Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > rec.arts.books.tolkien > #20687

Re: Why "Hobbiton"?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 05:04:27 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws>
wrote:

>In alt.fan.tolkien Gottfried Neuner <kyonshi@wilderland.ovh> wrote:
>> On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>> Every municipality throughout the Suza in the times recorded
>>> in the Red Book was a town of hobbits.
>>> 
>>> So why was the particular settlement beneath the Hill
>>> and across the Water from Bywater known as "Hobbiton"?
>>> It's like naming some arbitrary place in human-inhabited
>>> lands Mantown.
>>> 
>>> My only theory is that it is the first place that Marcho
>>> and Blanco and their followers,having entered across the
>>> Bridge of Stonebows,decided to stop and build a settlement,
>>> and things then fanned out from there.
>>> (Something like Brigham Young,on reaching the
>>> Great Salt Lake Valley,declaring "This is the right place".)
>>> 
>> 
>> That's what I always assumed. From the preface about hobbits in LOTR it 
>> seemed like Hobbiton was basically the central settlement of the Shire, 
>> with the mayor of Hobbiton having some ceremonial duties the others 
>> respected out of tradition, even though the Tooks seemed to be close to 
>> the leaders of the hobbits, or maybe the Great Took actually WAS the 
>> mayor at one point. There is precious little information regarding their 
>> actual internal politics.
>
>You're confusing several positions.
>
>There's no record of HOBBITON having a Mayor...
>the Mayor of Michel Delving (a large settlement in
>the West-farthing,seat of the septennial Free Fair)
>was sometimes called Mayor of the Shire as he headed
>the Shire-wide Quick Post and Shirriff services.
>
>The Thainship of the Shire was held by the Brandybucks
>of the East-farthing until they crossed the Baranduin and
>built Buckland for themselves,and thereafter by the Tooks
>of Great Smials.
>
>Neither of those posts was based in Hobbiton.
>
>> I have the theory that the Great Took and Belladonna both went on 
>> adventure with Gandalf (which is why Bilbo's grandfather had such an 
>> elevated position, and Belladonna had the money so Bungo could build her 
>> a home). This goes further as Gandalf had his friendship both with Bilbo 
>> and Frodo.
>
>The Thainship was hereditary,Gerontius merely had the right father
>to inherit...and holding its duties would not let one leave for an
>adventure,though two of his younger sons did.(I can not be certain
>that he was the only son of his father,which would have inhibited
>his travels even before inheriting,I suspect,though Pippin was 
>obviously free to leave his Thain father behind,since the family
>tree needed to have room for all the Old Took's children he may
>have had ignored siblings and may not).

IIRC, Pippin was referred to as "the last desperate hope of the
Tooks", which some would interpret as meaning "the only possible
heir". At least as things stood then; as with all such dynastic
situations, a new birth could have changed this at some point.

That his leaving on an adventure showed him to not be an obedient son
may well be correct, however.
 
-- 
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Back to rec.arts.books.tolkien | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why "Hobbiton"? Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> - 2026-01-03 19:47 +0000
  Re: Why "Hobbiton"? Gottfried Neuner <kyonshi@wilderland.ovh> - 2026-01-03 21:52 +0100
    Re: Why "Hobbiton"? Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> - 2026-01-06 05:04 +0000
      Re: Why "Hobbiton"? Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-01-06 08:39 -0800
        Re: Why "Hobbiton"? Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> - 2026-01-07 01:27 +0000

csiph-web