LotR --- Appendix B -- The Tale of Years

[Estelyn Telcontar]

"Tale" is a rather misleading title for this section of the Appendices - "Chronology", as used in the subtitle, is more accurate. Though the facts given for some of the dates are more than just a list of what happened when, it is not a tale in the typical sense of the word. I suspect that most of us go here for information, not for entertainment - though the one does not preclude the other!

It begins with a brief list of the Ages and the events that mark their beginnings and ends. Less than three pages are then devoted to the Second Age, leaving the first out entirely, and the rest concerns the Third Age, with a brief glimpse at the Fourth Age at the end. That is only logical, since the story itself takes place in the Third Age, yet it is nice to have it set in the context of the Ages that precede and follow it.

I find it interesting to read the introductions to each age; they tell us which race (or part thereof) is predominant during that time. The Second Age: "...dark years for Men of Middle-earth, but the years of the glory of Númenor." Third Age: "...the fading years of the Eldar."

At the beginning of the section concerning the Third Age, we again find some brief information about the Wizards and the Rings of Power. Then the years in which important events occurred are listed with the corresponding facts. When we get to the time of the book, the timeline gets more detailed, with months and days listed. At the end of that section there is important information that was not included in the book itself, especially concerning battles that took place simultaneously at other places: Lórien, Mirkwood, Erebor. That gives us a glimpse of the involvement of other races in the war against Sauron.

The last chapters of the book are included, and interestingly, this is where the dates named are also put into Shire context! Then we get a brief glimpse into events that are "future" from LotR's point of view, and this part is definitely "Shire-centric", telling us almost exclusively about Hobbits and their fate.

There are tidbits of information that strike me when reading through this section: Bilbo is older than Aragorn's mother, for example. Events that take place in different places are connected with each other. I also found it interesting to realize that the Fellowship was not scattered all over Middle-earth when their lives ended - they were either in Valinor or in Gondor. Apparently the Fellowship was so integral to them that they sought to be together forever, so to speak.

For the most part, I do check out this appendix as a reference, either for discussions or for coordinating dates for RPGs or fan fiction. It is an invaluable source! Why do you read Appendix B? Or don't you? Is it important to you?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It's interesting, Estelyn, that you should see 'Tale' as a misleading title, since Tolkien would not have thought it so. Here he uses the word in an extremely archaic sense, with the rough meaning 'list, reckoning or tally'. In fact, Tolkien had been composing such annals for decades before he began The Lord of the Rings, in an attempt to establish the chronologies of Beleriand and Valinor. The Old Norse word tál has this very meaning and a similar pronunciation. It forms part of the compound Dvergatál, the section of Voluspá from which Tolkien lifted many of his dwarf names.

Tolkien's earliest annals bear a striking resemblance to those written by medieval scribes, particularly that great monument of Old English historiography, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In fact the Godéðles géargetæl, with its years in Roman numerals, two-column format and preponderance of Hér (literally 'here', but meaning 'in this year') as an opening word for its entries, is almost identical to the Old English document. The word géargetæl itself means 'annal' or, more literally, 'year-tale, tale of years'.

It's interesting that Tolkien saw fit to offer a chronology for his stories, since the annal is a vital tool in establishing the dating of events in medieval narrative. In particular, Scandinavian historical sagas are very concerned with details of personality, appearance and conversation, but date events, when they date them at all, by reference to other significant happenings, reigns of kings and ecclesiastical appointments. Often some quite complex cross-referencing with contemporary annals is required before a satisfactory date may be found, and doubtless Tolkien had to do this at some point in his career. Once his own narrative was finished, he decided to give his underlying history its vital shape by supplying just such a structure, which he named, as one would expect, in a literal rendering of Old English. In this respect the Tale of Years is another example of Tolkien's fiction feeding on his professional interests, producing greater verisimilitude.

As regards the actual contents of the Tale of Years, I shall have to post again when I have my books to hand, but as a potted history of the Second and Third Ages, I've found it to be invaluable. It's just like Tolkien to re-tell the story he's just told in a completely different format, giving its events an entirely different flavour.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

"Tale" is a rather misleading title for this section of the Appendices - "Chronology", as used in the subtitle, is more accurate.

Just a quick one for now. I think 'Tale' is used in the sense of (re-)telling, account of. This Appendix ties in with the 'Annalistic' Silmarillion (if I can put it that way) of the Annals of Valinor/Grey Annals/Annals of Beleriand - which is why, I suspect, there is no account of the First Age included here: these Annals were written specifically for LotR ( I seem to remember reading they were the last part of the Appendices sent in to Allen & Unwin by Tolkien - I may be wrong).

Edit: cross-posted with Squatter.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

There are tidbits of information that strike me when reading through this section: Bilbo is older than Aragorn's mother, for example.

And Aragorn is older than both Denethor and Theoden...

And a most interesting coincidence, to my my mind, is the fact that Sam and Faramir are the same age- and that Faramir is consequently a good deal older than Eowyn- who is actually a few years younger than Pippin. And Frodo is older than Boromir. And Gimli was older than Aragorn.

All of which makes for a fascinating show of just how the different lifespans of the various races make for different maturities at different ages.

As regards the Tale of the Years, I read it little nowadays, but that is mainly due to having absorbed most of it in past readings. A few dates in the list have always amused me, such as 1945 being the end of a great war (the Wainrider invastion that saw the end of Ondoher and his sons. That the Kingdom of Arnor fell in the 1970s. It's also quite amusing that the fall of one of the "great towers" (Minas Ithil) occurs in 2002- a mere digit's difference from when our own Towers fell. 490, the first invasion of the Easterlings, is very close datewise to the Fall of Rome to the barbarians.

Amusing coincidences, into which I wouldn't read anything. But still, amusing.

[Lalwendë]

I do look at this section quite often, in the vain hope of learning the dates by osmosis. Alas a damaged memory means I don't remember things that well. But this does have it's benefits as I am often surprised by learning a 'new' fact. Such as Gollum being over 500 years old at the time of LotR; he had been hiding under the Misty Mountains for over 400 years with his 'precious' when Bilbo turned up. To put this into perspective, he found the Ring and went into hiding before the Rohirrim had even setled Rohan! Imagine how different the world would have been to him when he finally emerged to hunt down his precious?

Another interesting fact is that Aragorn must have been about 10 when Gandalf turned up in Rivendell with the Dwarves and Bilbo. I wonder was he amongst the Elves singing Tra-la-la-lally?

This section also makes it clear that Hobbits have not always been quite so sedentary, as they even traversed the Misty Mountains before finally settling in and founding The Shire. Of course it could have been hardship which drove them onwards to seek new land, but even if it was this which made them move, it still proves that they were once a sturdy and strong race of people, and it's perhaps not so surprising that they have hidden strengths.

Throughout the Third Age the guardianship of the Three Rings was known only to those who possessed them. But at the end it became known that they had been held at first by the three greatest of the Eldar: Gil-galad, Galadriel and Cirdan. Gil-galad before he died gave his ring to Elrond; Cirdan later surrendered his to Mithrandir. For Cirdan saw further and deeper than any other in Middle-earth, and he welcomed Mithrandir at the Grey Havens, knowing whence he came and whither he would return.

'Take this ring, Master,' he said, 'for your labours will be heavy; but it will support you in the weariness that you have taken upon yourself. For this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill. But as for me, my heart is with the Sea, and I will dwell by the grey shores until the last ship sails. I will await you. '

This is an interesting passage. Firstly, it marks Cirdan out as an Elf with particular skills, as he could see "further and deeper than any other in Middle-earth". This must mean that he is blessed with the greatest foresight of anyone in Middle-earth, even more so than Galadriel, or Sauron, a Maia.

I find Cirdan a fascinating figure. Unlike most Elves he can live right beside the Sea without yearning to pass over it so much that he goes himself, he is simply content to be beside it. He waits for the 'last ship', which may well be for as long as Middle-earth endures. He is content to be the gatekeeper, and reminds me of Charon, the boatman on the Styx - and also I think of the scenes in His Dark Materials where they travel to the Land of the Dead (very upsetting). He lives in the Grey Havens, and dwells on the grey shores, and when I think of him I think of a grey figure. I cannot imagine Cirdan being the bearer of a Ring of Fire - and he even ends up giving Narya to the grey wizard. All this grey is not quite dismal, but not joyful either.

He is witness to the bittersweet departures of Elves from Middle-earth. Bitter because they will not come back and sweet because it is in their nature to go to the Undying Lands. But he also witnesses something very peculiar and that is the arrival of the Istari. I cannot tell if he knew the destiny of the wizards or not, but here he addresses Gandalf as "Master", which is interesting. I wonder was he struck by Gandalf's presence, or did he 'see' something in him? Maybe he simply recognised the Istari as something greater than any Elf as they had travelled the wrong way down the Straight Road.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

The last chapters of the book are included, and interestingly, this is where the dates named are also put into Shire context! Then we get a brief glimpse into events that are "future" from LotR's point of view, and this part is definitely "Shire-centric", telling us almost exclusively about Hobbits and their fate.

I suspect that the final part (or most of it) of App B was written by Hobbits, whereas the earlier parts were taken from Gondorian records.

This brings us to the interesting question of who, exactly, wrote the Appendices? Obviously they are an ‘amalgam’. If the earlier parts of the Annals used came from Gondor they are clearly not a straight ‘lift’ - there are mentions of Hobbit history scattered throughout the accounts of the earlier Third Age, which we can only see as insertions by Hobbits.

This can lead to some ‘odd’ juxtapositions:

2948: Theoden son of Thengel, King of Rohan, born.
2949: Gandalf and Balin visit Bilbo in the Shire.
2950: Finduilas, daughter of Adrahil of Dol Amroth, born.
2951: Sauron declares himself openly and gathers power in Mordor. He begins the rebuilding of Barad-dur. Gollum turns towards Mordor. Sauron sends three of the Nazgul to reoccupy Dol Guldur.

We have entries of significant historical record - Theoden’s birth & Sauron’s reappearance - ‘bookending’ a visit by Gandalf & Balin to Bag End, an event of relavance only to Hobbits (& we readers).

The question then arises as to whether these different sources are equally reliable. Same would apply to the references to the early history of the Rohirrim. Are the entries (for instance)

1977: Frumgor leads the Eotheod into the North.
&
c. 1150: The Fallohides enter Eriador. The Stoors come over the Redhorn Pass and move to the Angle, or to Dunland.

as reliable as

2698: Ecthelion I rebuilds the White Tower in Minas Tirith.

The point is, Ecthelion’s building of the White Tower in 2698 clearly comes from Gondorian Annals, probably written at the time by scribes in Minas Tirith, whereas the Hobbits probably didn’t have any written records at the time & the Eotheod definitely did not.

This brings in the ‘Translator Conceit’ with a vengeance. This is legend written down & turned into History long after the fact. Does a Legendary event actually become history once its given a date & set down in an ‘official’ record? Is something ‘True’ once its put in a history book, whereas before it was merely an ‘Old wives tale, told around the fireside?

At the end we have another example of the question asked about the ‘final note’ in App A - ‘Who wrote this’:

1482: Death of Mistress Rose, wife of Master Samwise, on Mid-year's Day. On September 22 Master Samwise rides out from Bag End. He comes to the Tower Hills, and is last seen by Elanor, to whom he gives the Red Book afterwards kept by the Fairbairns. Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over Sea, last of the Ring-bearers.

‘Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over Sea, last of the Ring-bearers.’ Who wrote this? Is it ‘True’ because its in a History book, or is it perhaps not True, because the History book states its a ‘tradition’? This ‘Tale of Years’ is perhaps quite literally a ‘tale’ in some parts!

Interestingly, these Annals (as CT points out) do not always tally with the main story itself:

It is a curious fact that the chronology of ‘The Chief Days from the Fall of Barad Dur to the End of the Third Age’ in Appendix B ...does not agree with the text of ‘Many Partings’ in respect either of Eomer’s return in relation to the setting out for Edoras or of the time taken for that journey. In the chronology of ‘The Chief Days’ Eomer returned to Minas Tirith on July 18th, & the riding from the City with King Theoden’s wain took place on the following day, July 19th, not four days later as in ‘Many Partings’; while the arrival at Edoras is dated August 7, eighteen days later, not fifteen, as in the text.
(CT in Sauron Defeated, cited in Hammond & Scull: Readers’ Companion to LotR)

Is CT right - is it ‘curious’ that the dates do not match up, or was it deliberate on Tolkien’s part? Whatever. The ‘fact’ is we are given two different chronologies, one in the story, one in the Annals. Which is correct - the History or the Legend?

[Essex]

I always move straight to the 'later events concerning the fellowship' section when I finish with Sam's immortal words.

It finishes the book beautifully for me. And it still brings a tear to my eye in places, especially when the 'beds' of merry and pippin and moved either side of Aragorn's tomb in Minas Tirith.

And I like the idea that it's a 'tradition' that Sam followed Frodo 60 years later. Did he actually get to the undying lands? did he meet Frodo? was frodo dead already? Was Sam actually allowed to follow him, or did he spend the rest of his years looking out over the gulf of Lune and die peacefully at the Havens?

PS the tale of the years is also helping me put together a script for the 3 season mini series of LOTR I'm writing.... I'm not doing it the way tolkien wanted - writing it happening as the tale of the years represents.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks, Squatter (and davem), for the background information on the older usage of the word "tale" and the phrase "tale of years". To me, "tale" was always synonymous with "narrative", so this is something I've learned!

Interesting point Essex. You said the following:

"And I like the idea that it's a 'tradition' that Sam followed Frodo 60 years later. Did he actually get to the undying lands? did he meet Frodo? was frodo dead already? Was Sam actually allowed to follow him, or did he spend the rest of his years looking out over the gulf of Lune and die peacefully at the Havens?"

May I point out that in "The Letters of Tolkein" he informed one inquirer that Frodo would never be able to come back to Middle Earth, that once he set foot in Elvenhome, he was bound to stay there. And no, Frodo was not dead yet. "The Letters of Tolkein" is a treasure trove of additional information dealing with many of the characters and the choices they made. Tolkein indicated that Frodo lived a very long time in Elvenhome (for some reason the number 300 years comes to my mind), but that eventually he did die, as did Bilbo.

However, Gandalf, being a servant of the Valar, would have been able to come back to Middle Earth. He and the other Ishtari, including Saruman, had been sent by the Valar to Middle Earth when the Men of Numenor were washed upon it's shores. They were guardians then, they are guardians still. Gandalf could go where the Valar sent him.

I also think it interesting that none of the hobbits of the story died in the Shire. Merry and Pippen died in Gondor, Frodo and Bilbo went overseas. Sam was never heard from again.

I want to think like Elenor - he went overseas.