Lord of the Rings: The Animated Musical

The Lord of the Rings was originally written as an exercise in speculative linguistics, and Tolkien scholars enjoy discussing the invented languages, unique words, and antiquated concepts found in the text. Of the many words and phrases that may bring discomfort to the modern reader because of the evolution of language and changing social attitudes is one of Sam’s favorite words: master. While a thesaurus might list “boss” or “manager” as synonyms, “master” connotates feudalism in Europe and slavery in the Americas. Interestingly, the negative connotation seems to have arisen after these periods due to the Nazi Party declaring whites a “master race” during the Holocaust, changes in Western social structure after World War II, and the rise of social movements during the 1960s and 1970s. The word was part of daily language from the 16^th to early 20^th century, as a boy of an upper class family or a man of low social status were given the title “master” opposed to the higher level courtesy title “mister” given to upper class men. This division was evident in The Lord of the Rings, since Frodo was called Mr. Frodo by servants and Mr. Baggins as the master of Bag End, while Sam and the Gaffer were called Master Samwise and Master Hamfast.

The rest of this essay will focus on the relationship between masters and servants in the ancient and medieval world, especially the Roman Empire and early modern England. I will also share research about how disparities in income and social status cause people to develop contrasting viewpoints and problem-solving abilities, and I will provide examples from the text. While I will touch on practices originating in feudalism that are continued today, a discussion on the shift in these practices from the World Wars to the present day will appear in future essays. I have already extensively examined serfdom as an unfree labor practice in feudalism when describing the potential political system of the Shire, the social structure of Hobbiton, and the position of Bag End within the village, but I will give additional information to demonstrate how stratification existed even in the lowest ranking class. Finally, I will describe the clothing worn by men who served in royal courts or on plantations and how the connotations of these fancy clothes have changed as much as our modern understanding of “master”.

Servitude in the Ancient World

I found substantial introductory material about Ancient Roman slavery when browsing Pinterest, a go-to resource for the introduction to any subject. (I’m not being sarcastic. This is an excellent place to gather preliminary information before diving into serious research.) A series of screenshots of tweets from now-defunct Twitter account @AnneNotation noted books and scholarly articles on the equally bizarre and dehumanizing institution.

The system of ancient Roman slavery was different from the system of chattel race-based slavery developed during transatlantic trade from the late 15^th through the mid-19^th century and continuing to have repercussions today. While common forms of ancient Roman enslavement stemmed from being born to an enslaved person or abandoned as an infant, all members of society were at risk of becoming enslaved due to debt, kidnapping, and imprisonment during war. This was a stark contrast to race-based slavery, where members of the dominant race can never become enslaved. In fact, while race-based slavery emphasized physical differences between races as justification for enslavement, ancient Romans preferred their enslaved people to look like their masters. At least one comedic play was written to joke about the similarities in appearance. Captivi by Titus Maccius Plautus, the Roman playwright regarded as the most successful author of his generation who lived from about 254 BC to 184 BC, used a “prince and pauper” type storyline as a master and slave switched identities when both became prisoners of war, only to find that the slave was the long-lost son of the new master.

Similarity in appearance did not create compassion as one might hope. Instead, great lengths were taken to distinguish enslaved from enslavers. Human equivalents to dog collars contained the name and address of enslavers along with the phrase tene me et revoca me or “hold me and return me” and sometimes promises of reward. Human collars became popular around the 4^th century AD, coinciding with the rule of famously Christian emperor Constantine who banned tattooing the foreheads of slaves as a cruel punishment and yet did not ban slavery itself. These collars were so common that many are now in the collections of institutions like (where else) the British Museum. The practice was continued in Europe and spread to the Americas until the 19^th century. Research conducted by Rijksmuseum in the Netherlands beginning in 2013 revealed that artifacts attributed as dog collars were in fact slave collars. In the United States, the recently retitled artwork Elihu Yale with Members of his Family and an Enslaved Child, depicted the primary benefactor of Yale University with his pet African child.

This leads us to perhaps the strangest commonly accepted practice of the ancient and early modern world. People regarded keeping children as pets or delicia in Latin, literally meaning “delight”, as not only acceptable but trendy. According to the book Slavery in the Roman World by Sandra Rae Joshel, professor emeritus at the University of Washington, these children were considered a “diversion, entertainment, and pleasant scenery” (Slavery, 181), not unlike the ornamental hermits of the Victorian age last discussed in “Rules of the Shire”. Enslaved people could be chained outside the front door as guard dogs while favorites slept at the foot of the bed like a cat or dog; in fact, ancient Romans did have these types of pet animals and treated them in the same way as their pet children.

Perhaps the most confusing concept for the modern person is how these delicia children were genuinely loved and well-treated by their masters. Delicia were considered special and unlike other enslaved children, just like how parents consider their own children to be special, or pet owners consider their pet to be special. When a delicia died, as was common due to the high child mortality rate, wealthy masters would commission poetry in their honor. The poem “Consolatio ad Flavium Ursum de Amissione Pueri Delicati” [“Consolation to Flavius Ursus after the Death of His Child Pet”] is a surviving eulogy composed by prolific poet Publius Papinius Statius and now appearing in the second book of his collected poems, Silvae. The poem emphasized how Flavius and the child were like father and son, a stark contrast to “Glaucias Atedi Melioris Delicatus” [“Glaucias, Atedius Melorius’ Pet”] about a baby who was raised to become the master’s boyfriend.

The point I am trying to make after this depressing commentary is that the relationship between Sam and Frodo at the beginning of The Lord of the Rings was that of a delicia and a master. While hobbits were antislavery in theory, as alluded to by Frodo during “The Shadow of the Past”, the post-feudalist social structure of landlords and peasants bore more resemblance to ancient Rome than modern capitalism. Sam would be considered a preferable choice to a recently immigrated child, as he was born and raised near Bag End. He may have somewhat resembled Bilbo, as Bilbo’s reference to his “long brown clever fingers” (The Hobbit, 2) bore similarity to Sam’s “faithful brown hand” described throughout the text.

Besides teaching Sam to read, Bilbo likely trained Sam for entertainment and possibly so Frodo would have a “guard dog” once he left. Although Sam’s official duty was maintaining the garden, he knew how to accompany Frodo for walks, whether he was “springing up like a dog invited for a walk” when Gandalf ordered him to join Frodo on the quest or guiding Frodo through the halls and gardens at Rivendell or Lothlórien. He even slept at Frodo’s feet when overhearing the conversation with Gildor and in the Hall of Fire at Rivendell.

Since Sam would have been expected to grow out of a child pet role, he was seemingly taught additional entertainment skills. He was a talented cook, likely making meals for Frodo’s parties with his twenty friends and feeding the members of the Fellowship throughout their quest. He was a singer and poet with a wide emotional range, able to memorize epic ballads like “The Fall of Gil-Galad” or compose his own music from silly poems like “The Troll Song”, “Oliphaunt”, and “Cat” along with more serious songs such as the final verse in Gandalf’s eulogy and “In Western Lands Beneath the Sun”. As bleak as this treatment might seem, this was the only way Sam would have received an education comparable to his ‘betters’, which later allowed him to become the mayor of the Shire. He genuinely loved Frodo and enjoyed being “his Sam”, and most community members seemed to take no issue with their relationship.

A Quick Note on Rules of Service

Fans of the television series Downton Abbey, which is technically set from 1912 to 1926 or the First World War and Interwar Britain, would recognize the divide between the “upstairs” or wealthy family and the “downstairs” or servants. While the stiff manners of the Victorian era have thankfully gone away, a handful of aristocrats and tech billionaires continue to maintain an English manor with full staff. These workers train in the same way as the predecessors, since they begin in a low-ranking position and work their way up as their skills increase.

While strict rules of communication and conduct between servants and masters existed, these were seemingly not so different than those between children and parents at that time. Both servants and children were required to bow upon greeting the heads of household and use honorifics such as “sir” or “ma’am” when addressing them. The relationships between an employer and his young personal servant might feel like a father and son, perhaps the way Bilbo and Sam felt about each other. Conversely, high-ranking servants became protective of the children who they served, seen when the Gaffer defended Frodo while at the Ivy Bush. The biggest change between historical and modern versions of the job, according to modern butler Grant Harrold, is that some staff members are trained in IT to repair laptops and guide family members through software as needed. If the pay was not so low, averaging between $37,000 and $42,000 as of 2019, this might be a decent job.

Class & Poverty Rules

Continuing with my Pinterest research, I discovered A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby K. Payne published in 1996 with the latest update in 2005. This framework examined the differences in culture between poverty or the working poor, middle class, and upper class individuals in modern America and other Western countries but can be extended to the structure of the Shire. Payne divided rules into five main categories: decision-making, possessions, the world, fighting, and food. When using this framework to consider the effect of social class on personality, it demonstrated how the differences in mindset between Frodo and Sam may not have stemmed from innate traits but from their status.

For decision-making, driving forces for the working poor were maintaining relationships, entertainment, and above all survival, contrasting the goals of the upper class to make social, financial, and political connections. Despite difficulties with appropriate social interaction, Frodo expertly navigated his interactions with powerful political figures, including Gildor the leader of wandering elves, Glóin the ambassador for the dwarves, Galadriel and Celeborn the rulers of Lothlórien, and Faramir the future Steward of Gondor. Bilbo was an expert in this field, using what he called a “business manner” that he had learned from his father (Hobbit, 22), and he had likely taught Frodo these skills. In contrast, Sam was often tactless while interacting with dignitaries. However, despite his frequent emotional outbursts, his mental health seemed significantly better than that of the other members of the Fellowship, perhaps because he was accustomed to survival. He was also a source of entertainment throughout the trip and treated his relationships with his family and with Frodo as the most important aspects of his life.

The treatment of possessions is vastly different between poor and wealthy people. While theft is a serious crime at all levels of society, “stealing” a friend or partner is the worst offense for those in poverty, while taking a priceless artifact is the worst offense for the wealthy. The concept of free people as important possessions appeared with Sam’s insistence that he and Frodo belong to each other, and his defensiveness whenever a member of the Fellowship and later Gollum attempted to form their own relationship with Frodo. Meanwhile, the desire for a legacy or one-of-a-kind objects were driving factors behind most of the mayhem in the legendarium. While the one Ring and the Silmarilli were the cause of multiple wars, other coveted artifacts included the palantíri, the mithril coat, the Arkenstone from Lonely Mountain, many other magic rings, the phial of Galadriel, and the healing stone of Arwen. The “surviving” books of Middle-earth were likewise dedicated to preserving legacies, whether Elrond demonstrated his relationships to the most important figures of history or Bilbo and Frodo proved their contribution to the political stability of the continent.

The size of the world differs greatly for the working poor versus the wealthy. Poor individuals cannot afford travel and therefore see the world as their own community. People from outside the local area are viewed as suspicious. These rules held true for the ‘rustic’ hobbits of Hobbiton. Sam’s father Hamfast even had a name meaning “homebody”, suggesting that although he immigrated to the area as a child, he did not intend to leave again if he could help it. In the first dialogue scene of the text, ‘rustic’ hobbits ranted about how they disliked Frodo for being born in a different region of the same country, complained that Bilbo was not “dealing locally” while sourcing goods for the Long-Expected Party, and never trusted the dwarves or Gandalf who visited Bag End. In contrast, wealthy people view the world internationally, frequently traveling and making connections to other wealthy people. Frodo’s ease of visiting dwarves and elves in the forest and wishing to travel beyond the Shire, along with reading books and learning languages, showed the interest in the wider world that is common among the modern elite.

The term “fighting” has completely different definitions for the poor and the wealthy. Physical fighting resolves conflicts for those without the level of education necessary to learn the words of negotiation. Besides having a speech impediment, as discussed in my third case study for Middle-earth psychology, Sam lacked the words to defend himself and was reduced to blushing and stammering when he was teased. His physical aggression towards Gollum was characteristic for someone of his status. Inversely, Gollum was raised as Smeagol in a wealthy family and had a decent grasp of negotiation and sarcasm, although physical fighting was evidently acceptable. Wealthy people fight with lawsuits and social exclusion, seen with Bilbo’s family declaring him dead to auction off his possessions and later ostracizing Frodo.

My favorite category was food, and this is the only category that seems not to align with hobbit culture. In the Real World, food scarcity is an enduring issue among the poor, and the quantity of food is most important. In contrast, beautiful presentation of food is the most important for the elite. Regardless of wealth, hobbits consumed food in vast quantities and seemed unconcerned by how it was presented. While Bilbo doubtlessly created an impressive display of birthday treats at the Long-Expected Party, the amount of food available seemed to be the most memorable aspect. This disconnect between hobbit culture and the cultures of elves and men was most evident during nice meals in palaces. Elrond’s feast in Frodo’s honor is greatly enjoyed by his most esteemed guest, although he could not remember what was presented, only that there was plenty of it. Several months later, Pippin found the beautiful brunch presented by Denethor, Steward of Gondor, to be a disappointment since there was not as much as he could have wanted, although his new friend Beregond the guard was impressed at the thought of such a meal.

The Importance of the Youngest Son

While patriarchal cultures are generally thought to be primogeniture, meaning the eldest son inherits the possessions and title of the father, ultimogeniture or the youngest son inheriting was practiced in Medieval England with its first citation around the 12^th century. The custom was known as Borough-English and practiced in the county of Sussex among “unfree peasants”, also known as serfs, who had Anglo-Saxon ancestry since this guaranteed at least one male laborer from the family would remain in the service of the feudal lord. During the same time, the “free peasants” were more likely to divide their wealth equally among sons and daughters, much like parents tend to do today. Additionally, Borough-French with Norman ancestry were primogeniture, likely because the Normans had conquered the Anglo-Saxons and were of higher status.

The Gamgee clan was implied to be ultimogeniture similar to Borough-English both due to their inheritance practices and their likely Harfoot origin, a group who had apparently been conquered by Stoors and Fallohides. According to the family tree in Appendix C, Sam had two older brothers who moved away from Hobbiton and no longer appeared to maintain frequent contact with their father and younger brother. Sam cared for his father and was presumably set to inherit the right to live in 3 Bag Shot Row, since the Baggins clan seemingly owned the dwelling.

Livery

The word “livery” originally meant any good provided to a worker, both human and animal, by a master but became specific throughout the medieval period to apply only to clothing or horse feed. During the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, a livery suit was the clothing choice for male servants who were “on display” including butlers, coachmen, and footmen. This contrasted with servants working in hidden spaces who would wear clothing suited to their work, such as a smock in the garden or an apron in the kitchen as previously discussed in “‘Rustic’ Hobbits of the Late Third Age”. Livery allowed servants to be immediately distinguishable from guests while appearing stylish along with serving as a uniform much like jerseys on a sports team or wacky t-shirts at a chain restaurant. The styles represented the favorite colors and visual motifs of the master often including a coat of arms or floral designs. By the end of the 19^th century in Great Britain, livery was worn only by footmen and its design had not changed, making the servants look fancy but dated.

A tween hobbit-lass wearing a dirndl-style dark green dress with a light green apron embroidered with yellow flowers plus a green top hat.

A tween hobbit-lad wearing a dark green suit coat and matching breeches

A tween hobbit-lad wearing a dark green suit coat and matching breeches plus a pale green waistcoat embroidered with yellow flowers.

Livery had different connotations in the United States than in Europe because of rules regarding slavery and serfdom. While the abolition of serfdom began in Europe during the medieval period, the abolition of chattel slavery started around the same time livery became popular. Great Britain had banned importation of enslaved people in 1807 and fully banned slavery in 1833. Livery was worn by servants regardless of race. An estimated 10,000 Black people lived in Great Britain during the mid-18^th century, and the entire population was about 6,500,000 right before a baby boom brought by the Industrial Revolution. This meant 0.15% of the population was Black British.

An adult hobbit-lass with an unhappy expression wears the same outfit as Rosie except for replacing the top hat with a sensible green bonnet matching the skirt

A middle-aged hobbit-lad wearing the same livery outfit as Sam

In the United States, livery was the most expensive type of slave clothing. While ready-made clothing was imported from Europe throughout the colonial era, American companies like Brooks Brothers specialized in ready-made clothing by the early 19^th century. Based on United States Census data, the population of African Americans and Americans as a whole rose during this time, from about 760,000 out of 3,930,000 or about 19% of the population for the first census in 1790 to 4,440,000 out of 31,440,000 or about 14% of the population in 1860. Since African Americans were concentrated in the South where slavery was legal, they comprised up to 57% percent of a state population. Because of this drastic difference in population from Great Britain, wearing livery was heavily associated with the enslavement of Black people, and free people of any race would not wear it.

On the left is a hobbit-lad wearing the standard livery outfit plus a bicorne hat with a yellow cockade. On the right is a tween hobbit-lass wearing a standard maid outfit with a top hat. Behind them is a large tree.

I considered both of these histories while creating the livery worn by Sam and Ham Gamgee during the Long-Expected Party. The social structure of the Shire mirrored Great Britain with class causing societal stratification rather than race. While ‘breed’ was implicitly tied to class, with historically Fallohide families dominating other hobbits, masters and servants would have considered themselves part of the same race. However, modern American readers might be more likely to construe the social stratification as motivated by race, retranslating the text to better fit their own history and experience. I hope my portrayal remains faithful to the original text while allowing readers to contemplate how their background might alter their interpretation of the text.