be conceptualised within this context.
2.3 What is sex and how do we define it for Middle-earth?
As Tyellas points out, Tolkien "deliberately did not place modern sexual dynamics or mores into Middle-earth" (WBAG 13). But to acknowledge this also means that we can't simply draw on our contemporary understanding of sexuality to fill the gaps where Tolkien's works are silent on sexual or erotic matters. But what frame of reference can we draw on? When Tyellas discusses the portrayal of Frodo and Sam, she states "It was in no way Tolkien's intent to present Sam and Frodo as homosexual. To clarify his intent with these characters, we need to examine the Victorian and medieval ideals of friendship." (WBAG 5). In the following, one Victorian model of 'romantic friendship' is outlined briefly, while medieval concepts aren't discussed at all.
I very much agree to this general choice of approach, yet there are some troubling implications in Tyellas' argument as well. To describe Frodo and Sam as 'gay' or 'homosexual' would obviously mean to project Twentieth Century standards onto Tolkien's texts and generate an anachronistic reading. However, to present an alternative of "Gay or Victorian?", as Tyellas does, implies that the terms are somehow mutually exclusive. Yet 'romantic friendships' in the Victorian context hardly align to a single (non-sexual) standard, and it's still a matter of contention among scholars whether and to what an extent the concepts and realities of male friendship encompassed erotic possibilities.[11] The same general caveats apply to the perception of male-male friendships in the middle ages (I will discuss them more fully in connection with Tolkien's friendship concepts in Chapter 3).
When we look towards historical models of love, intimacy, or friendship as a means of interpreting Tolkien's works, the scope and character of these models have to be established first. Above all, we need to be very clear on the terms and categories of interpretation. Nowhere in his Middle-earth texts does Tolkien employ the vocabulary that defines our contemporary discourse of sex: 'Sexuality,' 'heterosexual,' 'homosexual,' the common Twentieth Century terms for sexual acts and erotic desire are all absent -- as absent as they are from medieval (and most Victorian) descriptions of love, romance or friendship. My approach here is based on the understanding that Tolkien drew on historical models in order to establish unfamiliar Middle-earth specific concepts rather than transferring contemporary categories. But this approach also requires some theoretical clarifications.
The concept of 'sexuality' as an independent set of feelings, behaviours and experiences (regardless of the type of relationship or the social context within which sex occurs) is a recent and distinctly modern invention. It centres on the idea of locating the individual's sexuality at the core of the self, so that a person's most private truth is intrinsically connected with an innate 'sexual orientation'.[12] As the works of countless historians and literary critics have shown, the Nineteenth-Century categories of 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' -- as the two basic concepts of sexual orientation -- cannot be viewed as 'natural' or universally true facts: These categories are themselves based on specifically modern gender roles and identity concepts. However, the absence of these restraining categories does not imply that sex in other cultures is in any sense more 'liberated' or more 'natural.' Every culture applies certain codes of meaning and behaviour to personal relationships and family ties in particular, including sexual codes.
In his works on the History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault introduces a generalised but crucial distinction between a pre-modern understanding of 'sexual acts' and a modern understanding of 'sexual identity.'[13] The fundamental difference I'd like to stress here is the absence of a 'sexual self' in a pre-modern context. Only when sexual choices and acts are viewed as crucial to a person's individual identity does it become necessary to create and uphold an absolute distinction between homo- and heterosexual. Only within such a context does engaging in sexual intimacy with a partner of the same or the other sex become an identity-defining choice.
With specific attention to the perception of masculinity, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick has outlined a history of the modern split between heterosexual and homosexual identities. In her influential study Between Men, Sedgwick argues that pre-modern (and early modern) cultures knew a continuum of 'homosocial desire', ranging from political ties to non-sexual friendships and love to intimate relationships that include sexual acts. The important point here is that no absolute boundaries are maintained between the different types of relationships. It is, in other words, possible to 'slide' along the continuum without being forced to re-define one's identity. As a consequence, pre-modern and early modern cultures and literatures present us with various forms of intense male bonding that defy our contemporary categories.
Within this framework, it would indeed be anachronistic to describe Sam and Frodo's relationship as 'homosexual', but neither is it possible to identify Sam as 'heterosexual' because he married and had children. On the other hand, the modern categories were a part of Tolkien's contemporary reality and may well have contributed to his portrayal of Middle-earth. How then do the historical and theoretical concepts I've introduced here pertain to an interpretation of Tolkien's works? As I've argued in the previous section, Tolkien's literary texts engage in a dialogue between pre-modern traditions and systems of meaning and their modern counterparts, and it is this dialogue that I intend to analyse in the following chapters. But before I return to hobbit culture, I would like to give some more thought to the presence of a 'sexual self' or 'sexual acts' in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings. To what extent does the one text in which Tolkien discusses sexuality in Middle-earth imply the concept of a 'sexual identity'?
In LACE, erotic desire is almost indistinguishable from the overarching ideal of personal love and commitment that incorporates a number of other factors. Tolkien's statement that elves "have many other urges of body and mind which their nature urges them to fulfill" indicates that the sexual urge does not occupy a privileged position in their understanding of self either. While there is no mention of same-sex relationships or a division between hetero- and homosexual orientation, the differences between the genders are minimised when compared to other Middle-earth cultures: "there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals." As a consequence, their society leans towards a greater equality of the sexes when it comes to social status, division of labour, etc. Considering to what an extent the modern perception of sexual identities relies on a fundamental difference of gender roles, this may imply that any concept of a 'sexual self' among elves is also more fluid than its Twentieth Century counterpart. But does elven culture rely on such an identity-defining sexual truth at all?
I think Tolkien's description amounts to a more comprehensive perception of the self and significant personal relationships. Sexual acts and pleasures are incorporated into personal bonds and contribute to their meaning, but there is no indication that specific erotic desires or sexual activities distinguish individual identities. What emerges from LACE is a concept of sexual love as an integrated phenomenon which may also explain why there is no specialised 'sexual vocabulary' in Tolkien's literary works. That he refers to sexual acts as 'the union of love' in LACE, that we encounter 'embraces' or a couple's mutual 'joy' rather than explicit descriptions of sensual pleasures can of course be viewed as an expression of 'prudishness' that prefers to employ vague euphemisms. But it is equally possible to interpret Tolkien's chosen language of love and eroticism as a translation of an integrated view, as outlined above.[14]
How then can we speak of 'sex' in Tolkien? To acknowledge the constructive presence of historical models in Tolkien's Middle-earth texts, it is necessary to base all further considerations on one crucial principle: Only the facts of procreation are the same across all cultures and historical periods. Everything else that surrounds 'sexuality' -- the range of sentiments, sensations, gestures and practices that are considered and experienced as sexual, the language of eroticism, the meanings attributed to sexual pleasures and the connections between sexual activities and personal/social relationships -- depend on each culture's specific codes and concepts.
An overview of Tolkien's works immediately shows that references to unquestionably sexual acts are rare. For hobbits, they can only be deduced from the given facts of procreation. In the following, I will therefore refer to 'sex' and sexual acts only in this limited context, rather than speculate that descriptions which may carry erotic connotations also imply sexual activity. But, now that I have questioned the existence of 'sexual identities' and admitted the absence of 'sexual acts' in Tolkien's works, what is left to discuss? A great variety of topics: While marriage customs and family structures may be the most obvious sites for sexual matters, the concepts of love and friendship, the language and gestures of affection within close personal relationships, the spheres of intimacy and the individuals' attitudes towards bodily needs and pleasures can all offer additional insights. At the same time, I don't intend to reduce any of these issues to their sexual or erotic implications and will instead attempt to chart the scope of their diverse aspects and meanings.
2.4 Kinship structures and marriage among hobbits: known and unknown factors
For elven culture, Tolkien conceptualised an ideal balance of emotional, spiritual and physical desires, so that sex can be experienced as a comprehensive expression of love. The value placed on the individual's emotions and personal choices is directly mirrored in the society's customs: the choice of partner itself constitutes a legitimate marriage. Hobbits, on the other hand, are not legally married after the personal declaration of intent. Do we then assume that personal choice was considered less valuable or meaningful in their culture and that social approval played a bigger role for their understanding of marriage? Or, if we suppose that the ideal of sex as an expression of emotional/spiritual love applies to hobbits as well, what ethical or social code prohibits the consummation of a love bond prior to, or outside of, marriage? This is precisely where the 'sex belongs in marriage' rule shows its limited applicability to the customs and ethics of other Middle-earth cultures. After taking a closer look at the known facts of hobbit marriages in this section, I will address love and romance in the next.
Information about the making of a hobbit marriage and descriptions of wedded life and families are scant in LOTR (and entirely absent from The Hobbit). From the Prologue we learn that
The houses and the holes of Shire-hobbits were often large, and inhabited by large families. (...) Sometimes, as in the case of the Tooks of Great Smials, or the Brandybucks of Brandy Hall, many generations of relatives lived in (comparative) peace together in one ancestral and many-tunnelled mansion. All Hobbits were, in any case, clannish and reckoned up their relationships with great care. They drew long and elaborate family-trees with innumerable branches.
I will therefore begin with the family-trees featured in LOTR Appendix C and sum up what they reveal about hobbit families, match-making and gender relations.
1. Hobbits generally marry within their own 'class' or social sphere.[15] The family-trees of the wealthy and politically important clans of the Shire and Buckland -- the Tooks, the Brandybucks and the Bagginses -- show that these clans occasionally intermarried, and that the range of families providing wives or husbands is somewhat limited. The Tooks intermarry with Baggins, Chubb, Banks, Brandybuck and the North-Tooks of Long Cleeve; the Brandybucks with Tooks, Baggins, Bolger, Bracegirdle, Goldworthy, Goold and Burrows; the Bagginses with Grubb, Bolger, Bunce, Hornblower, Goodbody, Sackville, Proudfoot, Chubb, Bracegirdle, Brownlock, and Boffin (beside Tooks and Brandybucks).[16] This longer list of related families may indicate that some Bagginses chose spouses whom neither Tooks nor Brandybucks would have considered of suitable social station, and this in turn might reflect the greater social eminence of the latter two clans whose respective heads bear the titles of 'Took and Thain' and 'Master of Buckland.' Yet this observation could also point to a geographic scattering of the Bagginses. FOTR: A Long-expected Party mentions that some of Bilbo's relatives arrived from distant parts of the Shire and had never travelled to Hobbiton before. As Bilbo's official rank is Esquire (according to The Hobbit, p. 282), all three families are firmly placed among the hobbit 'gentry.'
The pattern of class-exclusive marriage is underscored by Sam Gamgee's family-tree. None of the names of ancestors and relatives -- Gamwich, Roper, Greenhand, Cotton, and Goodchild -- make an appearance in the other family-trees, nor do the first names of male children overlap. While the Tooks and Brandybucks in particular favour elaborate names that bear a distinct likeness to names preferred among the medieval nobility (such as Ferumbras, Isembold, Hildibrand, Sigismond and Gormadoc, Marmadoc, Rorimac, Seredic respectively), the first names in the Gamgee, Roper and Cotton clans are simpler and more humble (Hamfast, Cotman, Hob, Tolman, Carl).[17] A similar distinction is noticeable among the female children whose names are generally derived from flowers or precious stones: Amarantha, Salvia, Pimpernel, Camelia, Esmeralda on the one hand; May, Rose, Daisy, and Bell on the other. However, the occasional overlap of female names (Rosamunda, Rosa and Rose; Belladonna, Mirabella and Bell) indicates that for female hobbits, social distinction depends on the family name (i.e. the husband's name) more than the first name. Among the Bagginses, the first names of males and females generally seem less elaborate (e.g. Ponto, Otho, Drogo; Pansy, Linda, Popppy), and the list includes two female names -- Daisy and Lily -- that also appear in the Gamgee/Cotton family-tree. Again, this may imply that the Bagginses' social status is somewhat inferior to that of Tooks and Brandybucks. On the whole, there is no evidence for mésalliances among hobbits (i.e. marriages between partners of different classes) and therefore no implication of upward mobility or class-transcending social advancement through marriage.
2. Equally obvious is a patrilinear (a dominance of the father's lineage over the mother's) understanding of the family structure. Each family-tree traces the male descendance and focuses on the lineage of the male 'family head'. Upon marriage, female hobbits adopt the male family name and are integrated into the husband's clan.[18] The fact that the family-trees often omit the names of wives to represent only male descent in itself shows that wives (and daughters[19]) are not considered equally important to the constitution of the family and the laws of inheritance: Titles and property appear to be transferred from one male heir to the next, with a preference for the eldest son, as the Took genealogy shows most clearly. This patrilinear slant seems more pronounced in the Gamgee family-tree, as male children are often named directly after their fathers, sometimes by adding a -son suffix (e.g. Hob/Hobson, Andwise/Anson, Hamfast/Hamson). While female names may also appear more than once within a family, there seems to be no similar custom that would indicate an equally strong sense of matrilateral lineage.[20] However, it seems likely that this practice of passing on the father's name compensates for the absence of hereditary property or a socially significant legacy (such as offices and titles) among the 'poor and unimportant families' (FOTR: A Long-expected Party).
3. That an unmarried status is exceptional emerges from the family-trees as well: Only a few (male) individuals remained unmarried (or died without heirs), as added entries specify.[21] While the genealogies do not include a complete list of descendants, this feature implies that all (male) individuals married and had children unless otherwise noted.[22] Bachelors, it appears, are not entitled to bequeath titles and property by choice: As the line of Thains shows, the title reverts to the family of the eldest surviving brother in such a case. While FOTR details how Bilbo adopted Frodo as his heir and subsequently left him all his possessions, the (obviously rare) practice of adoption is not reflected in the family-trees. Frodo's status is not likened to that of a son, nor is his adoption even referred to.
Additional information about the hobbits' clannish society structure can be found in Letter 214 (p. 291ff.),[23] where Tolkien discusses some central anthropological features of their culture and provides details that are not included in LOTR or The Hobbit:
- wedding celebrations don't involve gifts other than flowers, but the parents of bride and groom assist in furnishing the couple's home;
- a married couple doesn't necessarily move to a new home but may remain with the larger family, whether or not this involves separate apartments;
- if a spouse dies young, hobbits sometimes, albeit rarely, remarry;
- the larger family and household are governed by a 'dyarchy' of master and mistress, both commanding separate spheres of responsibility while entitled to act as each other's legal representative;
- while the title of family head (the 'headship') can be passed on to a hobbit's widow, this 'titular' status is distinguished from control over the family's property and its management;
- the family head is usually the eldest male within a clan and the title is passed on to his immediate male heirs (albeit after his widow's death, if his wife happens to survive him);
- if there are no male heirs, a daughter can pass on the title to the eldest grandson (this custom, Tolkien adds, is practiced only by some clans);
- some hereditary titles and offices, such as Took and Thain, can only be passed on to male heirs (in other words, a Took widow could never become acting Thain);
- whether or not the position of family head can be influenced by adoption is a matter of contention among hobbits (thus the Sackville-Bagginses' protest when Bilbo instated Frodo as his heir);
- 'matriarchal' clan structures and polyandry (i.e. one female taking several husbands) are firmly excluded.
In this letter, Tolkien describes hobbit families as "'patrilinear' rather than patriarchal" (p. 293), but the listed features themselves, and the descriptions given in LOTR, argue against this distinction: Not only are the laws of inheritance and the transfer of names dominated by the male side of the family, the range of social responsibilities and privileges also favours male hobbits. Female hobbits gain (limited) access to control over family and property through marriage alone, and only the widow of a family head can achieve a position of social influence, as her deceased husband's representative. Tolkien's insistence that the term 'matriarch' (once used by Gandalf in FOTR: The Shadow of the Past, and applied to Gollum's grandmother) doesn't refer to "a strictly 'matriarchal' system, properly so-called" (p. 296) is equally telling.[24] Finally, all existing political offices are held by male hobbits, nor do females act as bounders or shirriffs, or partake in the fighting during the Scouring of the Shire in ROTK.
While Tolkien doesn't elaborate on the master and mistress's separate functions within the family household, the text of LOTR offers further clues about gender relations in the Shire. While we encounter a variety of professions (millers, ropers, gardeners, farmers, shirriffs etc.) and offices, none of these is ever occupied by a female hobbit. The only female prominently (and vocally) involved in social affairs, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, is cast as a negative character from the outset, a thief of silverware and a resentful, unpopular individual (FOTR: A Long-Expected Party). While Mrs. Maggot, Mrs. Cotton and her daughter Rosie make brief appearances in FOTR and ROTK respectively, they are each connected (if not confined) to the house and home, whereas Farmer Maggot and Farmer Cotton are not only given much more dialogue but also play an active role in the events. Mrs. Maggot is shown to serve drinks and dinner and prepares provisions; as her husband engages in conversation with Frodo and his companions, she 'hustles in and out'. When the farmer accompanies the travellers into the night, his wife stays behind, worriting (FOTR: A Short Cut to Mushrooms 109, 111). Guarded by Nibs, the youngest Cotton boy, Mrs. Cotton and Rosie also remain in the house, while Farmer Cotton plays a leading part in the first scuffle with the ruffians in ROTK. Wife and daughter may be present during the strategy discussions that ensue, but have no say in them. Equally, female hobbits make no appearance in the two tavern scenes featured in the first chapter of FOTR.
Taken together with the information provided by the family-trees and Letter 214, the image of a male-dominated society emerges from these scenes: matters of social and political importance are negotiated exclusively among male hobbits; social hierarchies and family structures are shaped by homosocial (male-male) relationships of various types (see also Chapter 3). The "cultural separation of women and men" which Tyellas identifies as a common trait in Tolkien's Middle-earth texts (WBAG 3) is certainly visible in hobbit society as well. Necessarily, these basic conditions also shape the perception of marriage, match-making and partner choice, and the reality of married life.
From this first survey, two central characteristics of marriage can be established. Marriage, procreation and kinship are closely linked: The importance of the clan both to the social structures and the hobbits' mindset (witnessed by their specific attention to kinship connections and degrees, and the fact that genealogies are among the few traditions they preserve in written form[25]) tell us that much. Ideally, a marriage serves not only the purpose of procreation but also stabilizes and expands relationships within the larger social network.[26] Secondly, marriage and family life determine the social status of female hobbits and the range of their activities to a large extent, if not exclusively. Their responsibilities and priorities are centred on the household, whereas the life of male hobbits encompasses a greater variety of professional, social and political activities. As a consequence of gender separation, male and female hobbits share only a limited amount of the experiences, ambitions and expectations that pattern their individual lives. This, I think, is a characteristic which deserves to be stressed since it contradicts our contemporary concept of marriage: Not only a basic equality of husband and wife, but also an accord of shared expectations and experiences, and the desire for emotional intimacy shape our understanding of marriage as the centre of our private lives. However, the living conditions of hobbit culture neither afford nor require such a sphere of privacy or intimacy for the married couple: I will return to this topic in Chapter 3, but it is already clear that the average hobbit household includes a group of relatives beyond the couple's children (possibly several generations) and servants or farmhands[27] as well.
That hobbits marry within their own social circles can be viewed in two different ways: Either the patterns of social interaction informally suggest such a partner choice through opportunity (assuming that unmarried hobbits spend most of their time among company of similar social status); or appropriate spouses are selected by family heads and elder male relatives.[28] Of course a combination of both elements is also conceivable. Considering that married couples often live with the larger family, and that a multitude of kinship and friendship ties connect the larger clans, it seems unlikely that the choice of spouse would be regarded an entirely private and individual affair. This does not necessarily imply that individual preferences are overruled by paternal authority, however, or indeed that hobbits would perceive a basic conflict between collective and individual desires. Rather it means that the family's wishes and well-being are an integral and self-evident part of the individual's choices from the outset. What we already know is that the formal marriage proposal is a male privilege, but there is no information about the rights of female hobbits to agree or refuse, or the factors that determine the choice of spouse, beyond certain social and gender-specific limitations. I will therefore conclude this section by listing several unknown variables that prompt further questions.
The family-trees trace lineage through blood relations and alliance (i.e. kinship established by marriage), and marriage is obviously reserved for male/female couples. While a variety of male homosocial bonds is implied in the genealogies and the scenes discussed above, their social and emotional meaning is yet barely tangible. That no formal recognition of same-sex bonds exists and furthermore, that adoption of a male heir presents a rare and legally complicated case, indicates a general perception of the family as based on bloodlines, male/female alliance and procreation, within a patrilinear/patriarchal framework. Beyond this trait, the examined sources don't suggest anything about the perception and experience of intimate relationships, regardless of gender, or the meaning of emotional ties between individuals. That love and affection govern personal relationships is certainly clear in LOTR, but what is the hobbit concept of love? To what an extent is love a foundation for marriage, and does it involve a concept of 'romance'?
Footnotes
[1] When faced with the threat of rape, elves chose to 'reject bodily life and pass to Mandos' (LACE, footnote 5). It appears, then, that rape is the ultimate crime driven by a base physical need and forms the exact opposite to the elves' continent nature. The threat rape poses to their identity and integrity is so immediate that they prefer to end their physical existence rather than endure such a violation.
Interestingly, this response is by no means in keeping with the traditional Christian/Catholic teachings concerning suicide: Church Father St. Augustine, whose writings Tolkien may well have known, specifically addresses the question whether it is legitimate to commit suicide in order to avoid rape and concludes that it is not (cf. Civitas Dei, I.20 ff.).
[2] Cf. Gandalf's description in FOTR: A Journey in the Dark: The Dwarves tell no tale; but even as mithril was the foundation of their wealth, so also it was their destruction: they delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled, Durin's Bane.
[3] To quote only from the introductory description: Their faces were as a rule good-natured rather than beautiful, broad, bright-eyed, red-cheeked, with mouths apt to laughter, and to eating and drinking. And laugh they did, and eat, and drink, often and heartily, being fond of simple jests at all times, and of six meals a day (when they could get them). They were hospitable and delighted in parties, and in presents, which they gave away freely and eagerly accepted. (LOTR: Prologue 1. Concerning Hobbits).
[4] Growing food and eating it occupied most of their time. In other matters they were, as a rule, generous and not greedy, but contented and moderate, so that estates, farms, workshops, and small trades tended to remain unchanged for generations. (LOTR: Prologue 1. Concerning Hobbits).
[5] The first draft of The Long-expected Party (HoME 6: The Return of the Shadow, p. 16f.) offers a peculiar description of 'wedding habits' among hobbits. Here, Bilbo ends his birthday speech by announcing that he'll get married, and the narrator comments that hobbits kept their wedding intentions secret: Then they suddenly went and got married and went off without an address for a week or two (or even longer). However, this element is introduced to create a plausible explanation for Bilbo's disappearance (and subsequently dropped from the text, as the ring came into play), and the draft as a whole differs in several fundamental respects from later drafts and the published version of the chapter. In addition, the habit of eloping contradicts all other descriptions of hobbit marriages and family life in Tolkien's works (see especially the footnote to Letter 214, p. 292, where Tolkien refers to the celebration of hobbit weddings).
[6] Before he leaves the Shire with Frodo. The Fellowship of the Ring (abbr. FOTR): Three is Company.
[7] WBAG 3: "Honourable characters do not try to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage. It is telling that Sam Gamgee needs to be called to join Frodo at his departure from Bag End not because he had his hand down Rosie's blouse, but because he was saying goodbye to the beer-barrel."
[8] This extremely abbreviated summary of key differences between pre-modern and modern societies in Europe is to a large extent based on the works of Niklas Luhmann. See for instance: "The Individuality of the Individual: Historical Meanings and Contemporary Problems." In: Thomas C. Heller / Morton Sosna / David E.Wellbery (eds.): Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought. Stanford, Ca. 1986, p. 313-325; Social systems. Stanford, Ca. 1995; Theories of Distinction. Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Stanford, Ca. 2002.
[9] Cf. Tolkien's introductory remarks about hobbits in the Prologue: They do not and did not understand or like machines more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand-loom, though they were skilful with tools. This isn't the place to discuss Tolkien's 'Victorianisms' in any detail, but of course there are traits in his portrayal of hobbit culture that remind us of a 19th century rural idyll (in Letter 181, p. 235, Tolkien acknowledges that it was in part modelled on rural life in Warwickshire). Most of these 'anachronisms' are fascinating to contemplate, and could also be viewed as a result of the co-existence of differently developed societies in Middle-earth and the cultural transfer between them.
[10] Or even longer, in some rural communities. Medievalist Jacques LeGoff has developed a complex model to describe the different historical exstensions of social and economical structures. See Jacques LeGoff: Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages. Chicago 1980.
[11] Cf. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick: Between Men. English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York 1985. Richard Dellamora: Masculine Desire. The Sexual Politics of Victorian Aestheticism. Chapel Hill, London 1990.
[12] Cf. Michel Foucault: The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York 1978.
[13] Michel Foucault: The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York 1978; The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality Vol. 2. New York 1985; The Care of the Self: The History of Sexuality Vol. 3. New York 1986. These are not historical studies in the strict sense, but they remain the most engaging and challenging philosophical works about the way we perceive ourselves and our society through a 'sexual' lens. See also: Robert Padgug: "Sexual Matters. On Conceptualizing Sexuality in History". In: Edward Stein (ed.): Forms of Desire. Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy. New York 1992, p. 43-67; Louise Fradenburg / Carla Freccero (eds.): Premodern Sexualities. New York 1996.
[14] Either approach has far-reaching consequences for discussing sexuality in Tolkien's works. If an interpretation is based on the idea that 'Victorian' ethics dictated euphemisms or outright silence, then all the missing information about sexual acts and their meanings will have to be supplied by drawing on a single (idealised) frame of reference that lies completely outside of Tolkien's writings, literary and otherwise. Such an approach seems problematic to me because it necessarily reduces the 'pre-modern otherness' of the depicted societies to surface accessories, and therefore also neglects a defining force in Tolkien's texts about Middle-earth.
[15] Class distinction between hobbit 'gentry' and 'commoners' is also marked by profession ('commoners' are generally tradesmen or farmers) and underlined by distinctly different speech patterns: The dialogue of Sam, the Gaffer, Farmer Maggot and Farmer Cotton, to name only the most prominent examples, feature colloquialisms, grammatical incorrectness and slang elements that are absent from the speech patterns of Bilbo, Frodo, Merry and Pippin.
[16] Most of these names also occur where the relatives attending Bilbo's farewell party are listed in FOTR: A Long-expected Party: There were many Bagginses and Boffins, and also many Tooks and Brandybucks; there were various Grubbs (relations of Bilbo Baggins' grandmother), and various Chubbs (connexions of his Took grandfather); and a selection of Burrowses, Bolgers, Bracegirdles, Brockhouses, Goodbodies, Hornblowers and Proudfoots. And in Bilbo's speech: My dear Bagginses and Boffins, he began again; and my dear Tooks and Brandybucks, and Grubbs, and Chubbs, and Burrowses, and Hornblowers, and Bolgers, Bracegirdles, Goodbodies, Brockhouses and Proudfoots. Compared to the family-tree, the name Bunce is missing, while Brockhouse is added.
[17] Cf. Tolkien's notes on translating hobbit names from the Westron in Appendix F.II, 1169: "In some old families, especially those of Fallohide origin such as the Tooks and the Bolgers, it was, however, the custom to give high-sounding first-names."
[18] Tolkien elaborates on this in Letter 214; see my discussion below, in this section.
[19] In two instances, 3 daughters (fathered by Adalgrim and Adleard Took respectively) are only summarily referred to rather than being included by name. That the descendants of Mirabella Took remain unnamed (six children) indicates a related neglicence towards matrilinear descent. However, one such summary listing also occurs for Sadoc Brandybuck's heirs (two sons).
[20] Only a few wives and female children are listed in the Gamgee family-tree: Sam's sister May seems to have been named after the Gaffer's sister, and Rose Cotton after her great-grandmother, wife of Cotman. Only one of Sam's children was named directly after her mother, but since several of his sons also received names that belonged to the socially elevated clans, this choice may be owed to Sam's unique biography rather than a commonly observed custom.
[21] Among the Tooks: Isengrim III (died young, no children); Hildigard (died young); Hildifons (went off on a journey and never returned); Ferumbras III (unmarried).
[22] This conclusion seems less cogent for female hobbits. In the Prologue, Tolkien only refers to male bachelors, and the limited significance that the family-trees accord matrilinear descent may imply that an unmarried status among females is not considered important enough to deserve specific mention. Since there is no matrilinear inheritance, the absence of female heirs is irrelevant for the genealogies' focus.
[23] While drafted as a personal missive, this letter consists only of anthropological commentary on hobbit culture. Tolkien explicitly speaks as the 'recorder' of Third Age history, thereby re-adopting the role of narrator/translator from LOTR. Both this adopted speaker role and the content place this letter among the essays, notes and drafts that accompany Tolkien's Middle-earth texts, rather than his personal correspondence, in which we hear his biographical self speak.
[24] Tolkien specifically replies to the suggestion that matriarchal clan structures may have developed among the Stoors and rejects such a possibility.
[25] Cf. Prologue 1, p. 20; 4, p. 26f.
[26] By their very nature, genealogies never represent the full reality of kinship in a given society: they articulate the society's ideal of the family and the patterns that shape its order. In this sense, the hobbit family-trees don't tell us that no Brandybuck ever married a serving maid, or that same-sex couples never set up a shared household, but they do show that alliances of this kind are not considered valid within the ideal system of kinship.
[27] Cf. the presence of two farmhands (also belonging to the farm-household) at the Maggots' supper table in FOTR: A Short Cut to Mushrooms, 109.
[28] In WBAG 3, Tyellas lists the 'paternal authority figure' as a recurring feature in Tolkien's stories of love and marriage. While accounts of hobbit marriage are scant, paternal authority is unquestionably present in their culture: witness the many instances when Sam quotes his father's opinions and judgments.