|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 27, 2015 12:47:15 GMT -6
In the seventh chapter of The Hobbit ("Queer Lodgings"), Gandalf told the dwarves and Bilbo that Beorn is a "skin-changer". Then Bilbo asked:
"What! a furrier, a man that calls rabbits conies, when he doesn't turn their skins into squirrels?"
Huh? I don't get it.
Am I right in assuming that in 1930s England furriers had a linguistic habit of referring to rabbits as "conies"? Is this what Bilbo is asking in the first half of his question? And does the second half of his question ask/assume that Beorn has magic powers? In other words: "Oh, so Beorn is a man who makes stuff (such as hats, coats, mittens, etc.) out of animal skins, and like all such men, he has a predilection for referring to rabbits as conies. But sometimes he works magic by transforming rabbit skins into living squirrels."
That seems so convoluted and crazy. I feel I must be missing something obvious.
Help!
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 27, 2015 12:56:05 GMT -6
When I read it as a kid, I figured it was something magical. Looking at it now, I'm thinking he's talking about something mundane: trying to pass off one kind of skin/fur as another. But I'm just guessing.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Mar 27, 2015 13:11:20 GMT -6
When I read it as a kid, I figured it was something magical. Looking at it now, I'm thinking he's talking about something mundane: trying to pass off one kind of skin/fur as another. But I'm just guessing. I like this theory of yours: "changer" as in the sense of "getting short changed" in a transaction. Squirrel would presumably be cheaper than rabbit, so the implication is that there are dishonest furriers passing off an inferior product...
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 27, 2015 13:54:11 GMT -6
When I read it as a kid, I figured it was something magical. Looking at it now, I'm thinking he's talking about something mundane: trying to pass off one kind of skin/fur as another. But I'm just guessing. I like this theory of yours: "changer" as in the sense of "getting short changed" in a transaction. Squirrel would presumably be cheaper than rabbit, so the implication is that there are dishonest furriers passing off an inferior product... Oooohhhhhh. This is making sense. A "skin-changer" in the sense of a "skin-trader"--a man who trades the skins of animals for other things, who sometimes misrepresents what types of skins they really are.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 27, 2015 14:03:00 GMT -6
Especially since Gandalf reacts in horror to what Bilbo says and warns him not to say something like that to Beorn. That part didn't make much sense to me as a kid (why would Beorn be offended about being ascribed the wrong kind of magical power?) I skipped over it. But if Bilbo was suggesting Beorn was just some kind of crook, then it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by bigjackbrass on Mar 27, 2015 16:02:05 GMT -6
Am I right in assuming that in 1930s England furriers had a linguistic habit of referring to rabbits as "conies"? Not exactly a linguistic habit restricted to furriers, coney is a word for a rabbit or for rabbit fur. Now old-fashioned to the point of being obsolete in general usage. It also used to mean someone who was rather credulous. Bilbo is not assuming that Beorn has magical abilities: even at this stage in the story he is still very much the comfortable, civilised Hobbit who would be far more used to dealing with tradesmen, shopkeepers and the like than he would be with a shape-shifter (remember that even Gandalf is thought of in the Shire only as a slightly dubious traveller who does at least provide rather nice fireworks). The first thing he thinks of when he hears "skin-changer" is a furrier; and consider that at the time The Hobbit was written furriers were still a thriving business, with all sorts of clothes and accessories made from animal fur, so this is also a clever way to let the reader learn what a "skin-changer" is through Bilbo making a mistaken assumption that the reader would understand. Bilbo is still thinking in terms of the humdrum, safe day to day life of the Shire, where exotic and magical things are distant (and therefore legendary). As for squirrel, I suspect it's either humorous confusion on Bilbo's part or else the notion that someone might substitute rabbit-fur trim instead of squirrel is correct. The substitution idea is likely, since rabbit fur was sometimes dyed to resemble more exotic (and expensive) varieties of squirrel, particularly for use trimming coats and gloves. Tolkien would certainly have been aware of an older meaning, a synonym for prostitute, but we can discount that, I think, along with the American slang meaning which has been eclipsed these days by beaver. This is a book for children, after all Especially since Gandalf reacts in horror to what Bilbo says and warns him not to say something like that to Beorn. That part didn't make much sense to me as a kid (why would Beorn be offended about being ascribed the wrong kind of magical power?) I skipped over it. But if Bilbo was suggesting Beorn was just some kind of crook, then it makes sense. As I read it, the issue is that Beorn would not take kindly to anyone who would kill and skin animals: the animals we see are his friends; and you'll notice that the food referred to in that chapter is bread, butter, honey, cream and mead (later echoed in The Lord of the Rings when the Hobbits visit Tom Bombadil's home) rather than platters of meat. Gandalf is warning Bilbo not to make reference to the fur trade because we can presume that Beorn angrily opposes it, rather than telling him not to call Beorn a crook.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 27, 2015 16:12:42 GMT -6
"What! a furrier, a man that calls rabbits conies, when he doesn't turn their skins into squirrels?"
OK, since a definition of "coney/cony" is "fur made from the skin of a rabbit", then can we paraphrase thus:
"What! Beorn is a furrier, thus dealing with rabbit fur (commonly called cony fur). Except, of course, when he is being sly by trying to pass-off rabbit furs as squirrel furs?"
|
|
|
Post by bigjackbrass on Mar 27, 2015 16:15:58 GMT -6
"What! Beorn is a furrier, thus dealing with rabbit fur (commonly called cony fur). Except, of course, when he is being sly by trying to pass-off rabbit furs as squirrel furs?" Pretty much, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 27, 2015 18:07:14 GMT -6
Am I right in assuming that in 1930s England furriers had a linguistic habit of referring to rabbits as "conies"? Not exactly a linguistic habit restricted to furriers, coney is a word for a rabbit or for rabbit fur. Now old-fashioned to the point of being obsolete in general usage. It also used to mean someone who was rather credulous. One place coney is preserved in modern days is NY's famous Coney Island:
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 27, 2015 19:03:00 GMT -6
I looked this section up in Rateliff's History of the Hobbit. The original draft has: This supports the notion of Tolkien is referring to furriers using rabbit to imitate a fancier fur. Rateliff has the following endnote for this sentence: There's a wiki page on Coney-catching as well. Rateliff doesn't comment on why arctic fox was changed to squirrel, but perhaps Tolkien decided residents of the Shire wouldn't be familiar with arctic fox.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 29, 2015 10:43:28 GMT -6
Rateliff doesn't comment on why arctic fox was changed to squirrel, but perhaps Tolkien decided residents of the Shire wouldn't be familiar with arctic fox. "Skins into squirrels" has a nicer ring to it.
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 366
|
Post by flightcommander on Mar 29, 2015 23:39:07 GMT -6
The word "coney" gets a thorough workout in the "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit" chapter in The Two Towers.
|
|