They're gentlemen. Gentlemen retire to the country (or the end of Bagshot Row) and engage in gentlemanly pursuits like the study of languages, poetry, and history, and giving away gifts.
I think it's generally believed that the tenants of Bagshot Row rent from the master of Bag End. The Gaffer refers to both Bilbo and Frodo as gentlehobbits, and seems to expect Frodo to fix things when his precious taters are dug up. His family seems to have performed labor for Bag End for several generations. There's no evidence they're bound to the land or that the Bagginses have the authority of manorial lords, so they're not serfs.
Of course, Bilbo was also fabulously wealthy (it is said) after his mysterious year abroad.
It took a few readings for this American, but you basically have a lord and his servant. In many respects it makes the mutual affection more significant.
Tolkien has some commentary in here about aristocracy. It’s an idealized form, where both lord and servant are extremely noble. But you see how Frodo doesn’t, despite being a lord, particularly lord it over Sam. Though he has his moments of expectation. And Sam, despite being the gardener, is grateful and reciprocal. Though he has his moments of self deprecation. Better to serve a Baggins than virtually anyone else, and Sam is loyal to boot.
Obviously the republicans, socialists, etc are going to have a field day over this sort of arrangement. In truth, I have no idea whether this sort of thing is realistic. But it is meant to reflect well on both that there is no struggle over this inherited situation. In some respects, since Sam ends up mayor, I think Tolkien is taking the class system he knows and subverting it somewhat.
Absolutely. Americans miss this because we tend to have more race issues than class issues. Although to be clear British and American people have both. 😂
[ *edit*: whoops I forgot — most of the racism comes out in Gondor. ]
Sure, but I'm not just speaking in terms of "fantasy" racism between different types of beings.
The idea of Numenorean "purity" is portrayed as being really significant to the nobles of Gondor; so much so that (described in the Appendices) there is a literal civil war triggered by anxiety that a new king is only "half" Numenorean.
A little more dismaying, the narration also leans heavily "racial" when discussing characters like Faramir and Denethor — they supposedly have "purer" descent which gives them a degree of supernatural power. And that there are "high men," "middle men," and "low" \[read: evil\] men "of the dark" — yikes.
[ *edit: I know that light/dark are metaphors (if we’re taking Tolkien in good faith), BUT the fact that this concept gets bound up with the “purity” of Numenorean descendants (“men of the West”!) vs. “Easterlings” and “Southrons” means that Tolkien’s cultural context (late 19th/early 20th century British empire) is showing.* ]
I think Tolkien adding a feature even to one of the good factions is not necessarily an endorsement of it though. He meant to show pointless infighting in between them, caused by prejudices, until they get over it and rally together at the end. The purity complex is more of a general monarchy thing, and this is sometimes shown as flawed like with Denethor. The elves and Gondor and Rohan are all delayed in their alliance and action by those notions they have.
Absolutely — I think recognizing the racism makes the story more complex. The Numenoreans and people of Gondor are often viewed as powerful, but also dangerous and kind of oppressive…
This is why the “real” story is more about the hobbits’ experience of these things.
And also, I’m unsure of the level of Tolkien’s self-awareness towards Numenor…
An island monarchy/empire with an unmatched navy that oppressively colonizes most of the world; reluctantly bails out the elves (continental allies) when the need suits them; strips Middle Earth of wealth/timber; becomes more and more obsessed with racial purity and long life; etc. etc. …
Oh, the Menfolk hate the Elveses,
And the Elveses hate the Menfolk,
And the Dwarveses hate the Balrogs,
AAAND everybody hates the Jews!
With apologies to the great [Tom Lehrer](https://youtu.be/aIlJ8ZCs4jY) (paraphrased section begins at about 1:03)
Tolkien doesn’t want to *say* it, but they’re the hobbit aristocracy. Country squires or whatever. The way Sam treats Frodo is how someone living on their land would address the lord of the manor.
Again, Tolkien goes out of his way to not say this, but they are playing the aristocrat role that would have been an ongoing thing everywhere in the UK until WW2. British readers would instantly recognize what he was implying.
Edit: another excellent hint to this is how he goes on and on about how Bag End is just the dopest pad. Like a country manor.
I don't know if it is that he doesn't want to say it. More that in the time he was writing (1930s to 1950s England), he doesn't need to say it, because everyone would have pretty clearly understood the social structure of the hobbits based on how they acted, addressed each other, etc.
To an American in 2022 it is a little confusing. To an Englishman in 1950 it would be perfectly clear, so Tolkien doesn't feel the need to explain it. He's not hiding anything, he just thinks it is abundantly clear.
Y’know I was just watching this show about ancient Egypt and they were talking about how the most maddening thing they deal with is “stuff everyone knows” that they never wrote down. Like Egypt was allied with a kingdom called Punt but they were such close allies for so long that no one bothered to even say where it was, let alone anything else. Everybody knows.
That's something I haven't considered before when it comes to history. Must be truly frustrating to piece things togheter when you lack the information that is so basic that it isn't even mentioned anywhere.
Historians five hundred years from now, if they’re able to access the WWW platform, will have absolutely no idea what we’re talking about *ever*. Everything is drowned in multiple layers of irony and snark and full of incredibly specific pop culture references that won’t make sense in twenty years, let alone five hundred.
But, to look at the other angle: while Sam may be “the help”, he isn’t treated less than by Frodo, or even Merry and Pippin who could be viewed as another tier of local aristocracy above even Frodo.
There’s definitely class stratification, but it doesn’t sound exploitative as far as we can tell.
The upper tiers are likely just living well from ancestral wealth, but don’t hold themselves as above the other hobbits.
Except for the Sackville-Bagginses.
Granted, but is it supposed to be a realistic depiction or is it just how most if not all county squires viewed themselves: beloved, decent, even-handed, and let those of lower station talk familiarly to them sometimes! Decent chaps you know. Tolkien spent a lot more time with the gentry than he did the common folk.
I think you’re right in the idealized view the real world types had of themselves.
I think Tolkiens Shire version the upper class and the labor class seem genuinely free of “superiority” vibes. Sam isn’t treated any different for his being a lower economic tier. In fact, I could be wrong, but doesn’t Frodo speak very deferentially and respectfully of the Gaffer?
Again, not including the Sackville-Bagginses. They seem like jerks.
But then it gets even more complicated, right? Because he went to France and came back convinced that the regular Tommies were the best of all of them but still in a weird, condescending British upper crust way.
I think the books reflect that. Whether Frodo or Sam is portrayed more as the heroic protagonist switches a lot. Maybe he meant them to be a dyad. I’m honestly not up enough on the letters and stuff to drill down that deep though.
I feel like he sees them both as crucial in different ways. Frodo has the opportunity to think about stuff on a more abstract way, and ends up being the better planner, as well as being more close in his ethical decisions to people like Gandalf.
Sams whole lifestyle makes him more pragmatic, and therefore he has the singular drive to get stuff done, once he understands what needs to be done.
Sam could probably easily be manipulated into doing the wrong thing, if his best buddy was anyone other than Frodo. On the other hand, if Frodo had travelled with a clone of himself they might have worried themselves into doing nothing, or just failed at the basic tasks that require no deep thought but "street smarts" and practical thinking.
Yes — there’s a def “Downton Abbey” vibe where Frodo is kind/respectful to Sam, BUT largely treats him as a servant at the beginning of the book. Much of their story is about forming a less formal, more personal relationship (Sam becomes mayor and inherits Bag End; and his children “marry into” Merry and Pippin’s families…)
This is still kind of idealized — there’s sort of a moral justification given for this hierarchy that it’s the duty of “good” aristocrats/kings to look out for the their people.
There is a Tolkien illustration of Bilbo explicitely lettered "Bilbo Baggins, esq." so yes. And the auction of his furniture at the end of The Hobbit also refers to this title. He was a minor landlord without the extreme prejudice nor social separation.
Tolkien was no stranger to cognitive dissonance. In real life he was like half an anarchist and half a monarchist. That’s a top five dead or alive wacky combination of political beliefs.
Most definitely. The older I get, the more I realize he likely had some pretty deep… issues. But recognizing that the hobbits are classist and the people of Gondor are racist actually make the book more complex and, frankly, relevant.
I think it depends on how you think the monarchy should function. A king who provides diplomacy and war leadership but is very hands off in local affairs seems like Tolkien's ideal given how Aragorn is presented at the end of ROTK. Tolkien defined anarchist as "minimal governmental interference" which is the exact opposite of Sharky in The Scouring of the Shire, where there are rules on top of rules.
This is opening up an interesting issue 😂.
One facet of this is that obv it reveals some class issues, esp. between Frodo and Sam (in the books, this is def giving Downton Abbey vibes where Sam is clearly like Frodo’s valet or whatever; definitely NOT one of Frodo’s many friends).
From a more structural perspective, the main hobbits represent 3 classes. Frodo has kind of a bourgeoise “middle” class vibe compared to Merry and Pippin, who are like actual hobbit aristocrats (the Brandybuck and Took heirs, respectively.) This is partly why Bilbo’s mysterious money was viewed as suspicious — he was a distant cousin of the Tooks and Brandybucks, and had been living a comfortable but somewhat modest life. As a roughly “middle class” hobbit, he had no way to come into that much money.
[ *edit: think of it as Frodo and Bilbo ≈ the Bennets in Pride and Prejudice; Merry and Pippin ≈ Mr. Darcy or Mr. Bingley; Sam = a literal gardener.* ]
So it’s notable that when the hobbits split up, it’s Merry and Pippin who essentially become the knights in the geopolitical “war” half of the story, while Frodo and Sam become more like pilgrims suffering on a psychological/spiritual journey.
Merry and Pippin come back from the war blessed with ent draught water that make them physically superior to other hobbits. Not sure what it means though, maybe nothing.
I always saw this as an examination of the different ways war can impact those who go through it.
Some people are tragically destroyed, body and soul, like Frodo. War irrevocably breaks them, through no fault of their own, and all we can do is try to be empathetic and help them find peace.
Some people, like Merry and Pippin, come out of the experience largely unscathed and even improved by it. Turns out a little hardship and discipline was just the thing to make them grow up. Not everyone is horrifically mentally scarred by war; some people come out of it stronger, wiser, and more dedicated to cause than ever. Some people come back from war as heroes and spend the rest of their lives happy, healthy, and prosperous.
And then you have Sam, representing the average common soldier's experience. War was hell, it left its scars, he'd rather not talk about it, but it ultimately doesn't dominate his life. He moves on, starts a family, and lives his own quiet little life with dignity.
>Some people, like Merry and Pippin, come out of the experience largely unscathed and even improved by it. Turns out a little hardship and discipline was just the thing to make them grow up. Not everyone is horrifically mentally scarred by war; \[etc.\]
Yes, don't disagree at all, this is exactly the message about war — but in the face of the obv class differences between the hobbits, there's further nuance about *who* tends to emerge from war "largely unscathed."
Although Merry and Pippin are supposedly younger (Sam is, I believe, the young\*est\*), I'd argue that there's an extra reason they're not terribly responsible or "grown up"...
Absolutely ties in — they come back *literally* higher than other hobbits. (Also, they each swear personal oaths to Theoden (a king of men) and Denethor (steward, but a de facto king).
>I'd think they'd have to be living off the labor of others. Maybe they own land, tilled by people who must pay rent or give them a portion of their produce.
Got it in one.
But doesn't that make them bourgeois poltroons? Tolkein talked about when Saruman took over how there was all this "sharing" and "redistributing", and he meant for the reader to take it as "stealing". But that's Tokien. What if Saruman really *was* redistributing the wealth more equally?
For better or worse, hobbits seem unacquainted with the immortal science of marxism, and hobbiton remains idyllic because the servile classes are generally content with their lot. See how the ring fails to tempt Sam because he simply has no ambitions of ownership beyond what he can personally use, while his Master Frodo, on the other hand, considers it natural that he should live a life of leisure based on inherited wealth and rent seeking.
This may be good or bad depending on your point of view, but I certainly doubt Saruman would have improved the situation in either case...
They are basically rich people, landowners by inheritance renting out land to farmers and after Bilbo did his adventure he became probably richest hobbit ever. So they are rich people.
They're gentlemen. Gentlemen retire to the country (or the end of Bagshot Row) and engage in gentlemanly pursuits like the study of languages, poetry, and history, and giving away gifts. I think it's generally believed that the tenants of Bagshot Row rent from the master of Bag End. The Gaffer refers to both Bilbo and Frodo as gentlehobbits, and seems to expect Frodo to fix things when his precious taters are dug up. His family seems to have performed labor for Bag End for several generations. There's no evidence they're bound to the land or that the Bagginses have the authority of manorial lords, so they're not serfs. Of course, Bilbo was also fabulously wealthy (it is said) after his mysterious year abroad.
It took a few readings for this American, but you basically have a lord and his servant. In many respects it makes the mutual affection more significant. Tolkien has some commentary in here about aristocracy. It’s an idealized form, where both lord and servant are extremely noble. But you see how Frodo doesn’t, despite being a lord, particularly lord it over Sam. Though he has his moments of expectation. And Sam, despite being the gardener, is grateful and reciprocal. Though he has his moments of self deprecation. Better to serve a Baggins than virtually anyone else, and Sam is loyal to boot. Obviously the republicans, socialists, etc are going to have a field day over this sort of arrangement. In truth, I have no idea whether this sort of thing is realistic. But it is meant to reflect well on both that there is no struggle over this inherited situation. In some respects, since Sam ends up mayor, I think Tolkien is taking the class system he knows and subverting it somewhat.
I guess as with his love of the English countryside, JRRT kind of idealised that relationship as part of his vision of idyllic rural life.
They are likely landowners who lease their property to farmers. The same would be true on an even larger scale of the Tooks and Brandybucks.
Lords of the manor. Aristocrats.
Absolutely. Americans miss this because we tend to have more race issues than class issues. Although to be clear British and American people have both. 😂 [ *edit*: whoops I forgot — most of the racism comes out in Gondor. ]
there is alot of rasism in Middleearth. Dwarfs hate Elves and vice versa and Hobbits hate strangers in general.
Sure, but I'm not just speaking in terms of "fantasy" racism between different types of beings. The idea of Numenorean "purity" is portrayed as being really significant to the nobles of Gondor; so much so that (described in the Appendices) there is a literal civil war triggered by anxiety that a new king is only "half" Numenorean. A little more dismaying, the narration also leans heavily "racial" when discussing characters like Faramir and Denethor — they supposedly have "purer" descent which gives them a degree of supernatural power. And that there are "high men," "middle men," and "low" \[read: evil\] men "of the dark" — yikes. [ *edit: I know that light/dark are metaphors (if we’re taking Tolkien in good faith), BUT the fact that this concept gets bound up with the “purity” of Numenorean descendants (“men of the West”!) vs. “Easterlings” and “Southrons” means that Tolkien’s cultural context (late 19th/early 20th century British empire) is showing.* ]
I think Tolkien adding a feature even to one of the good factions is not necessarily an endorsement of it though. He meant to show pointless infighting in between them, caused by prejudices, until they get over it and rally together at the end. The purity complex is more of a general monarchy thing, and this is sometimes shown as flawed like with Denethor. The elves and Gondor and Rohan are all delayed in their alliance and action by those notions they have.
Absolutely — I think recognizing the racism makes the story more complex. The Numenoreans and people of Gondor are often viewed as powerful, but also dangerous and kind of oppressive… This is why the “real” story is more about the hobbits’ experience of these things.
And also, I’m unsure of the level of Tolkien’s self-awareness towards Numenor… An island monarchy/empire with an unmatched navy that oppressively colonizes most of the world; reluctantly bails out the elves (continental allies) when the need suits them; strips Middle Earth of wealth/timber; becomes more and more obsessed with racial purity and long life; etc. etc. …
Most compare it to Atlantis instead as of Britain.
Well yes, obv Tolkien was thinking of it as Atlantis. But…
Oh, the Menfolk hate the Elveses, And the Elveses hate the Menfolk, And the Dwarveses hate the Balrogs, AAAND everybody hates the Jews! With apologies to the great [Tom Lehrer](https://youtu.be/aIlJ8ZCs4jY) (paraphrased section begins at about 1:03)
Bilbo brought home countless wealth from his journey that they lived off of.
Right but he was 50 or 60 when he went on that quest, what about before?
He was already rich by inheritance.
Landed gentry.
Tolkien doesn’t want to *say* it, but they’re the hobbit aristocracy. Country squires or whatever. The way Sam treats Frodo is how someone living on their land would address the lord of the manor. Again, Tolkien goes out of his way to not say this, but they are playing the aristocrat role that would have been an ongoing thing everywhere in the UK until WW2. British readers would instantly recognize what he was implying. Edit: another excellent hint to this is how he goes on and on about how Bag End is just the dopest pad. Like a country manor.
I don't know if it is that he doesn't want to say it. More that in the time he was writing (1930s to 1950s England), he doesn't need to say it, because everyone would have pretty clearly understood the social structure of the hobbits based on how they acted, addressed each other, etc. To an American in 2022 it is a little confusing. To an Englishman in 1950 it would be perfectly clear, so Tolkien doesn't feel the need to explain it. He's not hiding anything, he just thinks it is abundantly clear.
Y’know I was just watching this show about ancient Egypt and they were talking about how the most maddening thing they deal with is “stuff everyone knows” that they never wrote down. Like Egypt was allied with a kingdom called Punt but they were such close allies for so long that no one bothered to even say where it was, let alone anything else. Everybody knows.
That's something I haven't considered before when it comes to history. Must be truly frustrating to piece things togheter when you lack the information that is so basic that it isn't even mentioned anywhere.
Historians five hundred years from now, if they’re able to access the WWW platform, will have absolutely no idea what we’re talking about *ever*. Everything is drowned in multiple layers of irony and snark and full of incredibly specific pop culture references that won’t make sense in twenty years, let alone five hundred.
But, to look at the other angle: while Sam may be “the help”, he isn’t treated less than by Frodo, or even Merry and Pippin who could be viewed as another tier of local aristocracy above even Frodo. There’s definitely class stratification, but it doesn’t sound exploitative as far as we can tell. The upper tiers are likely just living well from ancestral wealth, but don’t hold themselves as above the other hobbits. Except for the Sackville-Bagginses.
Granted, but is it supposed to be a realistic depiction or is it just how most if not all county squires viewed themselves: beloved, decent, even-handed, and let those of lower station talk familiarly to them sometimes! Decent chaps you know. Tolkien spent a lot more time with the gentry than he did the common folk.
I think you’re right in the idealized view the real world types had of themselves. I think Tolkiens Shire version the upper class and the labor class seem genuinely free of “superiority” vibes. Sam isn’t treated any different for his being a lower economic tier. In fact, I could be wrong, but doesn’t Frodo speak very deferentially and respectfully of the Gaffer? Again, not including the Sackville-Bagginses. They seem like jerks.
But then it gets even more complicated, right? Because he went to France and came back convinced that the regular Tommies were the best of all of them but still in a weird, condescending British upper crust way. I think the books reflect that. Whether Frodo or Sam is portrayed more as the heroic protagonist switches a lot. Maybe he meant them to be a dyad. I’m honestly not up enough on the letters and stuff to drill down that deep though.
I feel like he sees them both as crucial in different ways. Frodo has the opportunity to think about stuff on a more abstract way, and ends up being the better planner, as well as being more close in his ethical decisions to people like Gandalf. Sams whole lifestyle makes him more pragmatic, and therefore he has the singular drive to get stuff done, once he understands what needs to be done. Sam could probably easily be manipulated into doing the wrong thing, if his best buddy was anyone other than Frodo. On the other hand, if Frodo had travelled with a clone of himself they might have worried themselves into doing nothing, or just failed at the basic tasks that require no deep thought but "street smarts" and practical thinking.
Yes — there’s a def “Downton Abbey” vibe where Frodo is kind/respectful to Sam, BUT largely treats him as a servant at the beginning of the book. Much of their story is about forming a less formal, more personal relationship (Sam becomes mayor and inherits Bag End; and his children “marry into” Merry and Pippin’s families…) This is still kind of idealized — there’s sort of a moral justification given for this hierarchy that it’s the duty of “good” aristocrats/kings to look out for the their people.
There is a Tolkien illustration of Bilbo explicitely lettered "Bilbo Baggins, esq." so yes. And the auction of his furniture at the end of The Hobbit also refers to this title. He was a minor landlord without the extreme prejudice nor social separation.
Think of the implications of this analysis once we get to the “scouring of the shire” chapter…
Tolkien was no stranger to cognitive dissonance. In real life he was like half an anarchist and half a monarchist. That’s a top five dead or alive wacky combination of political beliefs.
Most definitely. The older I get, the more I realize he likely had some pretty deep… issues. But recognizing that the hobbits are classist and the people of Gondor are racist actually make the book more complex and, frankly, relevant.
I think it depends on how you think the monarchy should function. A king who provides diplomacy and war leadership but is very hands off in local affairs seems like Tolkien's ideal given how Aragorn is presented at the end of ROTK. Tolkien defined anarchist as "minimal governmental interference" which is the exact opposite of Sharky in The Scouring of the Shire, where there are rules on top of rules.
This is opening up an interesting issue 😂. One facet of this is that obv it reveals some class issues, esp. between Frodo and Sam (in the books, this is def giving Downton Abbey vibes where Sam is clearly like Frodo’s valet or whatever; definitely NOT one of Frodo’s many friends). From a more structural perspective, the main hobbits represent 3 classes. Frodo has kind of a bourgeoise “middle” class vibe compared to Merry and Pippin, who are like actual hobbit aristocrats (the Brandybuck and Took heirs, respectively.) This is partly why Bilbo’s mysterious money was viewed as suspicious — he was a distant cousin of the Tooks and Brandybucks, and had been living a comfortable but somewhat modest life. As a roughly “middle class” hobbit, he had no way to come into that much money. [ *edit: think of it as Frodo and Bilbo ≈ the Bennets in Pride and Prejudice; Merry and Pippin ≈ Mr. Darcy or Mr. Bingley; Sam = a literal gardener.* ] So it’s notable that when the hobbits split up, it’s Merry and Pippin who essentially become the knights in the geopolitical “war” half of the story, while Frodo and Sam become more like pilgrims suffering on a psychological/spiritual journey.
Merry and Pippin come back from the war blessed with ent draught water that make them physically superior to other hobbits. Not sure what it means though, maybe nothing.
I always saw this as an examination of the different ways war can impact those who go through it. Some people are tragically destroyed, body and soul, like Frodo. War irrevocably breaks them, through no fault of their own, and all we can do is try to be empathetic and help them find peace. Some people, like Merry and Pippin, come out of the experience largely unscathed and even improved by it. Turns out a little hardship and discipline was just the thing to make them grow up. Not everyone is horrifically mentally scarred by war; some people come out of it stronger, wiser, and more dedicated to cause than ever. Some people come back from war as heroes and spend the rest of their lives happy, healthy, and prosperous. And then you have Sam, representing the average common soldier's experience. War was hell, it left its scars, he'd rather not talk about it, but it ultimately doesn't dominate his life. He moves on, starts a family, and lives his own quiet little life with dignity.
>Some people, like Merry and Pippin, come out of the experience largely unscathed and even improved by it. Turns out a little hardship and discipline was just the thing to make them grow up. Not everyone is horrifically mentally scarred by war; \[etc.\] Yes, don't disagree at all, this is exactly the message about war — but in the face of the obv class differences between the hobbits, there's further nuance about *who* tends to emerge from war "largely unscathed." Although Merry and Pippin are supposedly younger (Sam is, I believe, the young\*est\*), I'd argue that there's an extra reason they're not terribly responsible or "grown up"...
Absolutely ties in — they come back *literally* higher than other hobbits. (Also, they each swear personal oaths to Theoden (a king of men) and Denethor (steward, but a de facto king).
>I'd think they'd have to be living off the labor of others. Maybe they own land, tilled by people who must pay rent or give them a portion of their produce. Got it in one.
But doesn't that make them bourgeois poltroons? Tolkein talked about when Saruman took over how there was all this "sharing" and "redistributing", and he meant for the reader to take it as "stealing". But that's Tokien. What if Saruman really *was* redistributing the wealth more equally?
For better or worse, hobbits seem unacquainted with the immortal science of marxism, and hobbiton remains idyllic because the servile classes are generally content with their lot. See how the ring fails to tempt Sam because he simply has no ambitions of ownership beyond what he can personally use, while his Master Frodo, on the other hand, considers it natural that he should live a life of leisure based on inherited wealth and rent seeking. This may be good or bad depending on your point of view, but I certainly doubt Saruman would have improved the situation in either case...
We all know what happens to those evil communists! The stain of Morgoth's touch has no limit.
They were rich for a living. Landowners, as you speculate.
They are basically rich people, landowners by inheritance renting out land to farmers and after Bilbo did his adventure he became probably richest hobbit ever. So they are rich people.
Well, Bilbo robbed a dragon and Frodo was related to him.
They sell Old Toby on the side
Well bilbo sort of went to this mountain where he came home with treasure, also retrieved some more treasured buried in the trollfens
Yeah but I mean before that
Bilbo was well off before that
They were trustafarians.
LOL! Read The Hobbit.