returnoftheshadow72

by Miguel

  (2) Too many hobbits. Also Bingo Bolger-Baggins a bad name. Let Bingo = Frodo, a son of Primula Brandybuck but of father Drogo Baggins (Bilbo's first cousin). So Frodo (= Bingo) is Bilbo's first cousin once removed both on Took side and on Baggins. Also he has as proper name Baggins.

  [Frodo struck out] No - I am now too used to Bingo.

  Frodo [i.e. Took] and Odo are in the know and see Bingo off at gate after the Party. Would it not be well to cancel sale, and have Odo as heir and in charge? - though many things could be given away. The Sackville-Bagginses could quarrel with Odo?

  Frodo (and possibly Odo) go on the first stage of road (because Frodo's news about Black Riders is necessary) [see pp. 54 - 5].

  But Frodo says goodbye at Bucklebury. Only Merry and Bingo ride on into exile - because Merry insists. Bingo originally intended to go alone.

  Probably best would be to have only Frodo Took - who sees Bingo to Bucklebury; and then Merry. Cut out Odo. Even better to have Frodo and Merry at the gate: Frodo says goodbye then, and is left in charge of the Shire [i.e. 'in the Shire', at Bag End]. Merry see Black Riders in North.

  All of this, from 'No - I am now too used to Bingo', was struck out in pencil, and at the same time my father wrote 'Sam Gamgee' in the margin, and to 'Bingo originally intended to go alone' he added 'with Sam'. It may be that this is where he first set down Sam Gamgee's name. There is a first hint here, in 'Frodo says goodbye at Bucklebury', of the hobbit who would remain behind at Crickhollow when the others entered the Old Forest; while 'Too many hobbits' and 'Cut out Odo' are the first signs of what before long would become a major problem and an almost impenetrable confusion.

  The genealogy as it now stood in the fourth version of 'A Long-

  expected Party' is found on p. 37. Bingo was already Bilbo's first cousin once removed on the Took side, but his father was Rollo Bolger (and when Bilbo adopted him he changed his name from Bolger to Bolger- Baggins). With the appearance of Drogo Baggins, Bingo would become Bilbo's first cousin once removed on the Baggins side also: we must suppose that Drogo's father was to be brother of Bilbo's father Bungo Baggins. In the later genealogy Drogo became Bilbo's second cousin, as Gaffer Gamgee explained to his audience at The Ivy Bush: 'so Mr. Frodo is [Mr. Bilbo's] first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is, if you follow me' (FR p. 3x).

  An abandoned genealogy on one of these pages shows my father evolving the Baggins pedigree. This little table begins with Inigo Baggins (for a previous holder of this name see p. 17), whose son was Mungo Baggins, father of Bungo: Mungo, first appearing here, survived into the final family tree. Bungo has a sister Rosa, who married 'Young Took'; Rosa also survived, but not as Bilbo's aunt - she became Bungo's first cousin, still with a Took husband (Hildigrim). In this table Drogo is Bungo's brother, but it was at this point that the table was abandoned.

  The reference in this note to the 'sale' is on the face of it very puzzling. 'A Long-expected Party' was still in its fourth version - when the Party was given by Bingo Bolger-Baggins, and the major revision whereby it reverted to Bilbo had not yet been undertaken. Then what 'sale' is referred to? There has been no sale of Bag End: Bingo 'devised delivered and made over by free gift the desirable property' to the Sackville- Bagginses (p. 39). The sale of Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses only arose with the changed story. There is however another reference to the sale, in a scribbled list of the days of the hobbits' journey from Hobbiton found on the manuscript of the Troll Song which Bingo was to sing at Bree (p. 142 note 11): this list begins 'Party Thursday, Friday "Sale" and departure of Odo, Frodo, and Bingo,' etc. The fact that the word is here enclosed in inverted commas may suggest that my father merely had in mind the auction of Bag End to which Bilbo returned at the end of The Hobbit: the earlier clear-out of Bilbo's home, which was a sale, made the word a convenient if misleading shorthand for the clear-out in the new story, which was not a sale.

  At the foot of the page the following note was hastily jotted in pencil, and then struck out:

  (3) Gandalf is against Bingo's telling anyone where he is off to. Bingo is to take Merry. Bingo is reluctant to give pain to Odo and Frodo. He tells them - suddenly saying goodbye, and Frodo (Odo) meets what looks like a hobbit on the way up hill. He asks after Bingo - and Frodo or Odo tells him he is off to Bucklebury. So Black Riders know and ride after Bingo.

  This is the embryo of the final story, that a Rider came and spoke to Gaffer Gamgee, who sent him on to Bucklebury (FR p. 85).

  (4) Sting. Did Bilbo take this? What of the armour? Various possibilities: (a) Bingo has armour, but loses it in Barrow; (b) Gandalf urges him to take armour, but it is heavy and he leaves it at Bucklebury; (c) he likes it, and it saves him in the Barrow, but is stolen at Bree.

  The point is, of course, that he cannot be wearing armour on Weathertop. With this note compare the mention in the original 'scheme' for Chapter IX (p. 126) of 'Ring-mail of Bingo in barrow' - this was apparently to be an element in 'some explanations' when the hobbits reached Rivendell.

  Another note, on another page, is almost the same as this, but asserts that Bilbo did take Sting, and says that if Bingo's armour was stolen at Bree 'discovery of the burgled rooms is before night.' The meaning of this is presumably that according to the existing story (pp. 162 - 3) the hobbits had taken all their belongings out of the bedrooms into their parlour before the attack, and that this would have to be changed. In FR (pp. 290 - 1) Bilbo gave Sting to Frodo at Rivendell, together with the coat of mithril.

  (5) Bree-folk are not to be hobbits. Bring in bit about the upstairs windows. As a result of the hobbits not liking it, landlord gives them rooms on side of the house where second floor is level with ground owing to hill-slope.

  The 'bit about the upstairs windows' is presumably the passage in the original Chapter III (pp. 92 - 3) where the hobbits, approaching Farmer Maggot's, discuss the inconveniences of living on more than one Hoor. - In fact, in the original beginning of the Prancing Pony chapter (p. 132) the people of Bree were primarily Men (with 'hobbits about', 'some higher up on the slopes of Bree-hill itself, and many in the valley of Combe on the east side'); so that this new idea was, to some extent, a reversion. But a pencilled note on the same page, added in afterthought, asks: 'What is to happen at Bree now? What kind of talk can give away Mr Hill?' - and I take the implication of this to be that the Bree-folk were now to be exclusively Men (for they would be less curious and less informed about the Shire). See p. 236.

  (6) Rangers are best not as hobbits, perhaps. But either Trotter (as a ranger) must be not a hobbit, or someone very well known: e.g. Bilbo. But the latter is awkward in view of 'happily ever after'. I thought of making Trotter into Fosco Took (Bilbo's first cousin) who vanished when a lad, owing to Gandalf. Who is Trotter? He must have had some bitter acquaintance with Ring-wraiths &c.

  This note on Trotter is to be taken with Bingo's feeling that he had met Trotter before, and should be able to think of his true name (see p. 214). Bilbo's first cousin Fosco Took has not been mentioned before; possibly he was to be the son of Bilbo's aunt Rosa Baggins, who married a Took, according to the little genealogical table described above (p. 222). The ascription of Fosco Took's vanishing to Gandalf looks back to the beginning of The Hobbit, where Bilbo says to him. "Not the Gandalf who was responsible for so many quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures?'

  There is here the first suggestion that my father, in his pondering of the mystery of Trotter, saw the possibility of his not being a hobbit. But this note, like several of the others, is elliptically expressed. The meaning is, I think: If rangers are not hobbits, then Trotter is not; but if nonetheless he is both, he must be a hobbit very well known.

  (7) Bingo must NOT put on his Ring when Black Riders go by - in view of later developments. He must think of doing so but somehow be prevented. Each time the temptation must grow stronger.

  This refers to the original second chapter, pp. 54, 58. For the ways in which in the later
story Frodo was prevented from putting on the Ring see FR pp. 84, 88. 'Later developments' refers of course to the evolution of the concept of the Ring that had by now supervened: the Riders could see the Ringbearer, as he could see them, when he put it on his finger. The temptation to do so arose from the Ring-wraiths' power to communicate their command to the Ringbearer and make it appear to him that it was his own urgent desire (see p. 199); but Bingo must not be allowed to surrender to the temptation until the disaster in the dell under Weathertop.

  (8) Some reason for Gandalf's uneasiness and the flight of Bingo which does not include Black Riders must be found. Gandalf knew of their existence (of course), but had no idea they were out yet. But Gandalf might give some kind of warning against use of Ring (after he leaves Shire?). Perhaps the idea of suddenly using Ring at party as a final joke should be a Bingoism, and contrary to Gandalf (not approved, as in my foreword).

  The 'foreword' referred to here is the text given on pp. 76 ff., earliest form of FR Chapter 2 'The Shadow of the Past', - where indeed Gandalf does not merely 'approve' the idea, but actually suggests it (p. 84). As regards the first sentence of this note, in the 'foreword' there is a reference to 'certain strange signs and portents of trouble brewing after a long time of peace and quiet', but there is no indication of what they were (p. 85 note 9). In the same text Gandalf says that 'Gollum is very likely the beginning of our present trouble', but if 'our present trouble' was the fact that the Dark Lord was known to Gandalf to be seeking the only missing Ring in the direction of the Shire, it is in no way explained how he knew this. This was a very serious problem in the narrative structure: Gandalf cannot know of the coming of the Ring-wraiths, for if he had he would never have allowed Bingo and his companions to set off alone. The solution would require complex restructuring of parts of the opening narrative as it now stood, in respect of Gandalf's movements in the summer of that year (these in turn involved with the changed story of the Birthday Party); and would ultimately lead to Isengard.

  (9) Why was Gandalf hurrying? Because Dark Lord knew of him and hated him. He had to get quick to Rivendell, and thought he was drawing pursuit off Bingo. Also he knew there was a council called at Rivendell for mid-September (Gloin &c. coming to see Bilbo?). It was postponed when the news of the Black Riders reached Rivendell and was not held till Bingo arrived.

  For the idea that Gandalf was attempting to draw off the pursuit of the Black Riders see p. 173 note 8; cf. also his words to Bingo at Rivendell (p. 211): 'But things are moving fast, even faster than I feared. I had to get here quickly. But if I had known the Riders were already out!'

  This is probably the point at which the idea of the Council of Elrond arose, though there have been previous mentions of a 'consultation' with Elrond when the hobbits reached Rivendell (pp. 126, 214).

  (10) Should the Elves have Necromancer-rings? See note about their 'being in both worlds'. But perhaps only the High Elves of the West? Also perhaps Elves - if corrupted - would use rings differently: normally they were visible in both worlds all the time and equally with a ring they could appear only in one if they chose.

  In the earliest statement about Elves and the Rings (p. 75) it is said that 'the Elves had many, and there are now many elfwraiths in the world, but the Ring-lord cannot rule them'; this was repeated exactly in the 'foreword' (p. 78), but without the words 'but the Ring-lord cannot rule them.' I have found no 'note' about the Elves 'being in both worlds', but my father may have been referring to Gandalf's words in the last chapter (p. 212): '[The Elves of Rivendell] fear no Ring-wraiths, for they live at ence in both worlds, and each world has only half power over them, while they have double power over both.' With his remark here 'But perhaps only the High Elves of the West [are in both worlds]? ' cf. the final form of this same passage in FR (p. 235): 'They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power.'

  (11) At Rivendell Bilbo must be seen by Bingo etc.

  Sleeping - in retirement?

  Shadows gathering in the South. Lord of Dale is suspected of being secretly corrupted. Strange men are seen in Dale?

  What happened to Balin, Ori, and Oin? They went out to colonize - being told of rich hills in the South. But after a time no word was heard of them. Dain feared the Dark Lord - rumour of his movements reached him. (One idea was that dwarves need a Ring as foundation of their hoard, and either Balin or Dain sent to Bilbo to discover what had become of it. The dwarves might have received threatening messages from Mordor - for the Lord suspected that the One Ring was in their hoards.)

  The thought that Trotter was really Bilbo is obviously not present here; and cf. the early outline given on p. 126: 'At Rivendell sleeping Bilbo'. An isolated note elsewhere (*) says: 'Gloin has come to see Bilbo. News of the world. Loss of the colony of Balin &c.' But the 'rich hills in the South' in note (11) are probably the first appearance of the idea of Moria, deriving from The Hobbit - though the absence of the name here might suggest that the identification had not yet been made. Cf. also the notes at the end of the abandoned first draft of the last chapter (p. 210): 'What of Balin etc. They went to colonize (Ring needed to found colony?)' In the earliest account of the Rings (p. 75) it was said that the Dwarves probably had none ('some say the rings don't work on them: they are too solid'); but in the 'foreword' (p. 78) Gandalf tells Bingo that the Dwarves were said to have had seven, 'but nothing could make them invisible. In them it only kindled to flames the fire of greed, and the foundation of each of the seven hoards of the Dwarves of old was a golden ring.'

  (* This note was in fact written in ink across the faint pencilled outline for the story of the Barrow-wight (p. 125), and is presumably a thought that came to my father while he was thinking about the story of the arrival in Rivendell which comes at the end of this outline (p.126).)

  Above the words One Ring at the end of note (11) my father wrote missing. He may therefore have meant only 'the one missing Ring', but the fact that he used capital letters suggests its great importance - and in the 'foreword' the missing Ring is the 'most precious and potent of his Rings' (pp. 81, 87).

  (12) Bilbo's ring proved to be the one missing Ring - all others had come back to Mordor: but this one had been lost.

  Make it taken from the Lord himself when Gilgalad wrestled with him, and taken by a flying Elf. It was more powerful than all the other rings. Why did the Dark Lord desire it so?

  That Bilbo's Ring was the one missing Ring, and that it was the most potent of them all, is (as just noted) stated in the 'foreword' - the first sentence of note (12) is the restatement of an existing idea. What is new is the linking up of its earlier history to Gil-galad's wrestling with the Necromancer (see p. 216); in the 'foreword' (p. 78) Gollum's Ring had fallen 'from the hand of an elf as he swam across a river; and it betrayed him, for he was flying from pursuit in the old wars, and he became visible to his enemies, and the goblins slew him.' This is where the story of Isildur began; but now the Elf (later to become Isildur the Numenorean) has it from Gil-galad, who took it from the Dark Lord. And the question is asked: 'Why did the Dark Lord desire it so?' Which means, since it is already conceived to be the most potent of the Rings and therefore selfevidently a chief object of the Dark Lord's desire, 'In what did its potency consist?'*

  (* Humphrey Carpenter (Biography, p. 188) cites this note, but interprets it to be the moment at which the idea of the Ruling Ring emerged:

  There was also the problem of why the Ring seemed so important to everyone - this had not yet been established clearly. Suddenly an idea occurred to him, and he wrote: 'Bilbo's ring proved to be the one ruling Ring - all others had come back to Mordor: but this one had been lost.' The one ruling ring that controlled all the others...

  But the note in question most certainly says 'Bilbo's ring proved to be the one missing Ring' (as the following words show in any case), not 'the one ruling Ring'. There would be no need to ask 'Why did
the Dark Lord desire it so?'

  Subsequently my father pencilled rapid additions to the note. He marked the words 'all others had come back to Mordor' for rejection; and to the words 'It was more powerful than all the other rings' he added:

  though its power depended on the user - and its danger: the simpler the user and the less he used it. To Gollum it just helped him to hunt (but made him wretched). To Bilbo it was useful, but drove him wandering again. To Bingo as Bilbo. Gandalf could have trebled his power - but he dare not use it (not after he found out all about it). An Elf would have grown nearly as mighty as the Lord, but would have become dark.

  At this time also he underlined the words 'Why did the Dark Lord desire it so?', put an exclamation mark against them, and wrote:

  Because if he had it he could see where all the others were, and would be master of their masters - control all the dwarf-hoards, and the dragons, and know the secrets of the Elf-kings, and the secret [? plans] of evil men.

  Here the central idea of the Ruling Ring is clearly present at last, and it may be that it was here that it first emerged. But the note in ink and the pencilled addition (a faint scribble now only just legible) were obviously written at different times.