LotR - Prologue

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Let's discuss the Prologue to LotR! Fordim Hedgethistle, the initiator of this project, will post his introduction. After that, everyone is welcome to participate. Tell us what you especially like (or don't like!) about the Prologue, what affects you personally, or what puzzles you. We look forward to reading many different contributions!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Welcome to the discussion thread for the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings. There is so much to discuss that I will not even attempt to be comprehensive in this initial post. Instead, I will merely point out three passages that I think open the door to themes and ideas that will become extremely important in the book as it proceeds.

They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical. But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that hereditary and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races.

This passage clearly sets up a debate between “art” and “magic” that goes to the very heart of what differentiates good from evil in Middle-Earth. On the one hand there is the ‘natural’ (“close friendship with the earth" ) “art” of the Hobbits who can disappear through their “skill”; on the other there is the “magic” of the Enemy whose Ring confers invisibility. The effect of the magic and art is the same (invisibility) but the means are completely different. This passage is extremely dubious about magic insofar as it seems to be a kind of a ‘cheat’ (“may seem magical" ) – instead, this description of the Hobbits would seem to suggest that their abilities are derived from their own efforts. What I find most interesting about this passage is how it begins the book’s exploration of the relation between Hobbits and Sauron (the Ring) not in terms of good versus evil, but in terms of natural skill versus unnatural/deceitful magic.

At the same time, the passage hints rather darkly at a connection of some kind between Hobbits and the Ring, insofar as the magic (or ‘magic' ) of each is defined by the ability to confer invisibility.

The Mathom-house it was called: for anything that Hobbits had no immediate use for, but were unwilling to throw away, they called a mathom. Their dwellings were apt to become rather crowded with mathoms, and many of the presents that passed from hand to hand were of that sort.

I always like to think of the Ring as a mathom when I read this. It is the ultimate Object for which there is no “immediate use” and yet which anyone who possesses it is “unwilling to throw away.” Unlike true mathoms, however, the Ring is not something that is willingly “passed from hand to hand.” As in the passage I cited above, this one points to the profound and important differences between Hobbits and the Ring, while at the same time hinting at some kind of dark connection. On the one hand, the Hobbits seem to have found the ‘solution’ to the Ring: rather than letting it ‘clutter up’ one’s hole, it is better to “throw away” the Ring. Hobbits, with their desire to live a quiet and simple (elsewhere in the Prologue we hear it is a “well-ordered" ) life, really do have “no immediate use” for the Ring. At the same time, however, while they are willing to give up their mathoms, they are not willing to let them be destroyed or cast away: they end up in the “mathom house.” So even though they are apparently able to rid themselves of the things that threaten to overwhelm them, they are not willing to forsake these objects entirely.

For they attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just.

This is one of those wonderfully simple sentences that Tolkien so often writes that open up into all kinds of complexities when you pay it a bit of closer attention. How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say. (Again, there is a dark premonition of how the Hobbits are perhaps connected to the forces of evil at an intrinsic level: when the travellers come back they are upset by all the Rules that Sharkey has put into place. But I am getting ahead of myself by about 13 months!) I don’t think that this really is a contradiction, but it is a very complicated kind of statement, and one that goes to the very nature of the story that is about to be told.

The important point about all three of these passages is, I think, that they are about Hobbits and not about Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin. They are all extraordinary people – heroes, even – but their ability to do good in the war against evil is here, I think, being set up as being the result of their Hobbit-natures. The book thus begins with a celebration not of the individuals who will be combating evil, but of the ideals and qualities that can be successfully pitted against the forces of darkness. At the same time, the Prologue seems to acknowledge that connection that exists between the forces of good and the forces of evil – perhaps even acknowledges the co-dependence of light and dark.

One last point to make about the Prologue is, of course, how it works so hard to establish the fiction of the book as being a historical document retrieved and recovered by an editor from older primary works, rather than a fictional story told by an author. It is here that Tolkien makes his most apparent move, I think, into the idea that these events are ‘historical’ and therefore open to interpretation by a community of readers rather than subservient to any single interpretation, be that interpretation authorial or from a single readerly perspective.

[Saraphim]

Here we go...now the fun really begins.

From the start of the Prologue, Tolkien has the same tone that he took on with the First Foreward. The sense of having something fictional explained to you as if it was real, and in such a way that you are at once immersed in the very core of Middle-Earth, and more specifically the hobbits, which as Tolkien mentioned, the book is largely concerned with.

In the first section, Concerning Hobbits, one sees a glimpse of rare hobbit history. The three original groups of Hobbits, the Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides all have different charictaristics, but invariably they all end up in the Shire and intermingle. By the time of Bilbo and Co, the different strains are all mixed, but one can still see the vestiges of the old clans in the prominent hobbit families.

The Tooks, for instance, are obviously decended from the Fallohides, given thier fondness for adventure and elves.

Also, the Brandybuck clan is given as having the Fallohide traits, but they also show a few similarities to the Stoors, like thier liking for water and boats (Smeagol and Deagol come to mind here) and for consorting with men.


In addition, to interesting points on hobbit history, Tolkien gives a small insight into the Dunadain and thier relationship with hobbits. Despite their previous relationships with other races, hobbits grow closer to Men than Dwarves or Elves, even though there are communities of both within easy reach of the Shire. I think this has to do with thier (much) earlier relation with Men, and the fact that they have similar qualities.

Of the second section, Concerning Pipe-Weed, I feel I must quote Gandalf in saying that Hobbits could sit on the edge of ruin and discuss such trifles as pipe-weed. Tolkien mentioned that he was, in all but size, a hobbit, and here he is, proving that fact by devoting an entire section to something as trivial (when compared to the plots of the story) as the origins of this mysterious weed.

In fact, the quote I mentioned above is given in relation to Merry, who spoke in earnest to the King Theoden about pipe-weed. Again, this proves my point made above that Men and hobbits are indeed related, since (as it seemed to me) that Theoden was as interested in carrying on the converstation as much as Merry was.

[davem]

What immediately struck me was the fact we have three 'breeds'' of Hobbits, Three houses of Men, Three branches of the High Elves. Why? Of course, Tolkien did originally set out to create a mythology for England, & England was settled by three peoples - Angles, Saxons & Jutes. Its so blatant that he must have intended something by it, but why always Three 'houses'?

Of the second section, Concerning Pipe-Weed, I feel I must quote Gandalf in saying that Hobbits could sit on the edge of ruin and discuss such trifles as pipe-weed. Tolkien mentioned that he was, in all but size, a hobbit, and here he is, proving that fact by devoting an entire section to something as trivial (when compared to the plots of the story) as the origins of this mysterious weed.

As a pipe smoker I must take exception to the history of pipeweed being referred to as 'trivial':eek:. It is, as the Blessed Merriadoc has stated, an 'ART'. This is clearly one of the most important parts of the book, & if Tolkien has let us down anywhere it is in only selectively quoting from the introduction to Merriadoc Brandybuck's classic work. ;)

How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say. (Again, there is a dark premonition of how the Hobbits are perhaps connected to the forces of evil at an intrinsic level: when the travellers come back they are upset by all the Rules that Sharkey has put into place.

But Rules (even capitalised ones :) ) are optional - It is customary to keep them, its what ('decent') people do, in a sense, its how you distinguish decent people from 'indecent' ones (ones who go off & have adventures ). All communities have such 'Rules', because they promote social cohesion. Clearly some people are just waiting for the opportunity to break the Rules - Otho & Ted Sandyman for instance.

I do think its interesting the way Tolkien wishes to deny any speculation about 'magic' as regards Hobbits. Maybe he feels that the reader may form the impression that they are supernatural creatures (HOBgoblins, HOBthrusts, HOBhounds - all supernatural creatures from folklore), so he's attempting to disabuse us of the idea, & emphasise their ordinaryness - they're 'relatives of ours'.

[Evisse the Blue]

It's interesting that reading the description of Hobbits one can see why 'they were meant' to be the heroes of this book.

1. 'A people of no importance'
First of all, little was known about them by both Elves and Men; their origins and early history are a mystery even to themselves. Even afterwards they appear in very few records. So it is very likely that the Enemy would be unaware of their existance, of their strenghts and weaknesses, and very likely to underestimate the former, once he did learn of their existance.

2. Appearances are deceiving
Although their are fat, small and appear lazy, they are nimble, swift, skilled at bow and arrow and stone-throwing, and 'curiously tough'.

3. The art of dissaapearing versus the magic of dissapearing
As it has already been brought up in this thread, by Fordim and Davem, they are distinct and meant to express opposite things. Whether this is just a well-placed irony (they already can dissapear, so they don't need a Ring to do it), or an attempt to make them more familiar to the reader, it's still debatable. But it's clear that a hobbit's art of dissapearing is closer to nature, similar to an animal's becoming one with the scenery in order to avoid predators.

4. Basic needs and pleasures
The simplicity of their thoughts and desires make them less likely to be usurped by the more sophisticated 'lust for power' that the Ring evoked.

[HerenIstarion]

At the same time, the Prologue seems to acknowledge that connection that exists between the forces of good and the forces of evil – perhaps even acknowledges the co-dependence of light and dark.

Honestly, it was a really good post up there, Fordim, but it seems that you are taking it too far :). I'd be happier if the whole co-dependence of light and dark may be replaced with something like 'dark absence of light', or 'evil as lack of good' maxims. On the whole, I believe Tolkien denies such co-dependence, and is rather in line with Boethius, with a dash of more active rather than passive resistence to Nothing (with capital N for the sake of its personification in Sauron

It is subject of interpretation, really. All quotes you provide us with are as good when interpreted as: Hobbits healthy customs, once perverted, may become that and that

cheers

[Firefoot]

One of my favorite things about the prologue is that it gives us insights to the "ordinary" hobbit. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin (and Bilbo) are rather "extra-ordinary" in that they go on adventures and they very much grow from what they were to who they become, and they are not the simple hobbits any more. But the prologue shows us who the average hobbits are.How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say. It is in the nature of hobbits to be peaceful. Frodo says later on that no hobbit has ever killed another. I have to think that this would be more than because there is a rule saying don't do it. In this world, if a person really wants to kill someone, they do it whether there is a rule or not. But hobbits don't really need the rules for living - is seems like they are just there. [The Shirriffs] were in practice rather haywards than policemen, more concerned with the strayings of beasts than of people. So it sounds like even the Shirriffs weren't very concerned about making people follow the rules: it wasn't necessary. I think that this tells us a couple things about hobbits. 1. They are peaceful, and do not like violence. 2. Hobbits like things that make sense - they kept the rules because they were "ancient and just", meaning that if they hadn't been just in the hobbits' eyes, they wouldn't have kept them. This would be why the hobbits have a problem with all of Sharkey's rulses - they don't make sense and they weren't necessary before. In conclusion to this, of their own free-will hobbits did what was right because that is their nature, and in doing so they followed "The Rules".

On the topic of magic, I have only one thing to add, and that is something Galadriel said: "For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearlywhat they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy." Like pipe-weed, the "magic" of disappearing is also more like an Art than anything else.

Hobbits delighted in such things if they were accurate: they liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions. This is my favorite line in the prologue, and in my opinion a very good summary of hobbits opinions on books in general, at least before LotR. As an afterthought, the tone of this line seems very much like that of The Hobbit, as does much of the prologue.

[mark12_30]

I'm disappointed that Tolkien doesn't list New England as a place to find Hobbits.

Who else, reading this prologue, tiptoes thru the woods as quietly as possible?

Who else wishes to be "curiously tough"?

Firefoot: {quote}Hobbits delighted in such things if they were accurate: they liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions. {/QUOTE} This is my favorite line in the prologue, and in my opinion a very good summary of hobbits opinions on books in general, at least before LotR.

And yet this immediately sets some hobbits apart; Bilbo, Frodo, even Sam-- especially Sam. "Elves and dragons! Cabbages and potatoes are better for you." Even before the quest, Sam was unusual.

davem wrote:I do think its interesting the way Tolkien wishes to deny any speculation about 'magic' as regards Hobbits. I had often thought his insistence a little odd, but considered this way it's quite comforting.

also from davem: Angles, Saxons & Jutes
Call me clueless... Picts? Celts? De Danaan? where do they fit in? I thought it was more complex.

[Kuruharan]

I think it is a little interesting that hobbits like "a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside." Ordering and farming the land is in a sense dominating it. I realize that this is nothing like what the orcs did to the land, but it is still messing with the original environment.

Perhaps a certain level of domination over one's surroundings is necessary in order to survive?

I don't know if Tolkien ever thought of it this way before.

Call me clueless... Picts? Celts? De Danaan? where do they fit in? I thought it was more complex.

Speaking strictly of England, the Picts were in Scotland and the Germans drove most everybody else off to the west.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

H-I I’m afraid I must stand by ‘co-dependence’ of light and dark for the moment (insofar as we are discussing the Prologue here) – the relation between “magic” and “art/skill” here is not one of simple either-or; the Hobbits can “appear” magical through their “art” so these two terms seem to be connected to one another. Also, the discussion of mathoms is fascinating in that it points to how Hobbits can be possessive and even acquisitive – even as they are being celebrated as the possessors of the heroic traits necessary to combat the darkness (as Evisse points out). Thanks, also, to Firefoot for the quote:

Hobbits delighted in such things if they were accurate: they liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions.

This doesn’t sound bad or dark or evil, but it does echo (albeit faintly) the kind of ‘orcish’ thinking that comes to overtake the Shire under the “Rules” of Sharkey; it’s also an echo (perhaps very faintly now) of the way of Mordor in that there is no desire for more knowledge or learning (‘lore’ ) but singularity and conformity (“no contradictions” ). So while I agree with Evisse that the Hobbits are the real heroes (perhaps even more so than the extraordinary four who go forth on the quest?) I think as well that they have the potential for darkness within them (acquisitiveness, desire for singularity and order, desire/ability to become invisible). They are not ‘pure’ manifestations of natural ‘good’ who can be corrupted, but – like ‘us’ – regular and normal people who are capable of both “magic” and “art”, “Rules” and freedom, “order” and “contradictions”, generosity and possessiveness.

I think this is also why (to pick up on Saraphim’s post) the Hobbits are presented here as being like (as amalgams of?) the other races. They are most emphatically not ‘pure’ but a mixture of all the different types and traits that make up the denizens of Middle-Earth: Dwarves, Men and Elves – so easily distinguished from one another in more ways than the merely physical – are all ‘combined’ in some manner in Hobbit nature.

EDIT -- cross posting with Kuruharan: that is an excellent point! It points to the difference between orcs/Mordor and Hobbits/the Shire as being a difference in degree rather than kind.

[Lyta_Underhill]

As a pipe smoker I must take exception to the history of pipeweed being referred to as 'trivial'. It is, as the Blessed Merriadoc has stated, an 'ART'. This is clearly one of the most important parts of the book, & if Tolkien has let us down anywhere it is in only selectively quoting from the introduction to Merriadoc Brandybuck's classic work. Indeed! It is also a wondrous thing to go back and read the Prologue once the book has just been finished. One finds out where Meriadoc learned parts of his lore, reads vague allusions to the extraordinary growth of "two characters of old" that are dealt with in the following work and exceed the great stature of Bandobras Took, etc. etc. It almost seems as if the prologue is an epilogue as well! It hints at the connections of Meriadoc and Peregrin with Rohan and Gondor, tells us that Frodo indeed lives to complete a history of the War of the Ring and that there are considerations made for the "children of Samwise."

I could probably say more on other points, but, alas, I have litle time! It is great to be joining the discussion, however!

Cheers!
Lyta

[mark12_30]

Kuruharan wrote: Ordering and farming the land is in a sense dominating it.

To which Fordim replied: It points to the difference between orcs/Mordor and Hobbits/the Shire as being a difference in degree rather than kind.

Only if you believe that any discipline is abuse and that any excercise of authority is subjugation. I certainly don't believe that (and I don't think Tolkien did). There is every difference between maintaining peace, prosperity, and productivity, vice, wrenching and using what is useful (from the land or the people) regardless of the cost or consequences. Intent is key.

[davem]

Fordim

I think as well that they have the potential for darkness within them (acquisitiveness, desire for singularity and order, desire/ability to become invisible). They are not ‘pure’ manifestations of natural ‘good’ who can be corrupted, but – like ‘us’ – regular and normal people who are capable of both “magic” and “art”, “Rules” and freedom, “order” and “contradictions”, generosity and possessiveness.

I certainly don't think Tolkien idealised Hobbits in any way. They are meant to be ordinary, with faults. They are incredibly parochial, intolerant & quite smug. Frodo (& Bilbo, Sam, Merry & Pippin, to a lesser extent) outgrows the world of the Shire because of his experiences. Without wanting to jump ahead too far, I think its worth noting that there are some similarities between the Hobbits treatment of the trees in the Old Forest & what the Orcs do to Fangorn. How much of Treebeard can we see in Old Man Willow?

Kuruharan

Quote:

Call me clueless... Picts? Celts? De Danaan? where do they fit in? I thought it was more complex.

Speaking strictly of England, the Picts were in Scotland and the Germans drove most everybody else off to the west.

This is certainly a difference between the Hobbits who come into a mainly deserted Eriador, & the Anglo-Saxons, who found Britain far from deserted. Whether they 'drove everybody else off to the west' is another question - there is some evidence of it being merely a change of ruling houses. I can speak for both sides as, while being English, my ancestors were from Brittany, & came over (going as far back as possible) with William the Conquerer when he invaded. The Bretons were Britons who had been driven into northern France by the Anglo-Saxons - Hence two 'Britains' - 'Lesser' Britain (Brittany) & 'Greater' (or 'Great') Britain. (Here endeth the lesson
:) ).

It is interesting that Tolkien, if he is indeed trying to draw a conection between the Hobbits & the incoming English, has them coming to a deserted country.

Its interesting also that he presents the climate of the Shire as being suitable for growing a form of Tobacco, though. Apparently England used to have a warmer climate.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

mark12_30 you wrote:

There is every difference between maintaining peace, prosperity, and productivity, vice, wrenching and using what is useful (from the land or the people) regardless of the cost or consequences. Intent is key.

While I agree with this, I could not help but thinking how well this would go over with an Ent if he caught one of the Hobbits hacking down a tree. Even if the Hobbit were cultivating the forest in the most responsible manner and desired to use the wood of the tree only to build a barn. . .I don't think that the Ent would be too pleased!

"Intent" is indeed the key -- but as we learn in the Prologue, there are a number of intents that the Hobbits have in common with Sauron:

Order
Invisibility
'using' the land
Rules

Again, I would argue that the difference is one of degree not kind -- yes, the Hobbits intend to establish order for the sake of a well-regulated life, and intend to use the land for 'good'. So they are emphatically not the same as Sauron, but they do share his desire for the above things.

(Crazy idea: they also echo Sauron insofar as they produce smoke? Mount Doom as the anti-pipe? Desire for pipeweed akin to desire for power? Both are forms of self-gratification that are unhealthy if not taken in moderation. . .???)

[Evisse the Blue]

They are not ‘pure’ manifestations of natural ‘good’ who can be corrupted, but – like ‘us’ – regular and normal people who are capable of both “magic” and “art”, “Rules” and freedom, “order” and “contradictions”, generosity and possessiveness.
Yes, but they do have a degree of innocence that separates them from other races, which makes their 'corruption', or tresspasses, if you will, more significant than a Man's or an Elf's. In their own basic way they have created a paradise in their Shire, which is unequaled by other races they are an amalgam of, so if only in that they are special.
I agree that hobbits are somwhat the 'anti-heroes', (not possessing the qualities one has come to expect in a standard hero). Tolkien plays with our mind in describing them as totally plain, and simple-minded in the beginning, so that later on in the story, he may unravel their qualities. It's like he's giving us a lesson: "Wait and see!" It's a lesson good for life, too. ;)

EDIT: 'crossposted with you guys.Mount Doom as the anti-pipeWhoa! Soon you'll be saying that Tolkien anticipated the dangers of smoking! :smokin:
But seriously, I for one think that all the points in common you stated here are grounds for contrasting the hobbits with the bad guys, rather than serve to show how they resembled each other. That is, there is a qualitative difference, not only a quantitative one.

[Durelin]

Like Fordim, I am not even going to try and be organized in my thoughts. I'm just going to talk aloud (talk-type?) for a bit...

From Concerning Hobbits:

...they suddenly became, by no wish of their own, both important and renowned, and troubled the counselfs of the Wise and the Great.

Upon reading this quote, I immediately thought back to how we had considered the fact in the discussion of the foreword that Tolkien had expected his small audience to remain small. Though Tolkien most likely had written this prologue before there were any signs of his audience growing larger (I confess that I have no idea if the prologue was written when the book was originally published, sadly.), this was probably part of the Hobbit character. I think it can be added to Evisse's list. But I also believe that that quote came to mean something more.

Of their original home the Hobbits in Bilbo's time preserved no knowledge.

This, in relation with "the fiction of the book as being a historical document" (Fordim), expresses a common occurrence in history: the lack of preservation of knowledge. It also expresses it's importance. An example of this, in history, is the fall of the Roman Empire followed by the Dark Ages. Still, this is an example of a loss of knowledge through lack of preservation. Was there ever any signs of that in Tolkien's writings? Now, perhaps he thought of the Hobbit's general lack of interest in knowledge as a key aspect of the story...Okay, now, I'm just rambling...

And in those days also they forgot whatever language they had used before, and spoke ever after the Common Speech...yet they kept a few words of their own, as well as their own names of months and days, and a great store of personal names out of the past.

This is one quote that could be used to make the arguement that Tolkien was 'anti-imperialistic'. But all I believe this is only yet another aspect that makes this book, and especially the prologue, a fictional historical document. This kind of melding of cultures occurs so often in history, but this statement shows how an independence of culture is kept through a preservation of the old.

They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical.

Just think of how funny it is that two hobbits, and a hobbit-like creature, were ringbearers, and used it most often to make a disappearing act. I can only see this as an irony, though it can express so much more. Fordim's idea of "art" vs. "magic" is an interesting one. It reminds me of the Istari and their 'magical restraints'. It was said that they could not do 'magic' outside the natural plane, and when creating this 'magic' they had to use what was found in nature. It was the same with the elves. They never were truly 'magical' beings, it was more that they were so in-tune with nature that they could use all of its secrets and 'magic'. Their relationship with nature obviously came from their ties to the Earth, how they are bound to it until the End. There is much to think about, concerning that topic...

I believe I should collect my thoughts and let my mind rest. It just doesn't seem to be working properly, at the moment. ;)

-Durelin :D

EDIT: It was inebvitable that I cross-posted with at least three people...

[Bêthberry]

Helen, re: no mention of the Hobbits in New England. Perhaps not, but two weeks ago I toured a museum which depicted the "pit houses" of the Indian clans of the West Coast and they were certainly very warm, comfortable and 'smial-like." Also, eastern European immigrants to the Canadian prairiers, for that first winter faced without a house, built homes in hillsides. Just imagine! :)

I appreciate Seraphim's and davem's defense of the art of pipeweed, the emphasis on art. One of the most delightful traits of this description of the Shire is, to me, the manner in which hobbits appear to appreciate leisure, a lost habit in our hurried times of the Seventh Age.

I would like to add an observation on the point which Heren Istarion and Fordim are discussing. As idyllic as Shire-life is presented here, it is a life I am not completely comfortable with, for the reason which Fordim has pointed out: the Hobbits' dislike of any book which required thoughtful interpretation of tangled threads. There is a view here of their simplicity which makes me feel it is an incomplete or untried goodness.

there in that pleasant corner of the world they plied their well-ordered business of living, and they heeded less and less the world outsider where dark things moved, until they came to think that peace and plenty were the rule in Middle-earth and the right of all sensible folk. They forgot or ignored what little they had ever known of the Guardians, and of the labours of those that made possible the long peace of the Shire. There were, in fact, sheltered, but they had ceased to remember it.

"A cloistered virtue is no virtue," I think Milton wrote. And before him we have Job, whose virtues were tested and tested again before they were finally proven true. To Fordim's points about the hobbits' conformity and acquisitiveness--wonderful thoughts on mathoms there!--I would add an ignorance of evil which, to me, limits the attractiveness of their haven. Often in Tolkien I see this sense that goodness must be parcelled off from evil, in Melian's girdle and then in Elessar's final decree that access to The Shire be restricted (yet even this did not ensure the hobbits' open survival to our own day). I'm not sure what to make of this, but it inclines me towards Fordim's thoughts on the lurking possibility of 'co-dependence' of good and evil, that they cannot be separated but must have knowledge of each other. Even Frodo's desire to save the Shire represents his effort to take on the job on behalf of the hobbits rather than allow them to make the horrendous discovery which Job and Frodo himself makes.

One other point which intrigues me relates to the issue of history. The Hobbits appear to have forgotten their history and the elves are "concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all." Here we have the selectivity of historical record which demonstrates its lack of authoritative voice: each race will have its own perspective and way of remembering. Rather like what I think we are all doing here, giving voice to our own various thoughts, the diversity giving form to a more complete picture than any one of us can, at least initially, make.

EDIT: About this issue of the correct stewardship of the land, and the felling of Ents, there is something in a later chapter which suggests that not all was peaceful in the hobbits' use: The Bonfire Glade in the Old Forest represents a time when the hobbits attacked the trees in the Old Forest. I side with Fordim that the hobbits are neither perfect nor idyllic, but contain within themselves aspects which we need to consider carefully.

And cross posting with Durelin, who seems to have anticipated me in wondering about the ignorance or loss of their sense of history.

[Orofaniel]

For they attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just.

How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”?

I think that's a very good question. Although, for me, Tolkien has made it quite clear. As Firefoot said earlier; 1. They are peaceful, and do not like violence. 2. Hobbits like things that make sense
I do believe that Tolkien wrote in the Prologue (and later in LotR too, I think) that Hobbits loved peace and quiet. They didn't want to be disturbed by the "outside" world. I can't recall his exact words because my book isn't here.

But the question is how, even though they want peace and quite, they can keep such rules. Maybe they are just disciplined? Maybe it never occurred to them that they could do "otherwise?" As a matter of fact I think Tolkien once mentioned that Hobbits have a strong belief in the ordinary common sense, and that they use it. (I can't recall exactly where I read that, but I'll try and find it.)

Cheers,
Oro

EDIT: Didn't notice the last posts here...sorry. :(

[Nurumaiel]

They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently... and this art they have developed.

This is some way strikes me as interesting. 'They possessed from the first...' It seems to me that this hints that this art was, to say, a sort of natural instinct to the Hobbits. In the same way humans have a natural instinct when feeling vulnerable to sort of crouch up to protect their stomach and chest, 'possessed from the first' seems to indicate that Hobbits, when feeling unsafe when going about in the woods, had a natural instinct to 'disappear swiftly and silently.' So then, a natural instinct rather than some hobbit thinking it would be wise and the whole race developing and learning the art. It is stated that they did develop the art, but it seems to imply they developed this 'natural instinct' that they already had. Just an observation and a thought...

Helen, the above quote with the addition of the blundering large folk is the one thing that has distinctly stuck in my mind, though it has been long since I have last read the Prologue. Since then I have never 'blundered' through the woods; I always walk very quietly so perhaps I might see a Hobbit. I also attempt to attract them by aspects of my personality... I exaggerate my delight over the wildflowers, eat hearty meals in the plainest of plain views, sing delightful hobbitish songs, etc. in hope they will consider me someone they do want to meet. After all, it was not said they did not wish to meet anyone but those 'large folk whom they did not wish to meet.'

And laugh they did, and eat, and drink, often and heartily, being fond of simple jests at all times, and of six meals a day (when they could get them).

When I was younger the 'six meals a day' led me to believe that this was why they were so stout... but now I reconsider. Despite the six meals a day the hobbits also seem to get much physical exercise, what with their farming, gardening, 'disappearing swiftly and silently,' and so on and so forth. And now I wonder why I have always assumed that hobbits were stout. The Prologue states they were 'less stout and stocky' than Dwarves, not equal nor more. Does anyone here know of instance where it was specifically stated, whether in LotR, the Hobbit, Letters, etc., that Hobbits were particularly stout and stocky? Or would the words of 'less stout and stocky' mean that while they were not as stocky as Dwarves they were yet stocky?

Now I must say that the relationship between Hobbits and Men cannot be distinct at all... After all, while reflecting on the three breeds of Hobbits I find I am not one in particular but a little bit of all!

Now also when the Prologue speaks about the three breeds, was I the only one who found it rather easy to tell just by their descriptions which breeds associated more with which race... Dwarves, Men, and Elves? 'The Harfoots had much to do with Dwarves in ancient times.' When I first read the description of the Harfoots I didn't give a second thought to the fact that they were 'beardless and bootless.' 'Browner of skin' immediately made me think of Dwarves for some reason. The Stoors were 'less shy of Men' and I saw it coming in their phsyical description when it was stated they were 'broader [and] heavier in build.' It was the most obvious that the Fallohides were the closest associated with Elves... fair of skin and hair, taller and slimmer, and lovers of trees and woodlands... I suppose this has nothing to inspire discussion but it was an observation of mine.

I am awful for I have made my own selfish observations and I'm not replying to any others... but I'm already half an hour late for lunch. I will return, and I will reply to previous observations if my mind considers itself intelligent enough.

[mark12_30]

This Old Forest question is niggling at me. We can take a closer look at it when we get there. I thought that the hobbits were essentially attacked and they built the High Hay in self defense? They did have their border quarrels, I am sure, but it wasn't due to hobbits that the Old Forest had been beaten back into a fraction of its old territory, and blaming the anger of the forest on the hobbits hardly seems realistic. It seems to me that men were more responsible for that.

No doubt this will clear up when we get to that chapter...

Regarding Bethberry's point about being sheltered from evil: since Tolkien carefully chooses Shire hobbits for his quest (and not Bree-Hobbits), we never get to learn how a Bree-hobbit might have faced such a quest, or whether they liked books with tangled plots. Too bad...

Nuru, we cross-posted!

In the opening chapter of The Hobbit" it does say that "They are inclined to be fat in the stomach." Also, here is a rough rendition of Gandalf's description of Frodo:

"A stout little fellow with red cheeks. That won't help you much, Barley, it applies to most hobbits. But this one is taller than some and fairer than most; and he has a cleft in his chin. Perky chap with a bright eye."

[Firefoot]

Fordim, post #14

I must disagree with your point about hobbits/Sauron, etc. You say that hobbits and Sauron share some similar qualities, and to an extent I agree with this, but the qualities that you listed (Order, Invisibility, 'using' the land, Rules) all seem to me to be portrayed in a completely different manner.

Order: Hobbits like to have everything ordered, in that their holes are neat, everything is set out fair and square with no contradictions, well-ordered countryside, and this quality goes has much to do with agreeing and getting along with other hobbits. Sauron, on the other hand, wants Order and dominion over all other beings. He wants to control everything else and have them ordered under him. Using Sam as an example: "The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command."

Invisibility: Hobbits use this quality to disappear "when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by" and it comes from "a close friendship with the earth". Sauron's invisibility, however, comes from using the Ring, which is pure evil. He made the Ring in order that he might dominate others, making his invisibility evil.

'Using' the land: Hobbits like to farm ("for they love... good tilled earth a a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside was their favourite haunt"), and they do the farming themselves, which goes back to Sam's "his own hands to use...". Sauron has innumerable slaves to do his work for him ("the hands of others to command").

Rules: I have already written quite a bit about hobbits and rules, but I will just repeat a single point and that is that hobbits do not seem to have rules because they are "necessary", but rather because they like to have everything set out fair and square (going back to order...). Sauron has rules to dominate, control, and command others to do what he wants.

So perhaps the point that I am trying to get to here is that a quality is just that. It is how the quality is used in a person (for good or evil) that determines who they are. I am not trying to say that hobbits are perfect. They aren't. They are ordinary, and therefore imperfect. The statement that I have a problem with (and I may be misinterpreting this) is that hobbits have these qualities which are similar to Sauron's and are therefore evil qualities. (This is a bit over-simplified, I think) But I have always held the opinion that hobbits are in nature good and peaceful beings, which contributes to their resistence to the Ring and other like qualities.

Edit: cross-posting with Mark12_30 and Nurumaiel.

[Boromir88]

Mark, you have brought up a valid point, for if you notice Tolkien writes in point of view as well.

This I believe is in the Appendix, that it stated no matter what the traditions of men tell you very few dwarves ever succumbed to Sauron. The reason for men to write about dwarves succumbing to evil was because the Men were jealous and wanted the riches of the dwarves. I will have to go back and look at the prologue to see some of the dialogue but you could be correct it could just be according to the tales of men.

[Nurumaiel]

Helen, Thanks for the quotes! It's been awhile since I read either LotR or the Hobbit, but still I feel like a fool for those are such obvious (and to me memorable) sections of the books. 'Inclined to be fat in the stomach...' But does this mean that they are 'built' that way, in other words that this is just how they are and it doesn't have much to do with the amount they eat or the exercise they get, or are they 'inclined to be fat in the stomach' because of the amount they eat? I find the latter hard to believe because of the activities they absorbed themselves in. Farming, for example, would require much physical activity. Faith, if I, known for great energy, can become exhausted after two hours of hoeing and weeding in my garden, the more strenuous work of farming must be positively fatiguing!

Firefoot, I will add another point to your already well-stated point of 'using the land.' As well as the subject of working themselves vs. the slaves, so far as I have been able to gather the Hobbits used to land for good purposes, such as farming and gardening which will give added life and beauty to that same land, while Sauron's use of the land was for evil and certainly did not beautify!

As you have already said, while the qualities are the same that does not make the Hobbits evil, nor does it make Sauron good, but the uses of the quality determine, in this case, whether it is good or bad. I've been taught there are three actions: good actions, indifferent actions, and bad actions. Good actions are good in themselves, and likewise bad actions are bad in themselves, and indifferent actions are neither good nor bad but the intent and use of the action will determine whether it is actually good or bad.

Therefore I do believe that the the intent and use of these qualities so far as the Hobbits were concerned make these same qualities good, while it is the opposite for Sauron.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just a quick reply here to two points.

Several folk have mentioned the hobbit's "lack of historical memory" as reflected in the prologue. I see two important correlations here. On the one hand it is clearly indicative of the Hobbits' lack of book learning and their tendency to take things at face value: what Bethberry defines as " the Hobbits' dislike of any book which required thoughtful interpretation of tangled threads. " Hobbits are certainly parochial, so parochial that they not only reject looking outside the boundaries of the Shire, but even over their shoulder to their past. We learn that the only history books of interest to them were the genealogical ones that set out things very clearly; other knowledge of the past, more complex or reflective, had been lost.

This parochialism is certainly a flaw inherent in the Shire. But there is a second way of looking at this situation. If the Hobbits had remembered their history, indeed if there had been any "real" Hobbit history available in written form, then it would have been accessible to Sauron and Saruman as well. And it is quite possible that these two would have become aware of the Hobbits and ultimately of the Ring much earlier than they did. It is the Hobbit's "lack" of history that makes the journey of Frodo and his fellow Hobbits possible. Without this veil of anonymity alluded to in the prologue, the entire story is unimaginable.

***************************

Regarding the relative "goodness" of Hobbits and their supposed affinities with Sauron...

Fordim -

In relation to this question, here is my opinion. In one sense you are perfectly right, and in another you are far from the mark.

In Tolkien's eyes, every free people bears the stain of evil, just as Arda itself was marred, even in the making. It would be possible to compile a list of good and bad points for every single race we encounter. This is as true for Hobbits as it is for Men, Ents, Dwarves and, yes, even Elves! If we read over those lists of "bad" traits, each list will be different for every race. Yet every trait included will in some way remind us of Sauron (or Morgoth) and lesser minions like Saruman or the Orcs, or at least will be something they can exploit.

This is true even of the Hobbits' ability to become invisible, where you drew a parallel with Sauron. On the one hand natural invisibility is put there by Eru for the Hobbits' protection and is not an evil thing. It emphasizes the Hobbits' close ties to the earth. For me, such a characteristic conjres up images of small rabbits disappearing harmlessly into the brush. However, this talent for "hiding" can also be abused and become somethng close to parochialism: not caring about anyone different, not even being aware of what's going on elsewhere, but simply "hiding" from others in the underbrush, in effect turning one's backs on the world to concentrate solely on your own concerns and community, a situation that Saruman would exploit among the Hobbits.

So, yes, it is possible to compile such a list of "faults" and point to ties with Sauron or other evil ones. But so too could we compile similar lists, with different content, for every race on Middle-earth.

[mark12_30]

Nuru, it seems to me that although hobbits were active, still, they had that tendency to eat and drank a little more than they worked, calorically speaking.

Frodo himself was aristocracy, and although he liked to walk, he also liked ffod and wine, and ale. The book states that he indeed lost some extra pounds between Hobbiton and Rivendell (that wonderful moment when his reflection peeps out at him from the looking-glass in Rivendell.)

Sam, while a hard-working gardener, was also fond of (and seemingly had free access to) Bilbo's beer-cellar, and was no stranger to the Inn either. I suspect that even the hardest-working hobbits, had balancing social "skills".

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Child and Nuru -- herm (or should that be, "hoom") I'm not arguing that hobbits are in any way 'evil' or that they are alike Sauron in terms of good vs bad. In fact, in my first post about this I said that I find it interesting that the hobbits are not being contrasted to Sauron in terms of good vs bad, but in other terms that seem to be relatively value neutral (art vs magic, for example). I totally agree that the Hobbits' intentions (nod to mark 12_30 here) are good and Sauron's are evil, and that this is a qualitative difference between them (now nodding to Evisse). What I am saying is that the Hobbits share certain desires with Sauron (for invisibility, for simplified order, for control of nature). What's more, as Child points out, these desires are directed 'inward' toward the self -- in particular, to cut the self off from the outside world, and to isolate the self.

In other words, I would argue that the Hobbits are governed by self(ish?) desire in the same way -- but certainly not to the same extent -- as is Sauron. Their desires are 'good' and Sauron's are 'evil', but they do have this in common.

[Nurumaiel]

Helen, could it also depend highly on just what the individual hobbit's occupation was? In example an innkeeper might be more fat in the stomach than a farmer, for an innkeeper wouldn't move too much and would have more time to eat. A farmer, however, would be doing more labor and might also have less time to eat. Of course then we could go on the track of how late hobbits stay up... if they stayed up later they could use that late-night time to accomplish any eating they missed during the day. And I suppose this subject isn't too important, though very interesting (the Hobbits might not like us discussing the finer points of their weight, however :p ). Could hobbits ever be as dear if they were slim and slender, or (horror of horrors) outright skinny?

Fordim, I see what you mean. In the extreme basics the desires are similiar but it seems to me that to an extent the desires would also be influenced by the intents. In example, the desire of the Hobbits and Saurons to use the land. The basic desire is the same... to use the land. But the desires are also changed by their intent to use the land. The Hobbits desire to use the land to grow and farm, while Sauron desires to use the land for ill.

But if you are saying the barest basics of the desires make them alike, I cannot disagree, for it is true if you write merely Order, Invisibility, Using the Land, and Rules and discard the intents, etc. of it, which, reading your original post, is exactly what you did. So then the basic desires are the same, but to go to an advanced description of the desires would include the intents which would make a difference between their desires.

[Guinevere]

posted by Nurumaiel: Farming, for example, would require much physical activity. Yes, but not all the hobbits were farming! Bilbo, Frodo, Merry & Pippin seem to be well-off gentlehobbits who don't have to work for a living!

Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time , and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all. Yet it is clear that Hobbits had in fact lived quietly in Middle-earth for many long years before other folk became even aware of them.
That way it is cleverly explained why Hobbits aren't mentioned in the earlier tales (the Silm.) and why Sauron didn't even know of their existance.
This whole "feigned history" is very convincing indeed. What I think is not so convincing is the fact that there are still some hobbits supposed to be around nowadays (or at least in Tolkien's time ;) ) We don't see them because they can disappear swiftly and silently. But what about their dwellings and farming land etc.? Have they since been obliged to take to the woods to hide from us?

I remember so well when I first read the prologue how mysterious and intriguing sounded to me the mention of ... the Dúnedain, the kings of Men that came over the Sea out of Westernesse; but they were dwindling fast and the lands of their North Kingdom were falling far and wide into waste.

edit: I'm too slow! 4 new posts appeared while I was writing...
(Child of the 7th age, I agree very much with your post! )

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

A lot has been said so far about the contrast of the Hobbits' skill in disappearing when it suits them as opposed to Sauron's magical invisibility (although presumably he could override this aspect of his creation). Hobbits are not, however, the only people to be so contrasted, and indeed 'magic' itself is often called into question throughout the work. Later on it is noted that the virtues of Elven implements are often confused with the arts of the enemy, but probably this is best left until we reach those parts of the book.

For me, the difference between the Shire and Mordor is that between a people who co-operate with each other and the land to earn a prosperous living, and a people divided each against the other, ruled by a lord who cares nothing for them and tearing from the land what they can get. The Hobbits build, cultivate and care for their country and it rewards them with plenty. The Orcs and their masters know only how to take, and so they must maintain slave populations simply in order to survive.

I'm getting ahead of myself here, though, since all of this becomes clear later in the book. I'll restrict myself to Hobbits for the remainder of this observation.

The society of the Shire is an interesting paradox, in that it appears to be Tolkien's ideal society and yet he would probably not have been comfortable in it. The Hobbits share his love of simple food, simple jokes, plain speaking and good living; but he was a man who made a living out of telling people things that they did not know, and by his own admission disliked reading the same book twice. In his letters he admits to finding Hobbits irritating on occasion, and I think that this is because they only reflect one aspect of his personality. Hobbits could not live up to his love of the high, learned and noble that we see in the Elves and the Dúnedain. They are too comfort-loving, too parochial and self-satisfied, and this is reflected in their greatest heroes: Bandobras Took, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin do not fit the mould of comfortable Hobbit society, which quietly farms its land and shuts its eyes and ears to the troubles of the world. Nonetheless, Tolkien still attributes the attractive traits of Hobbits to the entire race, and in his final chapters he reveals them as they are when 'The Rules' cease to suit them, and when their leaders are no longer ceremonial.

The Shire is a vast paradox: a stratified society with a definite class system, and yet one in which each individual is convinced of his own personal freedom. It has a number of noble families who command theoretical powers and loyalties that are never used, almost on the understanding that this remains so. This paradox is one that any Englishman will recognise immediately: Tolkien's countrymen continually assert that they obey the law because it suits them, and woe betide anyone who tries to impose one that does not. Holders of titles are expected to behave as though their honours do not exist, in return for which they are awarded all the honorifics associated with them. This is how a lot of English people see themselves, and this is how the Shire really works. Later in the book, this attitude will come into contact with a world in which kings and rulers are treated with great deference and respect, but we shall cross that bridge when we come to it.

The Hobbits' parochialism is complete. Like the foundation of Rome and, more disturbingly, the Cultural Revolution, the foundation of the Shire is taken as the beginning of a new calendar. Before their community is even off the ground, the Hobbits have begun to distance themselves from world events; but this also exhibits a huge self-confidence, which is exhibited throughout The Lord of the Rings by all but the most sensitive of Hobbits. They cut themselves off from the world as they have cut themselves off from their own history, as something that is inconvenient and unnecessary. There are things in both that are likely to upset them needlessly by making them ask difficult questions that will not be answered by a complicated and well-compiled genealogy. In short, they exhibit the most militant complacency that I have ever encountered. As an Englishman, it makes me feel quite at home.

I should like to finish by examining an interesting point about the history of Hobbits that is also to be found in the history of Men. There is a distinct change in their attitude toward the Elves from the beginnings of the Shire, when they are presumed to have learned a great deal from them, gradually subsiding into dislike and mistrust. Interestingly, the arch-traditionalists of Middle-earth become a source of anxiety from the ever-changing races that surround them, usually as those races fall into foolish or evil practices. The Elves are anything but comfortable: sophisticated, powerful, ageless and wise, they are everything that the Hobbits are not. They do not belong in the well-ordered, earthy, common-sense world of the Shire, which the Hobbits regard as the acme of achievement. Nor, for that matter, do wizards, heroes, myth and magic. The Shire is a stifling world for such an exponent of these ideas as its creator, and perhaps this is the greatest paradox of all.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fordim,

I agree with much of what you say. The point you raise about 'invisibility' is interesting. I can't help but wonder if that play on the word was "intentional" on the author's part. Moreover, as you state, Hobbits are not evil. But like other free peoples of LotR, they are "flawed", each race in different ways, and each share characteristics with Sauron.

However, at some point, I feel you may push the semblance too far:

....there are a number of intents that the Hobbits have in common with Sauron:

Order
Invisibility
'using' the land
Rules

Again, I would argue that the difference is one of degree not kind -- yes, the Hobbits intend to establish order for the sake of a well-regulated life, and intend to use the land for 'good'. So they are emphatically not the same as Sauron, but they do share his desire for the above things.

I see this as more than a simple difference of degree. For example, the desire to garden and to tend the land, to beautify it and bring forth productive fruit, stems from goodness. Such an impulse can certainly be abused, but at its best this is an example of subcreation in natural rather than artistic terms.

Sauron's path was different in its origin. His acts were the opposite of subcreation and involved setting his own will in opposition to what was natural or true.

You can apply the same words to describe what Sauron and the Hobbits were doing, as your list suggests. But these are mere labels--not the thing itself. The two lists share no real common ground. Their origins, their wellspring are different: one springs from goodness, and the other the perversion of goodness. Only in abuse by a Hobbit could you forge an actual tie. This is not to say that abuse did not occur. Most certainly, it did. But that is different than seeing an overall similarity of kind.

It is possible our differences may stem from the way we are using words... I am not sure.

*************************

There is something no one else has mentioned on reading the prologue: how familiar and comfortable the Hobbits feel. I am certainly not the first reader to see this, but every time I read the prologue it strikes me. While the Hobbit perspective is not identical to my own, it's enough alike that I can identify with many of their desires and their shortcomings. There are hints of the goodness and failings in my own life, the small victories and numerous frustrations. Hobbits are not great "heroes" but folk whom I can understand, at least to some degree.

Today perhaps, we're more used to this device. Featuring the "small" character has become a stock usage in fantasy. But, way back then, it was not the norm. And I still feel Tolkien has done this as well as any other fantasy writer who has come since then.

*******************

Thirdly, when I read the prologue this time, I was extremely curious when the author had written it. After all, we'd just finished discussing the foreward in terms of its dating. It also struck me as strange that it was written in numbered parts.

I scrounged around and did find a hint in HoMe for the part of the prologue labelled "i". CT says his father did this just around the time that the Hobbits had reached Bree. Some things about hobbit holes were actually dredged out of the general manuscript and put back in the prologue.

This implies that the latter parts were written later (as well as the lengthy note at the end). But I couldn't find any reference to their composition. Does anyone know? There are certainly references to people and events that had to come from later in the writing process.

To me, the prologue is like an old friend, full of names and hints of later developments. But I am wondering if maybe it's not so easy for the newbie, especially if they haven't read The Hobbit itself? Can anyone remember being confused by all these names and details on an early reading?

*************************

Squatter,

We cross posted. How interesting that our responses should be so different!

Yes, I can see the "littleness" of the Shire in more ways than one. Yet it is a world that I can understand in a way that Lothlorien or even Rivendell elude me.

I think Tolkien would very much have identified with the non-conformists Frodo and Bilbo, living in a world where they were surrounded by "smallness" while yearning for something more. And perhaps it is that which sticks with me. I can sense how the Shire would be stiffling. But what I remember with a smile is Bilbo out walking the paths, searching for Elves, while his neighbors gossipped about his actions.

It is that yearning, that search for more, which makes the Hobbits and the Shire appealing to me: Sam's love of Elven tales, Frodo's halting attempts to speak Elvish, how Elanor and Fastred journied out to new territory to live in the shadow of the Elven towers. Despite all the monotony and the parochialism of the Shire, we still find extraordinary people like this.

Tolkien was very aware of the limitations of Hobbits. At one point, he has harsh words to say about his character Sam as embodying the parochialism and short sightedness of the "typical" Hobbit. Yet the appeal of family, the beauties of nature and growing things, and the simple pleasures of home life seem to have overridden the more negative characteristics for him.

[Kuruharan]

Again, I would argue that the difference is one of degree not kind -- yes, the Hobbits intend to establish order for the sake of a well-regulated life, and intend to use the land for 'good'. So they are emphatically not the same as Sauron, but they do share his desire for the above things.

I think that Sauron represents the desire for order carried to an extreme. Tolkien believed that evil does not create, but rather perverts. In this sense it is more a matter of Sauron reflecting traits of the hobbits rather than the other way around.

And I believe that Fordim makes a good point about chopping trees as it relates to reshaping the land.

[Durelin]

I only have the time and energy to reply to two general ideas from two posters, which is indeed a crime!

Fordim -

"Intent" is indeed the key -- but as we learn in the Prologue, there are a number of intents that the Hobbits have in common with Sauron:

Order
Invisibility
'using' the land
Rules

This is certainly a good observation, and I will agree that "intent is indeed the key", but I believe you go far to quickly to the extreme.

This is why I love this world so much, we never can find a happy medium! But with that said, let me explain, briefly, I hope, how this applies to intent. We humans like to judge, and how we relate with each other gives us the material to examine when we are the judge. But intent, in any human sense, is solely in the possession of the individual. When judging people's 'intent', we have only what we see to go on. First of all, what someone lets us see is almost entirely up to them. Secondly, what we see out of what they let us is entirely up to us. I think that, here, Fordim, you are judging the hobbits with very little evidence to back up your case. But, truly, I think your biggest problem with this is that your list of intents has intents behind each listed ‘intent’ as well.

You speak of the Ents, and what they would think of simply cutting down a tree to build a barn. Here, I think, is an example of how real Tolkien made his world. To keep on track with 'intent', it is full of different intents. Each person has their own agenda, and, many times, as a whole a community will have their own agenda. And behind that agenda will lay an intent. Also, each person and each community see what they wish to see, and let others see what they wish them to see. Their intents lie in their hearts or simply in their minds (this is the logical way...). It is this idea of intents, as a whole, that tear us apart, along with, I believe, are inability to find a happy medium. But it is only a problem because there is real evil in the world, and in Tolkien's world, as well.

Squatter -

Before their community is even off the ground, the Hobbits have begun to distance themselves from world events; but this also exhibits a huge self-confidence, which is exhibited throughout The Lord of the Rings by all but the most sensitive of Hobbits. They cut themselves off from the world as they have cut themselves off from their own history, as something that is inconvenient and unnecessary.

You say that the Hobbits formed Tolkien's 'ideal society', and yet you realize that there are some things that Tolkien finds un-ideal. It is interesting that, being so cut off from their own history and the outside world, that Tolkien would make them the center of his historical document, as well as the fictional authors. Could it be that bringing them so deeply into the goings on of the world, Tolkien was showing the Hobbits the light? Or was he trying to express that this was a great stain on the character and lives of the Hobbits?

[Elves] do not belong in the well-ordered, earthy, common-sense world of the Shire, which the Hobbits regard as the acme of achievement. Nor, for that matter, do wizards, heroes, myth and magic.

The Elves do not belong in their 'common-sense world', but where does their 'common-sense world' belong? Perhaps this is why Hobbits slowly began to disappear, once again, and, as it seems, for good. Tolkien's world was not made for hobbits, for his 'ideal society', as it was so real. Yes, real, though speaking not specifically of 'elves, wizards, heroes, myths, and magic'...well, perhaps magic. ;)

-Durelin :D

[the phantom]

Does anyone here know of instance where it was specifically stated, whether in LotR, the Hobbit, Letters, etc., that Hobbits were particularly stout and stocky?
It's right there in the Prologue that we're discussing, silly. ;)
and though they are inclined to be fat and do not hurry unnecessarily...
By the way, did anybody notice this-
Their height is variable, ranging between two and four feet of our measure.
Two feet tall? Are you kidding? Get out a ruler and see how short that is. That's tiny! I can't imagine a little two foot hobbit. Just think, Frodo and his buddies could be walking around town and saying hello to hobbits half their size. That's a very large range. For comparison, can you imagine if the typical human was anywhere from three to six feet? No way, that's too big of a difference.

I also thought this was funny-
To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowman to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it.
Were the little guys lying?

"We sent some archers to help."
"Nobody saw them."
"But we did, I swear!" (they showed up a few days too late, but we don't tell that part)

So, I guess it's not a big deal that Bilbo lied about the ring. It's a typical hobbit practice.
he (Gandalf) also thought it important, and disturbing, to find that the good hobbit (Bilbo) had not told the truth from the first: quite contrary to his habit.
Notice, truth telling is his habit, not necessarily a hobbit habit.

hee hee... hobbit habit :D

[Son of Númenor]

the phantom

Does anyone here know of instance where it was specifically stated, whether in LotR, the Hobbit, Letters, etc., that Hobbits were particularly stout and stocky?


It's right there in the Prologue that we're discussing, silly.Actually, for the sake of accuracy, it says that hobbits are not stout and stocky (when compared with Dwarves).

Durelin

You say that the Hobbits formed Tolkien's 'ideal society', and yet you realize that there are some things that Tolkien finds un-ideal. It is interesting that, being so cut off from their own history and the outside world, that Tolkien would make them the center of his historical document, as well as the fictional authors. Could it be that bringing them so deeply into the goings on of the world, Tolkien was showing the Hobbits the light? Or was he trying to express that this was a great stain on the character and lives of the Hobbits? (italics mine)You are implying, if I'm not mistaken, that the outside interaction of Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin and Bilbo could possibly have been viewed by Tolkien as a "great stain" upon the hobbits in question. I don't think that's a possibility. The hobbits in the Lord of the Rings who participated in some manner in the War of the Ring grew from their experience. They fought for their idyllic home and won. Sam, Merry and Pippin were able to return home wiser (and in the case of the latter two, merrier). Frodo and Bilbo outgrew the Shire, but this is not really a matter of staining so much as growth; in the course of Frodo's quest he reached a higher spiritual plane than could not be satisfied by a simple, agrarian place like the Shire. Bilbo, likewise, after all of his adventures and then the burden of having the Ring for all those years, outgrew his surroundings and 'retired' to live with the Elves. Both made the journey West (and ultimately Sam, too) not to be relieved of any 'stains', but to live out their lives in a place more suited to their spiritual needs.

The prologue, in my opinion, serves to highlight the idyllic, pastoral quality (and also the simpleness and 'smallness') of the Shire, perhaps even moreso than the actual book chapters that take place in the Shire. It lays the groundwork for why four hobbits are willing to fight to preserve their homeland, and ultimately serves as an illustration of why Frodo can never be at peace in the Shire after destroying the Ring.

[the phantom]

Actually, for the sake of accuracy, it says that hobbits are not stout and stocky (when compared with Dwarves).
Of course it does, which is why Nuru asked-
Does anyone here know of instance where it was specifically stated, whether in LotR, the Hobbit, Letters, etc., that Hobbits were particularly stout and stocky?
And in answer I gave her a quote directly from the Prologue-
and though they are inclined to be fat
Yes, my quote said "fat" instead of "stout" but according to my dictionary-
Synonyms: fat, obese, corpulent, fleshy, portly, stout

[Durelin]

Son of Númenor -

You are implying, if I'm not mistaken, that the outside interaction of Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin and Bilbo could possibly have been viewed by Tolkien as a "great stain" upon the hobbits in question. I don't think that's a possibility.

Remember that I asked two questions (please excuse the, perhaps, over-use of italics and bold...really don't mean to be rude), and answered neither. Ah, yes, but I did imply that this was a possibility. Still, I meant only to consider a different side, when the former of the two questions seemed more likely to be answerable with 'yes'. So, we are agreeing, though we might consider the other a possibility, as we can never really know for sure... ;)

The prologue, in my opinion, serves to highlight the idyllic, pastoral quality (and also the simpleness and 'smallness') of the Shire, perhaps even moreso than the actual book chapters that take place in the Shire. It lays the groundwork for why four hobbits are willing to fight to preserve their homeland, and ultimately serves as an illustration of why Frodo can never be at peace in the Shire after destroying the Ring.

I agree with this, as well, and would just like to add a little bit. I see this laying of groundwork as imperative. Many times this is not needed in stories, though many times it is, and other times it is not and is there anyway... But, the point is, the prologue was needed to establish the 'setting', which includes not only the physical setting and the time, but the mental setting as well, of the 'fictional historical document'. This draws us away from drawing many conclusions from our own mindset without first looking into the mindset of the setting, and especially of its major characters - hobbits. But much of this brings me back to my first post on this discussion... And so I grow silent, for a bit.

-Durelin :D

[Nurumaiel]

It's right there in the Prologue that we're discussing, silly.

Ah, dear me, where have my eyes gone? I knew something like this would happen. I will offer no excuses and humbly bow and assume the title of 'silly.' :D

To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowman to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it.

I also noticed this, though at a time after my first post... So either the Hobbits are lying, or the Men don't consider the important enough to record it. I can imagine both... the Hobbits thinking of this as a grand way to appear important and therefore lying about it, or the Men not considering it important enough. Dear me, I suppose it could be either way. It could also make an interesting fan fiction/RPG, concerning how they actually fought or concerning how they came up with the idea that they did. Goodness, I've had a most amusing image in my head of a group of Hobbits coming up with the idea after a late night at the bar! :D

[Orcrist]

I think what Tolkien means is that hobbits have the ability to not be seen by people they do not want to be seen by(The Big People) They can't really become invisible, unless they put on the Ring. The Ring makes them invisible to everybody. Their art would not allow them to not be seen by everyone in a large crowd, whereas the Ring would. Aragorn points out this difference in FOTR. He says, "I can avoid being seen when I wish, but to disappear entirely, that is a rare gift." This shows the difference between the Ring and the art of the hobbits.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

As to the voracious appetites of hobbits, and their great variation in size:

It's actually entirely realistic that hobbits would eat so much: the smaller the mammal, the greater its requirement for food (in terms of the ratio between food-mass and body-mass). Smaller bodies mean smaller stomachs and intestinal tracks; they also mean much faster metabolisms (large bodies stay warm more easily as they have a lower surface area to volume ratio) -- so, the smaller the mammal, the more it needs to eat. Mice can eat 2-3 times their body weight each day! Even rabbits can crunch their way through more food than their own weight in a day.

The size variation is also perfectly normal. The analogy you draw, Phantom, between hobbits (two to four feet in height) and humans (three to six) is actually not entirely accurate. The varation in height between hobbits is two feet (from maximum to minimum) which means one foot above and below the average height of three feet. In humans, the variation is also about two feet (between 6 1/2 feet and 4 1/2 feet) with an average height of 5 1/2 feet. The only reason the variation 'looks' larger in hobbits is due to the lower median height. The difference between the tallest hobbit and the shortest is the same as the difference between the tallest human and the shortest (this is excluding, obviously, those who fall outside the human averages -- they are, please excuse the slightly insulting term, which isn't mine: aberrations; actually, presumably, there must be such abberations among hobbits too -- a hobbit small-person ("midget") could conceivably be only one foot tall! a hobbit tall-person ("giant") could be as much as six feet tall! This is of course, translating human proportions into hobbit proportions as Tolkien gives them here).

This is all meant to be pretty tongue in cheek, I suppose, but at the same time I think it's interesting that these 'fairy-tale' beings that Tolkien has subcreated are perfectly, logically and naturally in line with the laws of physiology and anatomy in our primary world!

[Firefoot]

The Phantom, post #33:

Their height is variable, ranging between two and four feet of our measure. They seldom now reach three feet; but they have dwindled, they say, and in ancient days they were taller. I agree, two feet is quite small and I have often wondered at that. I think I read somewhere that the average height of a hobbit in the Third Age is three and a half feet tall. The conclusion that I have come to is that at this time most hobbits were between three and four feet, but as time wore on they got shorter, so that now they would be between two and three feet. This would get the 2-4 foot range, but it wouldn't necessarily be all at once, because I agree that it would be strange for a two foot hobbit to be walking around with a hobbit four feet tall. It wouldn't seem natural.

Edit: cross-posting with Fordim. An interesting point, but one that I don't entirely agree with. Because hobbits are smaller, I would expect them to have a smaller range of height because proportions are smaller.

[HerenIstarion]

Fordim I did not intend it to sound if I were to denounce your entire post. Points you list are verily very much valid. Evaluation you provide seems a bit misplaced only, for word 'co-dependence' bears an implication both parts, qualities that of Sauron and of average hobbit are both necessary, part of 'world order' somehow.
Yet application of rightful authority is a treat good in itself, and mastery/domination is just authority put to its extreme (as Kuruharan points out), its abuse and perversion. But if there were no abuse of authority, authority will not cease to exist, whilst if there were no authority in the first place, its abuse would not be possible either. Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

Per instance, militant complacency mentioned by Squatter in excellent post of his is abuse of self-confidence, and self-confidence is good in itself, if not taken to extreme.

Magic re: more to be said when we reach 'Mirror of Galadrilel'. Brief note here - the whole talk of art/magic in the prologue seems to me to express Tolkien's desire to uproot in his reader notion of magic as something unnatural (or supernatural). Supernatural implies in itself something 'proceeding outside nature'. Such and outside intrusion may be called 'a miracle', but not magic. And there are several instances of such an intrusions into ME nature, and all by Eru himself. Now magic in ME, as I argued elsewhere (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=6078&page=2&p=305823) (and here (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10346&page=2&pp=40&p=314288) too), seems to be application of its practitioners inherent, natural abilities, and therefore should not be called 'magic' at all. That includes 'deceits of the Enemy' too.

[the phantom]

The analogy you draw, Phantom, between hobbits (two to four feet in height) and humans (three to six) is actually not entirely accurate.
The analogy is entirely accurate. The human range is larger because humans are larger. The percentage change remains the same. Two is to four feet as three is to six feet. The range should not stay at two feet for humans.

I'll take this to an extreme to illustrate. If the range stayed at exactly two feet then what if there was a race of giants that averaged 1,000,001 feet tall and nearly all of them fell between 1,000,000 and 1,000,002 feet? As you can see, the range is still two feet but if you stood the tallest and shortest giants next to each other you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But if there was a race of mini-hobbits that ranged between one millimeter tall and about 2.01 feet tall, there would be a huge difference if you stood them side by side, though the range was still two feet.

Firefoot said what I'm thinking-
Because hobbits are smaller, I would expect them to have a smaller range of height because proportions are smaller.
Oh, and Nuru-
It could also make an interesting fan fiction/RPG, concerning how they actually fought or concerning how they came up with the idea that they did.
I'm sure that ff/rpg will be done eventually, and I'm also sure it would be really funny.

[mark12_30]

The Barrow-Wight had started a story of the hobbit-archers sent to the battle: go here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=25&t=000001) .

[Estelyn Telcontar]

A brief passage in the Prologue that troubles me is this one on the custom of living in holes, as only the richest and the poorest Hobbits did: The poorest went on living in burrows of the most primitive kind, mere holes indeed, with only one window or none; while the well-to-do still constructed more luxurious versions of the simple diggings of old. This brings a vision of Hobbit slums to my mind that disturbs me greatly! How does that go with their friendliness and peacefulness, with the familial ties they hold high? Is Tolkien thinking of the Biblical “The poor you have always with you”? Is it inevitable that there will be poverty, and the kind described by Tolkien is great poverty indeed, even among a society with so many idyllic traits?

And what causes the poverty? Natural catastrophes (droughts, etc.) have not occurred for a long time, the land is fertile, and there doesn’t appear to be much serious illness amongst Hobbits – so would it be due to laziness? Or is the tendency to have many children (feeding them is expensive, we hear later in the first chapter) one that creates poverty?

Why is the poverty not alleviated by others? Apparently there are no social or health insurances, so if there is no other family member available, are the old and impoverished left uncared for? Many questions, and I have no answers. Is this something Tolkien didn’t think through to its conclusion?

[Guinevere]

To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it.

Were the little guys lying?
I don't think they would downright lie ! Perhaps as the years passed and the tale was told and retold, the number af archers they sent would increase and their feats exaggerated etc . Perhaps it was only a very small number or, as the Phantom suggested, they might have arrived too late .. but anyhow it was in this battle the North Kingdom ended and the Dunedain had to flee. Perhaps those who had seen the hobbit-archers hadn't survived the battle to tell of it... Did those archers themselves return to the Shire at all ? We just don't know it.


How do you suppose Tolkien thought the Hobbits would live in his time? (Since he hinted they were still around in the NorthWest of the old World, although rare and dwindled.) They could hide themselves, but what about their settlements and tilled fields ?

edit: cross-posted with Estelyn.
I agree, this bit about the poor hobbits living in primitive burrows, sounds disturbing, once I stop to think of it! And what about the very rich ones?
Where did the fabulous wealth of Bilbo's father Bungo originally come from?
The Shire isn't just a community of farmers... there are gentlehobbits and working class hobbits ...and even paupers?
Really,the Shire is not all that idyllic as most people seem to think!

[Kuruharan]

If most of the arable land was already farmed out, and all the necessary crafts were already adequately filled, this could leave a proportion of the population without the means of making a living. This could cause poverty (statement of the obvious). I’d suppose that propertied members of the extended family would do their best to help, but they might have several groups of poor relatives to assist, and they would certainly not want to go without their six meals a day served on crystal dining-ware (let us be reasonable now ;))

[Boromir88]

Guinevere this goes back to my first post. I agree I don't see a reason for the hobbits to lie. What happens is Tolkien writes in perspective. If he has Gandalf talking he thinks what would Gandalf say? It doesn't mean it is accurate or correct.

In the appendix of LOTR it stated how very few dwarves ever succumbed to sauron or morgoth, no matter what the tales of men say. Then it goes on to state how the men were jealous of the dwarves wealth. So, I think it is very possible that men found a reason to be "jealous" of hobbits so they made tales. Tolkien often writes this way which makes his characters have their own "identity" and really pulls you into the story. You just kind of got to remember when someone says something from the book that is their opinion on it doesn't mean it is true. It very well could be true but not necessarily.

Besides the example from the appendix there are no more I can think of off the top of my head where Tolkien uses the characters "perspective," but I know I've caught more than one. So if anyone else found one please feel free to add in.

[mark12_30]

Define "poorest". To me this conjures up just-a-little-smaller-than Number Three Bagshot Row (See Tolkien's watercolor of The Hill) which has two windows, one door, and a contract with the upscale neighbor for earning bread.

Sam is used to helping himself to Bilbo's beer, although he is no stranger to the Inn's beer either. I'd suppose he gets a wage; does he also get meals onsite?

I wonder if it is a question of priorities.

Lothlorien elves live in simple flets, not because they *can't* do better, but because they prefer nature. Why expand your home when you'd rather be outdoors anyway?

Edit: Boromir88, good point-of-view!

[davem]

HerenIstarion wrote:

Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

I have go along with this. As Brian Rosebury in his wonderful recent book Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon has stated:

Any analysis of the aesthetic power ot the Lord of the Rings needs to take into account the fact that its values are organised around a moral conflict: Sauron’s despotism is not only to be ‘undesired’, it is to be undesired in the specific sense of being percieved as categorically morally bad. Nothing could be more false, however, than the notion that the Lord of the Rings represents a deterministic, or Manichean, universe of struggle between the innatley & unalterably good & the innatley & unalterably evil. On the contrary, as several critics have noticed, the imagined world is underpinned by an optimistic, & occaisionally explicit, theology of quite a different kind. ‘Nothing is evil in the begining’, Elrond observes. ‘Even Sauron was not so’. Though God is not referred to in the Lord of the Rings (except fleetingly in an appendix), & though the world is preChristian, there is no doubt that we are in an Augustinian universe, in which all creation is good, & evil is concieved in terms of freely chosen negation, of a willful abdication from an original state of created perfection. Sauron, the Dark Lord, is not a countervailing deity, but a fallen angel who, for all his awesome power, cannot create new life, only strive to annhiliate it or pervert it into abominable forms. Whether the reader consciously recognises the theology is unimportant: the essential point is that the negativity of evil, & the intrinsic goodness of ‘the effoliation & multiple enrichment of creation’ are consistently & palpably maintained.

...The defeat of the forces of evil should ideally appear, not as a lucky accident, or as a punishment inflicted from outside by a superior power (which deprives the actual process of defeat of any moral significance), but as the practical consequence of wickedness itself: Evil must appear as intrinsically self defeating in the long run. Sauron & his servants, despite their steadily growing superiiority in crude strength & terror, are hindered by weaknesses which are themselves vices: their lack of imagination, the irrational cruelty which denies them the option of voluntary assistance (the victim must be made to act against his own will), & the selfishness which disables their alliances.

It is the intellectual myopia of evil, however, on which greatest explicit emphasis is laid in the text. Just as the created world is intrinsically good, so disinterested curiosity about that world is an atribute of that good; the negativity of evil entails a loss of insight & of the desire to understand others. Whereas the light percieves the very heart of the darkness, its own secret has not been discovered’. (FR 366)

In Tolkien's world evil is self defeating - perhaps another meaning of the 'Long Defeat' that Galadriel mentions.Not the long defeat of the good, but the long defeat of evil - they fight to hold it in check till it defeats itself. Sauron's defeat is inevitable because of the very nature of evil itself. Because evil is not a co-equal force with good, but a perversion of good, it has no true existence, it is onoly a perversion, & so can only pervert other things - even its own aims, ultimately defeating & destroying itself from within.

The Hobbits are curious to some degree about the world beyond their borders - Sam has heard abouts Oliphaunts. In the poems from the Red Book contained in the Adventures of Tom Bombadil there are accounts of othe lands & races. I think they simply became too inward looking, & caught up in their own affairs, rather than deliberately cutting themselves off, then, eventually, the outside world would come to seem alien to them. But I wouldn't describe them as not being curious - I think they were intensely curious about whatever they felt safe with - the land, plants, animals - woods, fields, little rivers. They preffered order, but not in the way or to the extent that Sauron did. They loved diversity, but struggled with it if they were suddenly confronted with things beyond their experience. I can't see any similarity between Hobbits at their worst, & Sauron, & I can't see that Tolkien wants us to.

As to 'poor Hobbits', well, their society is not perfect. Even within the Shire there is distrust of Hobbits from other areas. We don't know enough about their society or economy. I would speculate that large areas of the Shire were either not owned by anyone or owned in common, so I don't think anyone would have been denied access to natural resources. And if your idea of home is a hole in the ground, all you need is a shovel, & an axe to make yourself a place to live.

And we can't assume that any hobbits would live in a permanent state of poverty.

[Kuruharan]

mark12_30 and davem, to my mind, bring up an interesting point.

Poverty might only be in comparison with the wealthy hobbits. It does not necessarily mean that the poorest hobbits lacked the means of survival. Even if a poor hobbit’s extended family could not be of help, I think that other members of the community would step in to prevent crippling deprivation.

I would speculate that large areas of the Shire were either not owned by anyone or owned in common

I agree that there were likely large areas held in common, but it has always been my notion that the Shire was a fairly well-populated area. I don’t mean to say that I think the hobbits were crowded, but I think that at least most of the farmable areas would have had some form of ownership.

However, I don’t know if there is much to support either view. A glance at the map of the Shire shows that the hobbits were at least spread out over the area, but I suppose that does not necessarily imply that they were thick on the ground everywhere.

[Saraphim]

Define "poorest". To me this conjures up just-a-little-smaller-than Number Three Bagshot Row (See Tolkien's watercolor of The Hill) which has two windows, one door, and a contract with the upscale neighbor for earning bread.

Like you said, Mark12_30. While poor, perhaps, the lower-class hobbits were not badly off. Especially if they had a neighbor such as Bilbo, who well, let's see:

~gave both the Gaffer and Samwise jobs as gardeners, despite his own proclivity to gardening. He could just as well have done it himself. And probably more hobbits too, for cleaning and the like.

~Paid them well

~Question to the rest of you: did Bilbo actually own Bagshot row? If he did, he gave hem free housing. If not... well then disregard this.

~Like it was mentioned earlier, Sam apperantly had free reign where the beer stores were concerned :D

~And Bilbo taught Sam to read and write, something he would not have had the opportunty to do otherwise.

So things can't have been all bad. I simply can't picture a permenently homeless hobbit.

Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence
I'll agree with that as well. It takes a good person (eg. Frodo) to remain uncorrupted for so long, by something that would be so easy to put on.

I have a cheap little copy of the Ring that I always wear around my neck. I constantly have it subconciously on a finger. And it's not even evil and whispering to me.

More on this when we get to the end, but Frodo was indeed, good. As was Bilbo, Boromir and probably Isildur. The Ring, obviously an evil object, corrupted them all.

And look at Smeagol. He was corrupted by the Ring almost before he set eyes on it. I don't think he was a very good person to begin with. This is just my opinion, now. I've got no proof behind it, other than the fact that he was under the influence of the Ring before anyone else was.

But Evil contains the seeds of its own demise. When Sauron made the Ring, he made himself stronger, and capable of controlling others. But he also made something that could be easily lost and destroyed. And, indeed, it was.

If not for the Ring, Sauron may never have been destroyed.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I've a short series of thoughts besides that of the heights of hobbits (although I have indeed thought about the image of a 2 foot hobbit running around the Men in Bree). Of the quotation, all boldings and italics are my own, and I did indeed slice a few words out here and there.

The Authorites... differ whether this last question was a mere 'question' and not a 'riddle'... but all agree that... Gollum was bound by his promise. And Bilbo pressed him to keep his word; for the thought came to him that this slimy creature might prove false, even though such promises were held sacred, and of old all but the wickedest things feared to break them.
Just who were these Authorities, and do they just sit around all day judging the fairness of riddle games? I assume no. For them to know of the true finding of the Ring, Gandalf must have been involved, otherwise The Authorites would be busy discussing the ethics of Bilbo keeping the Ring AND making Gollum show him the way out instead. Who do you think made up this group of Authorities... the White Council?

all but the wickedest things feared to break them
If everybody (excepting those wicked 'uns) feared the reprocussions of said promises, then just what were the punishments given to the oath-breakers of Riddles? They must be pretty harsh for so many people to be afraid to test them.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I wanted to add two brief caveats to this thread: one regarding Hobbit parochialism and the other Hobbit population.

Several writers (including myself!) have commented on the Shire's parochialism, the Hobbit's tendency to look within their own community, to enjoy prosperity and to ignore what was happening outside. The Prologue stresses the peace and prosperity of the Shire before the War of the Ring, yet this was a relatively recent development. As late as 2911, the Shire faced a serious problem with famine, wolf attacks, and frigid weather, an event suggesting that true complacency and prosperity only occurred about 100 years prior to the events of LotR. (Interestingly, Tolkien refers in his prologue to a "long" period of Shire prosperity going back to the Long Winter of 2758, and doesn't mention the major problems of the Fell Winter in 2911 that do appear in his appendix.)

In any case, it's clear the Hobbits hadn't always had the "luxury" of being able to shut out the world. Between 1050 TA and 2340 TA, there were four separate Hobbit migrations, when significant segments of the community packed up everything and moved to find a new home. The prologue and/or appendix mention the Great Plague of 1636, the wars of 1974-75, the Long Winter of 2758, and the Fell Winter of 2911 as other events originating from outside that disturbed the peace of the Shire. The Fell Winter was no easy thing: the Hobbits dealt with famine, wolf attacks, and bitter cold. It is likely that the Rangers helped them turn back the wolves. Bilbo would have been just 21 years old. (What a great RPG that would be!)

So it was only in the past 100 years that the Hobbits forgot about the Rangers and became a sheltered, complacent and parochial people, something of which Gandalf disapproved. The istar's wonderful words in UT say it all about parochialism and hint at an earlier time when this was not the case:

They had begun to forget: forget their own beginnings and legends, forget what little they had known about the greatness of the world. It was not yet gone, but it was getting buried: the memory of the high and perilous.

As far as population goes, my impression is that the Shire was not overcrowded. Fonstad's map in the Middle-earth Atlas shows only a middling density in the middle of the Shire, with sparse population in the outlying area. More importantly, if you look at the historical pattern since settlement in the Shire, you can see that every 300 years or so, something happened that cut down on the population. Look at this pattern, which is reflected in both the prologue and the appendix: 1636 plague; 1974-75 war; blizzard and famine 2758; further blizzard, famine and the attack of wolves, 2911. Michael Martinez has a good essay on this called "Charting the Shire Lines". Click here. (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/50376)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Feanor makes an excellent point; if this book is based on 'historical' accounts that have been written and compiled by 'others', what sorts of biases, limitations, prejudices, blindspots, missing information and outright fabrications do we need to worry about? The issue of the hobbit archers at Fornost has already moved into this territory, but not really resolved it.

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

We've already discovered that the Shire is not the idyllic and faultless land that it first appears to be -- is it possible that the same standards that lead the hobbits to aggrandize and idealise themselves will work later in the book to devalue or misrepresent other peoples or ways of living that are not 'up' to their standards?

[Kuruharan]

Just who were these Authorities

The Authorities are the Valar by another name.

I assume no.

For them to know of the true finding of the Ring, Gandalf must have been involved

While Gandalf was their servant, they did not need him to inform them of anything.

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

Perhaps in a way. However, this does not mean that the text should be treated as biased regarding the events discussed in it (at least as regards the events themselves in the context of the story). In other words, (to borrow an example from later in the story) I mean that we shouldn’t think that Merry did not stab the Witch King just because he was a hobbit and the book was written by hobbits. We should treat that as actually having happened in the story.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

Fordim,

Yes, the Red Book of Westmarch is definitely hobbit-centric. Yet the Hobbits of the Shire were not collectively responsible for the Red Book, rather it is the three individuals who were most closely associated with the matter of the Ring.

In judging the Red Book's narrative and determining whether it is "parochial" and "limited", we have to focus not on the Hobbit community as a whole but on those three individuals who were the primary compilers/editors/writers of this unique document: Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise. The earliest chapters concerning matters of Hobbit culture and history, to which you refer, would indeed have been the responsibility of Bilbo.

Bilbo was cetainly capable of "altering the record" as we see in the chapter Riddles in the Dark that appears in the Hobbit. It is also true that he was "under the influence of the Ring" directly or indirectly when he wrote his portion of the Red Book. Yet, the one thing I would not accuse him of is being "parochial" and "limited". He is the compiler not only of the Red Book, but also of the Silmarillion. His knowledge of Elves, of Elvish culture and language, and hence his exposure to other cultures was second to none in the Shire. In Gandalf's words from UT, it was Bilbo whom the istar chose to break through the parochialism of the Shire and teach them about the wide world that surrounded them. In Gandalf's words....

....you cannot teach that sort of thing to a whole people quickly. There was not time. And anyway you must begin at some point, with some one person. I dare say he was "chosen" and I was only chosen to choose him; but I picked out Bilbo.

I do not think Gandalf was mistaken in his choice of Bilbo to break through the parochialism of the Shire. And as an experienced historian, Bilbo would have been capable of dealing with any bias in the local sources he encountered. That said, we can not expect an Elvish or Mannish viewpoint from either of our three Hobbit narrators. Any more than we could expect a Hobbit viewpoint from an Elf or a Man.

In the writing of history, we are all limited by who we are. Yet that is a different thing than saying that the Redbook may "devalue or misrepresent other peoples or ways of living that are not 'up' to their (i.e. Hobbit) standards." I don't see a consistent pattern of such negative judgements in the latter pages of the book.

In my opinion, the three Hobbits responsible for the Redbook -- Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise -- as well as their two companions from Buckland and Tukborough--show a refreshing attitude towards many of the new cultures that they encounter in their journeys. I would not accuse them of parochialism, although their understanding on many points is necessarily limited by the bounds of their expeience.

Strange to say....the same thing that seems to bother you about the book, its Hobbit-centric narration, is one of the principal things that brings delight to me.

Are we straying too far from the prologue itself?

[Carnimírië]

I've been reading the discussions that took place prior to the initiation of this read-through, and after seeing again and again (and again and again and again) that it's ok for newbies to join in the discussion, here I go...

This book is largely concerned with hobbits, and from it's pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history.
How's that for a succinct summary of The Lord of the Rings?

The first time I read LotR the paragraph describing Hobbits, how they like good tilled earth, don't practice magic, etc. made me feel as if I had known about them all my life, and made me tremendously curious to read the entire book. I haven't skipped the Prologue (or the Forword, or even the Note on the Text :D ) in any of my subsequent re-readings, because I think it puts you in the right frame of mind to enter Middle-earth in Chapter 1. It really sets up LotR as a "history" rather than just a made up story. Hobbit life seems so ideal, living off the land, being in tune with nature, keeping the laws of free will, just peacefully going about their lives and minding their own business.

There's also quite a bit of humor in the prologue, I missed most of it the first time around, but picked up on it later on. I'm not exactly sure why, but the phrase "Hobbitry-in-arms" cracks me up! Maybe it's the mental image... :D Also this:
The Bree-hobbits claim to have been the first actual smokers of the pipe-weed. They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as "colonists"; but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.

I was really glad that an abbreviated version of the finding of the Ring was included, because I hadn't read The Hobbit when I first read LotR. Reading The Hobbit for the first time was a real eye-opener...

~Carnie~

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Child, you wrote

Strange to say....the same thing that seems to bother you about the book, its Hobbit-centric narration, is one of the principal things that brings delight to me

As it happens the hobbit-centric narration is the most delightful aspect of the book for me as well. It's the tone that Tolkien strikes in the Prologue that makes LotR so readable when compared to The Sil; the tales there are, well, let's just say for the sake of peace in the thread, badly in need of a hobbit perspective. . .

I'm not exactly bothered by the hobbit-centrism, just intrigued by it. I don't mean to question the veracity of the tale, or the good intentions of its 'authors' -- it's just that the Prologue gives us an invaluable opportunity to assess the world-view of those narrators. It gives us a chance to see what kinds of things hobbits find important, and to reflect on how that will effect the telling of the story.

For example, would an Elvish narrator have said much about Bilbo's birthday party? Or described in such loving detail the first journeys through the Shire? Or Farmer Maggot? (But I get ahead of myself.) I don't think so. A Man would not have given much attention to the Scouring of the Shire -- but since our 'authors/historians' are hobbits, the realtively 'small' battle is given equal attention in the text as is the battle of the Pelennor (but now I really am getting far to far ahead of myself. . .!)

To be brief: whatever we come to say about hobbits based on this reading of the Prologue will have to be taken into account in the later chapters as we read through those events, since those events are being reflected through a very specific lens (which we are invited at this stage to examine).

[the phantom]

They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire...but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.
Ah, a second instance in the prologue that hints at hobbits lying about things. I was sort of joking the first time I talked about hobbits being a bunch of liars, but maybe they really are.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

It does seem like the hobbits lie a bit, or at least it is alluded to them not being all together honest, but the difference between hobbit-lies and lies of say, the Enemy, are that hobbit-lies are not malicious in nature. And to steal Nuru's quote:

the intent and use of these... make these same qualities good, while it is the opposite for Sauron.
Bad guys are decietful for their own gain, and nothing else. They don't care who gets hurt, but with hobbits, they might exaggerate the truth a bit, or tweak it a bit, but it's nothing that will do lasting harm. What is the worse lie? "I am your friend, Men of Numenor. Heed my kindly words of wisdom." or "Yep, we were the first to smoke the good stuff."

[Firefoot]

The Bree-hobbits claim to have been the first actual smokers of the pipe-weed. The claim, of course, to have done everything beore the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as "colonists"; but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true. By the general tone of this section of the prologue, I do not get the impression of hobbits being liars. It has always seemed to me that hobbits from Bree and the Shire have a sort of friendly "competition". Here you see the Bree-landers refer to the Shire hobbits as "colonists" and yet in "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony" Shire folk refer to Bree hobbits as "outsiders". Then there is the "Sure as Shire-talk" and "News from Bree" quote, which I can't seem to find. Being that this particular information is (supposedly) being presented by Merry, it seems to me that rather than accusing them of being liars, per se, he is boosting up the Shire hobbits (Bree hobbits claim to have done everything before Shire hobbits) at the same time as giving credibility to the Bree hobbits for the smoking of pipe-weed.

And maybe this is just because I have a problem with lying hobbits... ;)

[Son of Númenor]

I don't understand why everyone is talking about hobbits being liars. Can anyone find an example (besides Bilbo's lie about Gollum giving him the Ring as a present, which was mostly because of the nature of the Ring) of a hobbit telling a lie? The examples of Shire-folk being the first to smoke pipeweed and hobbits bowmen aiding Arnorn from the prologue are things that are maintained in hobbit lore, but that is probably just because they are stories that have been passed down from generation to generation; and whether there is truth in them or not, I doubt the hobbits intentionally lied.

Edit: I cross-posted with Firefoot (who made some excellent points ;) ).

[Child of the 7th Age]

Son of Numenor -


I don't understand why everyone is talking about hobbits being liars. Can anyone find an example (besides Bilbo's lie about Gollum giving him the Ring as a present, which was mostly because of the nature of the Ring) of a hobbit telling a lie?

I agree. That Hobbits exaggerate or stories get reshaped in the telling I do not doubt. But that is a long way from what I would term a real "lie" -- the conscious fashioning of an untrue story to achieve a particular end, usually for individual or group self promotion.

There are several points in Tolkien's writings that suggest conscious lies were far from the norm. Why would Tolkien make such a "big deal" about Bilbo's alteration of his story on how he got the Ring if telling lies was a normal feature of Hobbit life? The very fact that this was chosen as an example of the power of the Ring, that a Hobbit would lie and alter a story under the influence of a powerful talisman of evil, suggests the opposite to be true: such behavior, that of conscious lying, was not regarded as normal.

Secondly, if we accept Tolkien at face value, then Bilbo was the author of the early part of the Red Book including the reference to Hobbit Bowmen. The prologue does give the impression of being Tolkien's personal introduction to the Red Book. But, even so, Tolkien would have had to get the data from Bilbo, since he does not claim to have other sources. Given this context, it is quite extraordinary that Bilbo would have included a detail that the presence of the Hobbit archers was not corroborated by any of the Big Folk. If anything, it would seem to indicate that Bilbo was being scrupulously honest as an author by telling his readers that, although he has heard this tale, it can not be verified in any other way.

Thirdly, just look at the tale of the Scouring of the Shire. What was the chief "sin" of Ferny and his men? One could well argue that their most blatant shortcoming was that they were bald faced "liars". Whatever words the outsiders used, they twisted the meaning of these in clever ways. Thus, they came up with a long list of "Rules" supposedly for the Hobbits' benefit, when their real intention was to haul off all the goodies. Why portray the "bad guys" as lying if this same behavior is part of the normal culture of the Shire? It doesn't make sense.

**************************

In regard to Hobbit "poverty"..... There is no doubt that the Shire was a stratified society, just as was true of rural Edwardian and Victorian England. Wealth was presumably based on land, which some folk had and others didn't.

Yet, the writings give no hint of anything equivalent to Dickens: terrible abuses, children going hungry, and people turning to criminal behavior because they had no option. The only indication of this type of discord is in the period prior to the Scouring when Saruman and Ferny and their types took things over and hauled off the harvest so the hobbits were left with very little. The only other examples of such hardship that I can think of were the Long Winter and, by implication, the Fell Winter when the harvests totally failed.

What we do have is several indications that the Hobbits as a whole were fairly generous. Bilbo's treatment of Samwise has already been cited. There is also a telling statement by Gandalf in regard to the Shire that occurs in UT, which indicates Hobbits had a gift for sharing things with each other:

And then there was the Shire-folk. I began to have a warm place in my heart for them in the Long Winter, which none of you can remember. They were very hard put to it then: one of the worst pinches they have been in, dying of cold and cold, and starving in the dreadful dearth that followed. But that was the time to see their courage, and their pity, one for another. It was by their pity as much as by their tough uncomplaining courage that they survived.

If Hobbits were this generous at a time they were starving, they would surely have attempted to make sure everyone had at least the minimum to get by in better times.

Is such an idealized picture of a rural society 'realistic'? To be truthful, no, at least in terms of the world that I live in. As a historian, I can cite examples of real hardship resulting from the inequitable distribution of wealth in the very period which Tolkien loosely uses as his model for the Shire. And I have played in a few Middle-earth RPGs where questions of poverty and injustice are investigated even in the so-called 'good' Shire.

But, if I confine myself to Tolkien's writings alone -- not "real life" or my own fanciful flights of imagination -- then I have to admit that, while I see differences in social classes, possessions, and amount of land held, I have no hint of real hardship except in those rare instances of famine caused by natural disaster.

~Child, "Defender of the Hobbits" :D

[Bêthberry]

A rather late and incomplete response to this general question of whether Hobbit archers did or did not attend a certain battle.

Whenver I read this, I think automatically about the contribution which Canadian soldiers made on the D-Day, June 6th assault on the beaches of Nazi-held France. Yes, yes, indeed. The Canadians had their own beach, Juno beach. But you know what? That wasn't as big a newstory as the beaches taken by the Brits or the Yanks, where the 'really big shews were' to paraphrase Ed Sullivan.

I cannot tell you the numer of times that I have read newspaper or magazine reports of D-Day which refer solely to the British and American efforts. Small little unimportant Canada doesn't get a mention. I recall particularly an essay in a Norton Anthology of Essays about D-Day. A footnote commemorated the American and British efforts, without a word about the Canadian troups at Juno. (Let alone the various other battles such as at Caen which the Canucks won. Or the fact that, in World War I, it was a major Canadian offensive which began the last Hundred Days' battle which finally ended that war. Or Ypres.)

My point, other than personal jingoism? That history is written by the victors and their successors and when circumstances change, the successors may not necessarily bother with what really happened but might be more concerned with the alliances and allies and rapprochments of the current age in which they live.

Why did the annals of the Men make no mention of the Hobbits? Oh, I bet they were there alright. At the battle. But maybe memory of them faded as contact dwindled or their importance to Men lessened as Men regain their strength. Like the contributions of women throughout history, that of the hobbits became invisible. (oh, the irony here. ;)) And good empiricists simply shrug that the evidence is not as fullsome as they would like.

[the phantom]

a real "lie" -- the conscious fashioning of an untrue story to achieve a particular end, usually for individual or group self promotion
The lies that the hobbits are possibly telling seem to be all about self promotion. Saying they sent archers to help the good guys makes them look better as does claiming to be the first to discover or do something. Here are some more definitions-
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression.

Either Bree discovered things first or the Shire did. Whoever didn't but said they did is doing exactly what the definitions above state.

And if they didn't really send archers then someone (likely several someones) definitely lied big time.

The problem is most people have this messed up opinion about what a lie is. It's like they think lies have to be malicious or something. Well, they don't. If I meet some girl and in order to impress her I tell her some stories about things I've done but exaggerate a bit and make myself look better, that's lying just as much as a murderer denying he murdered someone and inventing an alibi.

I'm not trying to say hobbits are evil, merely that they don't always stick to the truth.

Now I don't want to get ahead here, but just wait until the next couple chapters. Remember when Bilbo is giving away presents and moving out of Bag End? I recall that Merry was kept very busy trying to stop hobbits from stealing things, buying things that weren't for sale, and knocking holes in the walls.

What a bunch of criminals! :D

[Child of the 7th Age]

Phantom,

Well, what can I say? I never claimed Hobbits were perfect (nor did Tolkien)! In fact, he once explicitly denied this in his Letters. Since objects seem to change hands frequently in the Shire, one mathom here or there doesn't seem to make a difference! :) I say this only half in jest, since objects seemed to change hands regularly in the Shire between people of all stations in life.

Moreover, the "mayhem" you refer to was not the result of some diabolical plot or series of lies, but the natural outgrowth of the Hobbits' generous custom of giving away things to people on their own birthday coupled with their own attachment to their possessions. One gets the sense that Bilbo could be incredibly generous but still had a minor streak of possessiveness even before the Ring. He was probably not unique in this regard. Tolkien stood back with a gentle smile on his face, viewing the disorder and the pranks of the children, human/hobbit foibles that he could surely understand. This is intended to be funny, precisely because it was not the kind of raid, pillage, and lies that appear later in the book. This is a difference that Tolkien assumed his reader would share in the humor and understand.

Now, on that question Guinevere raised earlier on the thread concerning the Hobbits in the modern world.... I can't say where they are in 2004, but there is an interesting hint in a treatise written by Michael Aislabie Denham between 1846 and 1859 entitled "When the Whole Earth was Overrun with Ghosts". Look at the second paragraph from the bottom, nine lines up, and you will see a clear reference to "hobbits" who, according to the author, lived seventy or eight years before, which would date them as late as 1780.

Click here. (http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/bump.html)

I seriously wonder whether JRRT ever read this and it sank into a dark corner of his head, later retrieved when he was writing those exam papers.

*************

Fordim -

I certainly concur that because LotR has "hobbit" narrators we are given a certain viewpoint, and that it's interesting to consider how that viewpoint influenced the narrative as we discuss the chapters. In the Silm we also have a unique view--that of the Elves,-- since Bilbo apparently did a job of simple compilation rather than reconstructing the entire narrative. Both books are "limited" as well as enriched by their unique perspective.

Rather, my differences come in the other issue you raise: to what extent is the hobbit view specifically provided by Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise marked by a parochial outlook, implicit acceptance of lies, and a possible tendency to look down their noses at other cultures. I don't see it. This seems to me to be the opposite of what Tolkien was trying to get across.

[davem]

From the '37 Hobbit:

But funnily enough he need not have been alarmed. for one thing Gollum had learned long long ago was never, never, to cheat at the riddle-game, which is a sacred one & of immense antiquity. Also there was the sword. He simply sat & whispered.

‘What about the present?’ asked Bilbo, not that he cared very much, still he felt that he had won it, pretty fairly, & in very difficult circumstances too.

‘Must we give it the thing, preciouss? Yess, we must!. we must fetch it, preciouss, & give it the present we promised.’ So Gollum paddled back to his boat, & Bilbo thought he had heard the last of him. but he had not. The hobbit was just thinking of going back up the passage - having had quite enough of Gollum & the dark water’s edge - when he heard him wailing & squeaking away in the gloom...

Bilbo turned round & waited, wondering what it could be that the creature was making such a fuss about. This proved very fortunate afterwards. For Gollum came back & made a tremendous spluttering & whispering & croaking; & in the end Bilbo gathered that Gollum had had a ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages & ages before in old days when such rings were less uncommon...


I don’t know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo’s pardoned. He kept on saying: ‘We are ssorry; we didn’t mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only present, if it won the competition.’ He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation...

‘Finding’s keeping!’ he said to himself; & being in a very tight place, I daresay, he was right. Anyway the ring belonged to him now.

‘Never mind!’ he said, ‘The ring would have been mine now, if you had found it; so you would have lost it anyway. And I will let you off on one condition.’

‘Yes, what iss it? What does it wish us to do, my preciouss?’

Help me to get out of these places,’ said Bilbo.

Now Gollum had to agree to this, if he was not to cheat.

Unfortunately, for copyright reasons I can't quote the whole thing. It is included in the Annotated Hobbit, but those are the most important sections. Whether we consider Bilbo's original account as constituting a 'lie' is down to the individual.

Its interesting that he would claim that magic rings were once 'less uncommon', & expected his readers (& Gandalf) to believe that at one time they were actually so common that even Hobbits would give them to each other as birthday presents! Did he expect his readers to believe that there was once a time when individuals in possesion of magic rings were appearing & disappearing at will?


..

[mark12_30]

Bethberry wrote:Why did the annals of the Men make no mention of the Hobbits? Oh, I bet they were there alright. At the battle. But maybe memory of them faded as contact dwindled or their importance to Men lessened as Men regain their strength. Like the contributions of women throughout history, that of the hobbits became invisible. (oh, the irony here. ) And good empiricists simply shrug that the evidence is not as fullsome as they would like.

All this is true; and another point is this: Archers are not in general big-ticket items. We're all very fond of Legolas, and proud of his skill, but archers normally are not the focal point of the battle. Generals, sword-wielders, axe-weilders get all the glory. Eowyn wouldn't have gotten nearly as much glory if she had slain the Witch-King with an arrow from a battlement.

Archery is important, but not glamorous. I don't wonder that archers were forgotten. Especially little archers, probably dressed in green.

[Kuruharan]

All this is true; and another point is this: Archers are not in general big-ticket items.

This is a possible explanation of why the hobbits may have been overlooked in the records of the big folk. Whether or not archery is considered to be of great importance depends on the culture. However, this makes it a little complicated.

The Dunadan were famous in the golden days of yore for their steelbows. To anticipate matters somewhat, the Gondorians were willing to rely heavily on the bow in their warfare in Ithilien, and certain areas of Gondor seemed to be famous for their bowmen. It is hard to make a comparison of the attitudes of the Arnorians regarding the bow since their society had sort of ceased to exist.

Whether hobbit bows would have been much use against armored enemies might be a matter for wild and unfounded speculation (particularly if the hobbits were only two feet tall ;)).

Especially little archers, probably dressed in green.

I think this is the key to the explanation. There were probably only a comparitive few hobbit archers present and they may have been of very limited use (if any at all). People there at the time may have forgotten that the hobbits were present.

[Bêthberry]

Little green men, Helen! :D Trust our balroggie fan girl to come up with a hotness rating for weapons. ;)

I think there was one battle in Britiannia's past that was determined by the long bow, no? I could be mistaken.

There are a couple of questions about "this very specific lens" which has not yet been considered. When was it written or added to the typescript? Before "The Long Expected Party" or after the book proper was completed?

I can understand how the Appendices came about. I wonder what urges prompted Tolkien to offer a short history of Hobbits as a prologue to the story. What was to be gained? Why not just let Bilbo's party speak for Hobbits?

Or was it necessary to prepare the 'fiction' that this is recorded history, recorded by representatives of a group of people who did not write histories and in conjunction with other peoples who did? And necessary to recap The Hobbit?

[Child of the 7th Age]

When was it written or added to the typescript?

Bethberry,

This is the question I raised in an earlier post that no one picked up on: when were the different sections of the prologue written?

The only one I can find evidence for in HoMe is section i which was written at the point in the narrative when the Hobbits were reaching Bree. At that point Tolkien actually yanked things out of chapters already written. This suggests that the entire prologue was a later addition.

Another reason for raising this question is that there is at least one inconsistency in the prologue with other things in the book (possiubly more?). Tolkien refers in the prologue to a long period of prosperity in the Shire that he says goes back to the Long Winter. Yet, this conflicts with evidence in the Appendix: just 100 years before when Bilbo was a young Hobbit there had been the Fell Winter when wolves invaded the Shire and there was bitter cold. That was not too very long ago. Why was this not mentioned in the prologue?

Can anyone find any other information on the dating of the prologue?

[Mister Underhill]

HoME XII is the relevant reference. The earliest form of the Prologue, then titled "Foreword: Concerning Hobbits", dates from 1938-9 (this version is printed in HoME VI). Much new material was added to wind up with the Prologue as it now stands, but a glancing history of the text indicates that it was developed concordantly with the rest of the book. For instance, "Concerning Pipeweed" began as "a lecture on the subject by Merry to Théoden at the ruined gates of Isengard".

[Bêthberry]

Thanks Child and Mr. Underhill for your comments. Sorry that I had missed your earlier query, Child. I am rushed these days. I have only three volumes of HoME. They cost, in paperback, $25 here. :eek:

So, the Prologue was written concurrently and finalised after the book was finished. Likely then it became an apparatus like the Appendices to establish the fiction of recorded history and to incorporate material which Tolkien felt would ruin or disrupt the pattern of the narrative. He had so much to juggle!

[Son of Númenor]

Why did the annals of the Men make no mention of the Hobbits? Oh, I bet they were there alright. At the battle. But maybe memory of them faded as contact dwindled or their importance to Men lessened as Men regain their strength.This is just a quick addendum to what Bêthberry and others have said concerning possible reasons why hobbit bowmen (bowhobbits?) at Fornost were not remembered in the annals of Men. A major fact to consider is that the battle against the Witch-King in Fornost was the battle that brought an end to the North Kingdom. When a kingdom is vanquished like Arnor was, it is not surprising that detailed records are not kept by those defeated, of the battle which caused the defeat. It would have been easy to overlook a few short archers when finally a written account of the battle was produced who knows how many months or years later.

[Carnimírië]

Hmmm, I wonder why the Prologue could not have just been part of the Appendices? It's written in much the same style as the appendices, and like them it deals with the nitty-gritty history of certain aspects of Middle-earth. I'm sure that sounds heretical, but there must be a logical reason that escapes the scope of my simple mind...

Oh my, I knew that in the old version of The Hobbit Gollum led Bilbo out of the cave, but I had never read it. Thanks for posting that, davem!
I don’t know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo’s pardoned. He kept on saying: ‘We are ssorry; we didn’t mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only present, if it won the competition.’ He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation...
Very amusing, but I'm sure I like the revised version better.



~Carnimírië, she of the red jewels~

[Mister Underhill]

Christopher Tolkien's analysis indicates a very fluid development within the various relevant texts. Material would be yanked out of a chapter where it was presumably disrupting the flow and moved to the Prologue. An inspiration in the drafting of the Prologue would lead to alterations in the story proper. An idea that popped up in the Appendices would then propagate back through the story and the Prologue. And so on. Lots of revising and rewriting and conforming one new draft to another. Typical Tolkien. :)

Looking at the Prologue from a more "meta" point of view, it's a bold and fascinating authorial choice. Part of Middle-earth's enduring appeal lies in its verisimilitude -- its quality of seeming to be real or true. I think it's interesting that Tolkien foresaw the usefulness of a Prologue to set the stage from very early on.

This lengthy chunk of exposition has the effect of establishing a tone of historical authenticity. It's a way of telling you, "This all really happened." The flavor of it matches the tone of prologues found in real history books -- authoritative, meticulous, able to take a somewhat detached, amused view of its subject.

In a very economical way, Tolkien is able to suggest a broad and deep history of Middle-earth, of which the following tale will only examine a relatively small -- though significant -- part. It's a bold move which risks boring the reader before the story has properly begun. Certainly in today's publishing world, where the mantra is "Show Don't Tell", Tolkien would be obliged to battle tooth and nail to open his tale in this way.

P.S. -- Canadians fought in WWII?

P.P.S. -- Cross-posting with Carnimírië (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/member.php?u=3914). Perhaps my musings have somewhat addressed your question.

[galadriel'smaiden]

What I enjoyed about The Prolouge was how Mr. Tolkein described humans. The Big People, we were called. I wondered though if he wrote that part last because the Hobbits were said to be disappearing. Or maybe it was written as if the story had taken place a very long time ago. Yeah, that's it. ...I think. :confused:

[Orofaniel]

Fordim Hedgethistle wrote; We've already discovered that the Shire is not the idyllic and faultless land that it first appears to be

Ouch! I've always thought of the Shire as very idyllic. ;) I mean, compared to now a days and just in general - (at least for "me"). I think it depends on how you see it though. There will always be minor, and big, faults in a society, although some of them may not matter if you see it in the bigger picture. I'm not sure what you exactly you're thinking about when you say this Fordim. Is it about the poverty that has been discussed earlier? Is it about the Hobbit "lies". I use the "-" because I think it's rather funny; Hobbit liars. I don't really see it that way.

Phantom wrote: The problem is most people have this messed up opinion about what a lie is. It's like they think lies have to be malicious or something. Well, they don't. If I meet some girl and in order to impress her I tell her some stories about things I've done but exaggerate a bit and make myself look better, that's lying just as much as a murderer denying he murdered someone and inventing an alibi.

I'm not trying to say hobbits are evil, merely that they don't always stick to the truth.

I have to say that I agree with you at some point. Lies doesn't always have to be malicious, but I'm not very fond of lies even though they may not be malicious, (or used as a "tool" to impress a girl. :p ) But at the same time, you're being honest; we lie all the time, we may be aware of it and we may not. They can be cruel but they can also be harmless. We also use the so called "white lies", that just hides the truth a bit from the open.

I'm convinced ( :smokin: ) that Hobbits aren't evil. Didn't we just say that they wanted peace and quiet? That there never has been a Hobbit who has killed another Hobbit/anyone else (until the sourcing)? I wouldn't say that Hobbits "lies" are malicious. I'd say that Hobbits "tell many things, but not always the whole truth.” That’s different things, but they can be mixed sometimes.

**

Okay, I may have been a bit off topic here. I apologise.

Cheers,
Orofaniel

[Child of the 7th Age]

Carnimírië -

I wonder why the Prologue could not have just been part of the Appendices?

I'm glad you asked that question! It immediately crossed my mind as I was browsing over the recent entries on this thread.

Mr. Underhill -

Thanks so much for those references and for your ideas on why these materials were placed in a prologue. I had read the material in HoMe VI as the basis of my post but wasn't aware of the materials in XII. I do have the volume, but have yet to master the contents of HoMe; the chapter XIII index only shows references for the prologue in VI.

I think your words about authorial choice are key. This would explain the one example I raised. Tolkien omitted reference to the Fell Winter and dated the Shire's peaceful period all the way back to the Long Winter precisely because he wanted to use the prologue to establish the prosperity and complacency of the Shire for a long period---250 years-- prior to the War of the Ring. The Fell Winter that occurred in Bilbo's own lifetime was just too close for that purpose so it remained peacefully 'hidden' in the appendix.

The prologue is similar to the foreward in certain respects. We can clearly hear the author's voice in establishing some basic themes; he carefully picked what he wanted to tell us and relegated other material to the appendices.

Mr. Underdown - I think you are right in saying the prologue was a "risk". One of the most frequent "complaints" about the book, even among those who enjoy it, is that the beginning chapters are too "slow". I have heard this said any number of times. Presumably this complaint about the pacing of the early part of the book also refers to the prologue. In a sense it is the prologue that establishes the tone and pace of the early chapters, Frodo's rootedness in the Shire (which becomes more understandable in light of all this Hobbit information in the prologue) and his delays and excuses to keep from leaving.

My guess is that a modern publisher would have told him that a single foreward is quite enough, and ask him to toss most of the detail back into the appendices, perhaps sparing a point or two with the suggestion that it be tacked onto the foreward.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Orofaniel -- I don't think that the Shire is terribly 'flawed'. I would live there in a second, given the option; but I do think that after a very short while I would begin to go mad looking for the kind of discussion and inquisitiveness that characterises communities like the BD! I would also chafe against the provicialism of the place and await with great joy the arrival of the occaisional visitor from outside for a piece of news. I'm also not so sure I would enjoy the rather strict class system, no matter how benign it might be.

Still, like I said, the Shire is a better place than just about any I can think of in the Primary World and well worth the struggles of those who give so much to protect it, even if their struggles go unnoticed.

Herm -- there's a balace isn't there, in that? The hobbits might be ignored by the other peoples, but the hobbits return the favour. . .

Child -- very interesting point about the apparent discrepancy between the Prologue and appendices regarding the long prosperity, versus the set-backs. Is it possible that the Prologue is giving an overview ("everything was generally pretty good") and the appendices are more particular? I mean, we still refer to post-war North America as enjoying unprecedented prosperity and stability, despite things like the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the recessions of the early 80s and 90s, etc etc

[Firefoot]

I wonder why the Prologue could not have just been part of the Appendices? From Concerning Hobbits:This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history. (...) Many, however, may wish to know more about this remarkable people from the outset, while some may not possess the earlier book. For such readers a few notes on the more important points are here collected from Hobbit-lore, and the first adventure is briefly recalled. So, in short, I think that JRRT's purpose in making this part of the prologue and not the appendices is to give readers a background on hobbits, which I think is especially helpful for some people who, for example, just picked the book up off the shelf randomly. For people who are familiar with the books, the information would be just as helpful/interesting in the appendices, but I think that Tolkien wanted to give people some background so that they wouldn't be completely confused (especially, as he points out, for people who have not read The Hobbit). I know for a fact, however, that one of my friends skipped the prologue and then went back to read it after finishing the book, and found it much more interesting because she had a better idea of what it was talking about.

[Saraphim]

Perhaps it isn't that hobbits are innately liars or truthful, it is just as I said earlier. That hobbits are like humans in all but size. Humans lie, some more than others.

If I had been in Bilbo's place, I would have probably lied about the Ring when I was first questioned. That doesn't mean that I am a pathological liar, any more than it makes Bilbo or any other hobbit.

If they did indeed send archers, perhaps they were, like mentioned before, simply overlooked.

If they did not, well then, they were lying. But this doesn't make the Shire full of thieves and liars. It makes whoever wrote the book or spread the rumor a liar, or perhaps he just had bad information. Maybe the troop of archers got halfway and chickened out, or got killed, or just came back and never told anyone.

[Orofaniel]

Orofaniel -- I don't think that the Shire is terribly 'flawed'. I would live there in a second, given the option; but I do think that after a very short while I would begin to go mad looking for the kind of discussion and inquisitiveness that characterises communities like the BD! I would also chafe against the provicialism of the place and await with great joy the arrival of the occaisional visitor from outside for a piece of news. I'm also not so sure I would enjoy the rather strict class system, no matter how benign it might be.
.

If you lived in the Shire in the first place, and didn't have any other "home", then I have difficulties understanding why you'd go mad. But if you, as a human of today, lived in the Shire, I can see what you mean. I think that's the human nature; to long for an idyllic place, and then afterwards, maybe, flee from it as you seek something more. I don't think you'll only find that in the fictional world; but also in the real world. I wonder how many times I've been looking for something I feel is missing in my everyday life. Not only that but also have I longed for other people for communication, opinions etc. I’m not sure if my point is getting trough here though, but this is the best way I can explain it.

(I'm way off topic here :( Sorry)

Cheers,
Orofaniel

[Kuruharan]

So, in short, I think that JRRT's purpose in making this part of the prologue and not the appendices is to give readers a background on hobbits, which I think is especially helpful for some people who, for example, just picked the book up off the shelf randomly.

This may just be me, but when I pick a book randomly off the shelf I dive right into part of the story. The introduction and/or prologue are the last places I look.

However, again, that may just be me.

[Boromir88]

Kuruharan,

I myself rarely read the prologue, and yes I typically read the appendices last. I suggested to my nephew who hadn't read the books, but wanted to see the movie, to read the prologue just to get the background of the story. He never heard of LOTR until the movies came out so instead of telling him read the book before you go see the movie just read the prologue, skim through it, and get the plot down before you see the movie. I agree it's really up to the person, whether to read the prologue or not. (My ultimate plan succeeded, I got my nephew reading the books instead of just being a movie person) lol.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I think that's the human nature; to long for an idyllic place, and then afterwards, maybe, flee from it as you seek something more
Aye, but alas 'tis also human nature to see things differently than others. My idyllic place would contain a great many flaws, because as a human, I contain flaws. I would be bored out of my mind in the "perfect world", because not only would there be no trouble for me to get myself into and out of, I would also be forced by the perfection to see more of my own defects. My ideal place would have a few "perfect" parts, and then a few harsher aspects, to present a challenge to myself. And I daresay that even after my idyllic world became, to me, perfect, there would still be others to say "I don't like this particular part of it."

[Mister Underhill]

Feanor, great point. A few lunkheads like Ted Sandyman and greedy busybodies like Lobelia Sackville-Baggins keep things interesting without being really dangerous. You've got to have something to rebel against, even in an idealized society. Otherwise you'll end up bored stiff. I hope Squatter won't mind if I borrow a quote from one of his old posts (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=17207#post17207) (from a thread which, incidentally, is good reading on its own hook):...I'll throw in my lot with the "Shire as an idealised society" thesis: I can't imagine living in, for example, Gondor or Lothlorien; Rohan would be a good place to visit for a couple of years if you like mead-halls, riding competitions and Saxons being Saxons; but the Shire is a comfortable nostalgic fantasy of rural England as it should have been, flawless in its small imperfections.Everybody likes being the mischievous rascal who bucks social conventions -- which is what the heroes of Hobbit-centric stories always turn out to be, to one degree or another. It's an odd but true paradox, I think, that "ideal" includes "conflict" and "challenge".

Kuru and Boromir88 -- different strokes, I guess. I love forewords, prologues, afterwords, footnotes, appendices, what have you. I live for that stuff, especially when it gives a glimpse inside the writing process. Some of my favorite bits from my favorite authors are from fore- or afterwords.

[Kuruharan]

I did not mean to imply that I don't like introductions, appendices, etc. Once I have purchased a book (assuming that the book is worthwhile) I'll read everything in it.

I enjoy the appendices in LOTR almost more than anything because they are so historical (and I do love my history).

It is just that if I am making my first acquaintance with a book (say picked up from the shelf in a bookstore) I'll almost always dive into the middle of the story hoping to find something good. I never read the Intro before I get a book. (This was not how I made my acquaintance with Tolkien, by the way).

Of course, I'm kind of weird because I have been known to read an entire series of books backwards or start in the middle and read to the end and then start at the beginning. This naturally leads to a great amount of confusion about the story.

Perhaps I need to mend my ways. ;)

Anyway,

In a loose comparison between the Shire and our world, it strikes me as odd (sort of) that people can be dissatisfied with an imperfect world and at the same time be dissatisfied with a perfect world. In an imperfect world there is too much suffering and hardship and in a perfect world it is too boring. It sounds like we are doomed to dissatisfaction.

(Let's see if that comment stirs things up a little. ;) )

[Saraphim]

In a loose comparison between the Shire and our world, it strikes me as odd (sort of) that people can be dissatisfied with an imperfect world and at the same time be dissatisfied with a perfect world. In an imperfect world there is too much suffering and hardship and in a perfect world it is too boring. It sounds like we are doomed to dissatisfaction.

I don't think that is quite the case:D. At least, I hope not. Many humans (and hobbits) would prefer excitement at certain times and peace and qiuet at others. It has to do with the stages of one's life, in addition to your upbringing and environment.

Example: Bilbo. He was raised in part by his Took mother and her relations, which gave him a strong desire, and eventually a push, to go on his adventure.

Of course, we can't ignore his Baggins side either, because what does he do every time he has a free moment? He thinks about his armchair in front of a roaring fire, and eggs and bacon.

(Not that I blame him. Cram doesn't sound too appetizing.)

But after he gets back home, he doesn't settle down and try to regain his neighbor's respect. He starts going on long hikes, visiting elves and dwarves and rangers.

He does this because he has had a taste of something more, something different than what he had growing up all his life.

So he's not totally dissatisfied with the Shire, it is just like he said:

"...I am very fond of it, and of all the dear Shire; but I think I need a holiday."

So while comfort is all very good and well in its own way, adventure is a lovely thing too.

[Carnimírië]

On the topic of hobbits being liars, I agree that hobbits are not morally superior to humans, and that they are no more likely to lie than anyone else is. I also remembered that when Frodo dissapeared in the Prancing Pony he lied and said "I haven't dissapeared," then made up somethiong to explain why he suddenly went missing.

Although now I see why the Prologue isn't part of the appendices, it certainly makes more sense when it's read after reading the book. I heard once that maybe Tolkien did it like that so that once you've finished reading LotR you go back to see what was in that Prologue, and thus you're enticed to read the book all over again... :D. That actually did happen to me once.


~Carnie~

[the phantom]

The quest was successful, and the Dragon that guarded the hoard was destroyed. Yet, though before all was won the Battle of Five Armies was fought, and Thorin was slain, and many deeds of renown were done, the matter would scarcely have concerned later history, or earned more than a note in the long annals of the Third Age, but for an 'accident' by the way.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm sure Gandalf doesn't agree. I remember him saying (can't think of where it was right off hand, maybe someplace in UT) that he wanted to get rid of Smaug badly because Sauron could've used the dragon "with terrible effect".

In Appendix A of ROTK Gandalf says-
Yet things might have gone far otherwise and far worse. When you think of the great Battle of the Pelennor, do not forget the battles in Dale and the valor of Durin's folk. Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from victory here only to ruin and ash. But that has been averted because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring in Bree."
According to Gandalf, his meeting with Thorin and the journey to Lonely Mountain that resulted might've stopped the entire Northern section of Middle-Earth from being overrun by evil.

So it seems to me that Thorin's trek and the subsequent death of Smaug definitely concerned later history and was worth more than a note in the annals of the Third Age, in spite of what the text in the Prologue says.

[Kuruharan]

So while comfort is all very good and well in its own way, adventure is a lovely thing too.

It kind of sounds like a “grass is always greener” effect, in a way.

So it seems to me that Thorin's trek and the subsequent death of Smaug definitely concerned later history and was worth more than a note in the annals of the Third Age, in spite of what the text in the Prologue says.

So, now we have the matter of the Long Winter and this as little inconsistencies in the Prologue. I’d speculate that he was trying to emphasize the importance of finding the Ring in comparison to everything else.

We need to start keeping a list.;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

galadriel'smaiden wrote in post # 77.

What I enjoyed about The Prologue was how Mr. Tolkein described humans. The Big People

This has unlocked for me much of what we have come to discuss in this particular thread. The Prologue introduces us to the Hobbits and walks us through their world, their way of existence, their history, their nature and their land. But wit this reference to "us" as 'outsiders' (we are "The Big People" to the Hobbits), he quite cunningly turns the whole thing around on us. We read the Prologue thinking that we are learning about Hobbits, when really what we are learning about is ourselves. The Prologue creates the world of the Hobbits and we enter into that world; at first, it is foreign and other, so we look at it and try to learn about it -- we try to be objective and so see the Hobbits 'as they really are'. But as we go further into this other world/reality it gives us a perspective back onto our own world. The more we learn about the Shire, the more we reflect on how it is and is not like the world we live in -- which gets us thinking about and evaluating our world.

I'm only just now connecting this to Tolkien's elaboration of the idea of "Recovery" from "On Fairy-Stories" when he argues that fantasy is able to re-present the 'real world' to us in such a way that we notice things that we've too long taken for granted.

This is why, I think, the Prologue comes at the beginning. It literally puts us into the right 'frame of mind' by getting us to think about not just the world he's created, but how that world is related to, reflects upon, comments upon our own world. As we learn more and more about Hobbits, and how they are like and unlike us, we learn more and more about ourselves. When the story gets underway, then, we are 'primed' to regard the rest of the world that the Hobbits move through in the same way.

[Gorwingel]

Just going back to the beginning of the Prologue. I just have to say that when I first read the book, the part where he talks about the hobbits being "an unobtrusive people", "more numerous formerly than they are today" struck me because it caused me to question myself (are there really hobbits?), and it also caused me to take this as a more real piece of literature. Now I know hobbits don't exsist, but I was amazed that he was actually writing this from the point of it being truth. I had never really seen anything like this in a fantasy book.

This also can apply to where he talks about the third age being long gone, and the lands of the world being changed. This also reinforces this not being a work of fiction, but more being a history instead. It also again makes you think.

[Fingolfin II]

This is why, I think, the Prologue comes at the beginning. It literally puts us into the right 'frame of mind' by getting us to think about not just the world he's created, but how that world is related to, reflects upon, comments upon our own world.

Interesting thought, Fordim. However, I found when I first read the Prologue I was wondering who 'Merry' and 'Aragorn' were and why they had weird names. In a way, it gives away the plot a bit but it certainly does draw us into the story before we actually start reading it.

On a side note, in the notes it says-

It is not known the day Celeborn finally sought for the Grey Havens, and with him went the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-Earth.

(Forgive me if the quote isn't entirely correct; I don't have the book on me now)

What about Treebeard and Tom Bombadil? Or did Tolkien mean that when he went there were no Elves who lived in the First Age? Or could it be that the answer is that Treebeard and Tom Bombadil passed away (died or left Middle-Earth), since 'a time had come for the decline of all other speaking-peoples in Middle-Earth'? If the first possible is answer is correct, that would mean Glorfindel would have had to have left Middle-Earth, assuming he is the same Glorfindel of Gondolin, which I won't touch on as it isn't relevant. Your thoughts?

[Gorwingel]

Fingolfin that is an interesting observance

I know that he means that there was no longer in Middle Earth any elves from the first age when Celeborn left. But, yes, what about Treebeard and Tom?
Maybe this relates to the elves really being the only recorders who recorded what was going on all over Middle Earth in the first age. Treebeard and Tom never really wrote anything down, they were really only concered about what was going on directly around them, and I think that they wouldn't really care to ever write anything down. I highly doubt that they died. Especially because I don't exactly see how Tom in particular could die? Treebeard, yeah, probably has more of a chance because he actually ages. But Tom, does he even age?

[Fingolfin II]

But Tom, does he even age?

Probably not. The Istari, who are also Ainur, aged with the burden of their labours in the form of old men, but we know Tom isn't one of the Istari. As to the aging of immortals, I can't really answer, but it is interesting what Tolkien meant by that comment about Celeborn.

[davem]

There are some interesting points made by Christopher Garbowski as regards the socieites of Middle Earth:

In the Hobbit, along with its residents, Tolkien discovered the Shire, the almost archetypal small homeland, a geographical unit that adorns the entire Middle Earth of the thrid Age from the Grey Havens to Fangorn Forest & beyond. The geographical distances may be reminiscent of Europe ... but the social geography is based on what the Germans call Heimat ... Large as the Kingdom of Gondor is, it actually constitutes a federation of small states rather than a uniform one. The only large state can be said to be Mordor, which is centralistic to say the least ... Milosz writes that 'in comparison with the state, the homeland is organic, rooted in the past, always small, it warms the heart, it is as close as one's own body' ...Different homelands introduce genuine diversity, while the large state, whether benign or threatening, imposes uniformity....

Not that the small homeland is without faults. A well known example is the all too familiar division of orbis-interior/orbis-exterior, where those who are from outside the community are frequently the unwanted other, to be treated with suspicion ... Even within the Shire there is a mistrust of citizens from far flung parts; Breelanders consider hobbits from Hobbiton strange & vice versa ... Much of the conflict between Elves & Dwarves can be considered along this orbis-interior/orbis-exterior fault line.

A journey develops, or at least requires, openness & brings withit the risk of change ... The journey (in LotR) often leads from one small homeland to another. The heimats of the other are the repositories of values that often challenge cherished beliefs of the traveller, & lead to an awareness unavailable from the limited perspective of home ... Dialogue is infact a precondition for the survival of the free peoples who must overcome their isolation if they are to adequately deal with the danger facing them. (quoted in Rosebury 'Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon')

So, we have Tolkien offering us a vision of a world of smal, effectively self contained communities, which all the samemust interact with each other if they are to survive. So he seems to be condemning the attitude of the Shire Hobbits, not because they have a self contained, self supporting, society, a 'heimat' - which is good, but because they have shunned all interaction with 'outsiders'. 'United (as a collection of small, autonomous, communities) we stand. Divided (cut off from other 'heimats', letting them go hang) we fall.

This, as Rosebury points out, reflects Tolkien's political stance - 'anarchism'. The nation state (even if 'benevolent') threatens, & will ultimately destroy, the Heimat - 'the homeland (which) is organic, rooted in the past, always small, it warms the heart, it is as close as one's own body'. Its summed up, perhaps, in Merrry & Pippin's conversation in the Houses of Healing:

'Dear me! We Tooks & Brandybucks, we can't live long on the heights.'

'No,' said Merry. 'I can't at any rate. But at least, Pippin, we can now see them, & honour them. It is vest to love first what you are fitted to love, I suppose: you must start somewhere & have some roots, & the soil of the Shire is deep. Still there are things deeper & higher, & not a gaffer could tend his garden in what he calls peace but for them, whether he knows about them or not. I am glad thatt I know about them, a little.'

The end of the book seems to present us with the ideal - the Shire is not cut off totally - the hobbits have been brought into the world, played a part, & are acknowledged by the Great, yet the Heimat remains.

[HerenIstarion]

Prologue

…My dear Bagginses and Boffins, and my dear Tooks and Brandybucks, and Grubbs, and Chubbs, and Burrowses, and Hornblowers, and Bolgers, Bracegirdles, Goodbodies, Brockhouses and Proudfoots…

And I hope I’m not too late, as week dedicated to each part is nearly over…

Nonetheless…

Having in mind lot of what preceeding posts are concerned with, I’d dare your scorn and say that this particluar discussion is mostly engaged in details, and leaves the thing and the whole of the thing aside. And he who breaks the thing to find… well, you know what said 'he' is up to. After all, what is the prologue about? True, we have author’s statement that it is ‘mostly about hobbits’, but should we take such statements at their face value? I believe not, and I’ll be explaining why in a short while

Any time I reread the prologue (as I’ve done it yesterday, what with it being Sunday and blessed day for one’s freelance activities, reading included), three things inevitably pop up to mind.

1. It includes a mighty load of things not essential to the plot whatsoever
2. Things it concerns (i.e., hobbits and their habitat) feel essentially English
3. Such a prologue is unprecedented to my reading memory

One at time than.

Entry #1: I can’t help remembering A.P.Chekhov, Russian playwright with his saying: “if there is a rifle on the wall in act 1, it should be firing off at least in act 3”. And all the books I’ve read usually follow this scheme up neatly. I.e., there usually are no unneeded things. Tolkien, even apart from prologue, which is the treasury of such 'things unrequired for the development of the plot', is placing them here an there (wait till wer reach Bombadil, heh!). Tolkien is hinting to older history of the world he brings us into, and does that not only via ancient and neatly worked out names (which feel solid even for the unconscious), old legends and bits of untranlsated poetry, but by means of those unrequired things, those Hornblowers and Bracegirdles, which are completely unneeded, but form a background, some feeling on the border of one’s consicousness, that there is more to it than the plot we are about to read, that plot is just a tiny friction of the whole world. All of that is forming first in the prologue, where the walls are covered up in rifles and guns of all sorts, which, apart from firing, never make later appearence at all!


Entry #2: I haven’t been to England ever. (To be honest, most westward of my journeys took me as far as Poland). So, the mental image I’ve got of England must be blurred and improper. But what strikes me right away, is how much English Shire feels. Apart from chronology, and Marcho-Blanco/Hengist-Horsa connotations indicated by Squatter, there is a feel of England in there (even for a man, (or especially for a man?) who’s mental image is formed by Donald Bisset, Edward Lear, Arthut Conan Doil ,Alan Alexander Miln and their set). And hobbits feel modern, too, quite apart frome the rest of the book, where guys in armour wonder about with great swords and do ‘deeds’. They are spatially and temporary out of place. Deliberate anachronisms, I daresay, what with all their 'waistkins', pipeweed, five'o'clocks and nearly modern social system. Now that is done on purpose, I believe, and strongly on purpose. Tolkien revealed part of his mind in his “On Fairy Stories” essey:

Stories that are actually concerned primarily with “fairies,” that is with creatures that might also in modern English be called “elves,” are relatively rare, and as a rule not very interesting. Most good “fairy-stories” are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches.

(emphasis Tolkien’s)

Now that is very true. But the truth can be extended to include humans that are alienated from us by depths of time. I believe that ‘modern’ and ‘English’ hobbits are necessary as conductors, as bridge to cover the gap between us with our ‘democracy’ and ethical code down to chaps with swords doing deeds. Those latter would seem strange and alien, if not for hobbits connecting us with them, who, by and by growing (but that happens later on), show that values of ‘deeders’ are not very far from our own, that we, after all, are of the same world, makes us feel for them by comparison.

And now I’m smoothly on my Entry #3. Such a lengthy, maybe even boring (to some) prologue is there for that purpose. It hammers into reader's head the sense of ‘reality’ of the world to be opened up, besides that of ‘modernity’ and Englishness of the heroes to be, sets a stage for us to feel for heroes, not to look at the whole thing as another peculiar and antique thing, to make it ours.

And that’s about the shape of it.

cheers :)

[The Saucepan Man]

Gadzooks! Who would have thought that so much could be written about the Prologue over such a short space of time, and still remain so pertinent and interesting. Kudos to all those posting. There are some fascinating points made here.

I’m playing catch-up again so, as is my wont, I’m just going to go ahead and post my thoughts on reading the Prologue (most of which have already been noted by others to some degree) and then pick up on one or two points made by others. As always, apologies for the length.

I love the way that the Prologue is so Hobbit-centric (to borrow Fordim’s phrase), largely because I love Hobbits. And it makes sense that it should be, given that LotR was written (originally at least) as a sequel to The Hobbit in response to calls from readers to learn more about Hobbits. Here, before the story has even begun, Tolkien is satisfying that demand from his existing readers.

The question of why not include this information in the Appendices was raised and has, I think, been well answered by Mr Underhill, Firefoot and Fordim, among others. I agree with the point that, like the First Forword, it draws us into the story by seeking to persuade us of the “fiction” that this all really happened and was compiled by the Hobbits in the Red Book of Westmarch. But what really struck me, on reading the Prologue, was the way in which it establishes an understanding of the nature of the characters that are to be central to the story. By doing so, Tolkien helps us identify with them and ensures that we are not surprised when they behave as they do in the story. This process manifests itself in a number of ways in the Prologue.

First and foremost, Hobbits are established as likeable characters. They are described as a merry folk, good-natured and hospitable, who dress in bright colours, have mouths apt to laughter, delight in parties and are fond of simple jests. As Bêthberry says, they appreciate leisure. Yes, they have their vices, such as drinking, smoking and eating a lot, but these are themselves endearing (at least to me, as someone who indulges all three – perhaps that’s why I like Hobbits so much :smokin: ). And their less endearing flaws (their parochialism and isolationism are mentioned here frequently) are not played up in the Prologue, or at least not in such a way as to cancel out the positive qualities with which we are presented. In short, given the way that Hobbits are presented to us here, how could we not fail to like them and look forward to hearing more about their adventures?

The Prologue also helps us, the readers, to identify with these charming folk, from whom the central characters of the story are drawn. Even though Hobbits are described as being scared of the Big Folk, they are nevertheless identified as being closer to us than Elves or Dwarves. They are “normal” (and therefore not flawless, as has been noted), certainly moreso than the likes of the noble Aragorn and the lofty Elves, much as we may admire their qualities. And, in being described as such right at the outset, the Hobbit characters collectively become the “everyman” with whom the reader can closely identify in this enchanting, but often frightening, world. This sense is, I think, heightened by the fact that their society and way of living seems anachronistic in comparison with the rest of Middle-earth, as HerenIstarion noted.

Others too have touched on this point in their posts. Davem said:


I do think its interesting the way Tolkien wishes to deny any speculation about 'magic' as regards Hobbits. Maybe he feels that the reader may form the impression that they are supernatural creatures (HOBgoblins, HOBthrusts, HOBhounds - all supernatural creatures from folklore), so he's attempting to disabuse us of the idea, & emphasise their ordinaryness - they're 'relatives of ours'. To which mark12_30 interestingly replied:


I had often thought his insistence a little odd, but considered this way it's quite comforting. Child said:


There is something no one else has mentioned on reading the prologue: how familiar and comfortable the Hobbits feel. I am certainly not the first reader to see this, but every time I read the prologue it strikes me. While the Hobbit perspective is not identical to my own, it's enough alike that I can identify with many of their desires and their shortcomings. And Fordim, in musing upon the parallels between Hobbit nature and the nature of evil, said:


They are not ‘pure’ manifestations of natural ‘good’ who can be corrupted, but – like ‘us’ – regular and normal people who are capable of both “magic” and “art”, “Rules” and freedom, “order” and “contradictions”, generosity and possessiveness.Fordim also suggested that we learn about ourselves by learning about the Hobbit characters and this, I think, is because they are presented in such a way that we are able closely to identify with them.

And, having presented us with these likeable folk with whom we, the readers, can identify, Tolkien goes on to outline those additional Hobbitish characteristics which, while not immediately apparent, are nevertheless of utmost importance to the storyline. They are described as “curiously tough”, “difficult to daunt or kill”, and able to “survive rough handling by grief, foe or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well”. This helps to explain how the central Hobbit characters, despite being from a diminutive and fun-loving race, are able to endure the incredible suffering and hardship which each of them undergoes on the Quest. (A similar picture was painted of Bilbo when Gandalf described him as being “as tough as a Dragon in a pinch” or something similar, although it is addressed in a more light-hearted manner – as indeed are the travails which Bilbo undergoes.) It also helps explain why, despite being uncomfortable with things with which they are not familiar (a result of their parochial nature), they are nevertheless resilient and adaptable when confronted with them. As Fordim said, although Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin (as well as Bilbo) are extraordinary characters:


… their ability to do good in the war against evil is here, I think, being set up as being the result of their Hobbit-natures.This also helps to explain their unique resilience to the corruptive properties of the Ring.

Of course, we do not need Tolkien to tell us about their resilient nature in the Prologue to make them believable characters, but these passages in the Prologue do aid our understanding of the Hobbit characters and the way in which they interact with others and react to events in the story. And it also helps us understand how, once galvanised by Sam, Merry and Pippin, the Hobbit folk are able to rise up so effectively against their oppressors in the Scouring of the Shire.

I would also agree with those who have said that, by presenting the Shire as an idyllic setting, the reader is able understand exactly what it is the Hobbits are fighting for, both throughout the Quest and during the Scouring. Son of Numenor put this very well when he said:


The prologue, in my opinion, serves to highlight the idyllic, pastoral quality (and also the simpleness and 'smallness') of the Shire, perhaps even moreso than the actual book chapters that take place in the Shire. It lays the groundwork for why four hobbits are willing to fight to preserve their homeland, and ultimately serves as an illustration of why Frodo can never be at peace in the Shire after destroying the Ring. **********************

On a slightly different point, it is interesting how much Tolkien gives away about the outcome of the story in the Prologue, at least as regards the fates of the characters. As Lyta said:


It almost seems as if the prologue is an epilogue as well! It hints at the connections of Meriadoc and Peregrin with Rohan and Gondor, tells us that Frodo indeed lives to complete a history of the War of the Ring and that there are considerations made for the "children of Samwise." We learn that each of the four central Hobbit characters survives the events with which the story is concerned. The same applies to Faramir, since reference is made to his grandson Barahir. I find this particularly interesting, given that the narrative (deliberately) leads us to believe, at various points in the story, that four of these characters (Frodo, Faramir, Merry and Pippin) die, or are on the verge of dying. I don’t recall this affecting my sense of suspense (particularly as I specifically remember mourning Pippin’s “death” when I first read the book), but perhaps I didn’t read the Prologue first time round, or perhaps I just didn’t pick up on these references. Does anyone else remember having had the suspense of these characters’ apparent or imminent deaths “spoiled” by the knowledge which they gained from the Prologue?

**********************

On a very minor point, I love the reference to “wild folk and wicked things” having “not heard of the King”. This ties up with a comment made by Bilbo in The Hobbit to that effect, and nicely explains why he said it, despite the region having had no king for a good many years.

**********************

Finally, a quick response to Estelyn’s point:


This brings a vision of Hobbit slums to my mind that disturbs me greatly! How does that go with their friendliness and peacefulness, with the familial ties they hold high? Is Tolkien thinking of the Biblical “The poor you have always with you”? Is it inevitable that there will be poverty, and the kind described by Tolkien is great poverty indeed, even among a society with so many idyllic traits?

And what causes the poverty?Like Child, Kuruharan and others, I don’t think that Tolkien was here describing extreme poverty (at least as regards the times in which Bilbo, Frodo et al lived). The Shire is described as a society with a rigid class system (like England at the time he was writing), but one very much at ease with such a system (unlike England). The “poorest” Hobbits were simply to be contrasted with the more well-off. They were not, I think, desperately poor, in the sense of living on the breadline. It is, of course, an ideal, like the Shire itself, and couldn’t exist in real life, since the rich are rarely the philanthropists that Tolkien suggests most wealthy Hobbits are, and the laborious poor would no doubt resent the idle rich. (Or perhaps there were the seeds of a labour movement in the Shire – could be an interesting topic for the renowned Hobbit sociologist, Professor Marileangorifurnimalium :D .)

[HerenIstarion]

Nice rounded up summary, SpM, thank you. And though it seems very much a post with which the discussion can be closed, I can not stand the temptation to pick up a little portion of your thread (so that is the way of collective discussion, one participant's thoughts being effect of another poster's argument)

So

I love the reference to “wild folk and wicked things” having “not heard of the King”

So do I. And, is with many things else in Tolkien, the great skill applied to this phrase here too. It is perfectly fitting in its proper sense, that is, indeed, around Shire there is a wilderness, and scoundrels out there haven't heard of the King (since there is no King present whatsoeverl). Indeed, this is confirmed by ruffians later on in the "Scouring of the Shire", when they daunt Pippin with mockery about King's messanger.

But does not King with capital K and wild folk who know Him not ring any other bells on other levels?

[HerenIstarion]

Maybe the following is of slight interest with regards to the Shire:

some thoughts, or nation in ME (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1929)

[the phantom]

I was reading Tolkien's letters today and stumbled across a little passage about hobbits that I thought belonged on this thread. I'm rather surprised that no one posted it before I got around to it.

letter 246-
Sam is meant to be lovable and laughable. Some readers he irritates and even infuriates. I can well understand it. All hobbits at times affect me in the same way, though I remain very fond of them. But Sam can be very 'trying'. He is more representative hobbit than any others that we have to see much of; and he has consequently a stronger ingredient of that quality which even some hobbits found at times hard to bear: a vulgarity - by which I do not mean a mere 'down-to-earthiness' - a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional 'wisdom'. We only meet exceptional hobbits in close companionship - those who had a grace or gift: a vision of beauty, and a reverence for things nobler than themselves, at war with their rustic self-satisfaction. Imagine Sam without his education by Bilbo and his fascination with things Elvish! Not difficult. The Cotton family and the Gaffer, when the 'Travellers' return are a sufficient glimpse.

[mark12_30]

But does not King with capital K and wild folk who know Him not ring any other bells on other levels?

Quite!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Looking back at the beginning of this thread reminds me that it was Fordim who initiated the discussion project! His introduction is well worth rereading.

I began thinking about the Prologue even before I actually reread it - I looked up information on war and weapons as concerning hobbits for another thread just a few days ago. This introduction to the book is an absolute essential for anyone writing a Hobbit RPG or fanfiction! There is so much invaluable information contained in it. I know that I read it very closely when beginning to write a story, and rereading it just might inspire me to finish it in the near future...

The second part, 'Concerning Pipe-weed', contains spoilers about Merry's future - is it really necessary to have that at the beginning of the book, or would it have been better placed in the Appendices? The same thought applies to the 'Note on the Shire Records' - it is chockfull of spoilers! Now, I'm definitely a person who reads all introductions, forewords, even acknowledgements, when I read a book, so I assume I must have read this part before delving into the story, but I don't remember whether I realized the spoilers back then. It's been awhile! ;)

The future of Merry, Pippin and Sam and their offspring is mentioned, and the fact that Frodo writes the Red Book gives away the fact that he survived the War of the Ring. Does anyone remember realizing that when you first read the book? I would definitely have placed this section in the Appendices, to be read afterwards.

[davem]

The same thought applies to the 'Note on the Shire Records' - it is chockfull of spoilers!

'Note on the Shire Records' does not appear in the First Edition text, & neither does the Index in RotK if it comes to that - interestingly enough all through the FE reprints, & that's up to 1966, all you get is an apology at the end of RotK for its absence!:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE
We regret that it has not been possible to include as an appendix to this edition the index of names announced in the Preface of The Fellowship of the Ring

is all you get - which appeared in every edition of RotK from 1955 till 1966. A brand new was compiled by Hammond & Scull for the 50th anniversary edition.

[Bêthberry]

This is an intriguing issue, Esty.

The concern over spoilers isn't part of traditional literary culture. It's part of pop culture--did it arise on the internet with the discussion of weekly TV series and movies? (Not to self, check out OED on "spoilers" and see if the word postdates Tolkien.) I could be wrong, but I doubt Tolkien himself would have been bothered by spoilers. After all, look how many times he rewrote some of his own stories, how many versions we have. He was interested in definitive versions.

Books, for old time readers, were meant to be savoured for more than simply the plot. It was probably considered quite vulgar to be interested only in whodunnit or whahappened. It was the 'quality' of writing, the interest in how the writer choose to present the story and characters, that was supposed to provide the entertainment. Generations of clever young fellows spent (misspent?) their youth translating Greek and Latin not simply as an aid to demonstrating their knowledge of that language but to show their skill as writers in English, their command of style, technique, rhetoric, "colour." (Well, this was the pedagogical purpose behind the imposition of those school assignments. ;) )

Novelty was not an especially important quality in literary merit. After all, much of the reading public already knew the plot of the ancient stories. So why did writers retell those stories? Because they saw new and different ways to tell them, new and different approaches, perspectives. So it was almost a situation where knowing the plot ahead of time was part of the reading process, being able to make comparisons and see new twists and turns, being able to appreciate how one was led up to the conclusion. So it didn't matter if readers guessed from the Prologue that Frodo survives: the interest was in his internal journey and how he came to survive.

Novelty really I suppose only became significant with . . . novels. ;)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I absolutely agree with Bêthberry here. Tolkien's strength is not in surprising ending or a twist in the plot (the thing which is almost essential for a good novel), even the final revelation that the Shire is destroyed and that Sharkey is Saruman is not, in my opinon, that surprising twist, though it has very close to it.
As I said in the Foreword thread, I did not read the Prologue the first time I read FotR, yet it did not bother me in the slightest: I did not seem to miss anything (like knowing when old Toby started to grow his herbs) and, of course, I was not affected by the spoilers - at least in the beginning. Nevertheless, it was quite clear to me that Frodo survives and I must say in Cirith Ungol I did not think for a second that he could be really dead, and I'm sure any spoilers would not play any role in this, whether I read them or not.

So it didn't matter if readers guessed from the Prologue that Frodo survives: the interest was in his internal journey and how he came to survive.

Only to this: at least personally, my interest was not during my first reading - and probably not even in the later readings - whether Frodo or how Frodo survives at all. In fact, Frodo and the hobbits were on the edge of my interest. I could even say that it was not that I would follow the tale of Frodo and the Fellowship, as they pass through some sceneries and events and pass by some people, but that I was trying to explore all of Middle-Earth's sceneries and events and characters, while I had some group of Frodos to lead me through, like tour guides. You know what I mean? At least for the first time, I hardly cared about Frodo or his mission, even. I entered this fantastic world and the only way I could explore all its beautiful places was to follow the "camera view" that was given to me by the author. Otherwise, the world was shut to me, it was a different world that I was not welcome in, that I did not belong to, but as long as I followed this group of Frodos and Sams and Striders, I had the privilege to take a peek at least on a little part of it. (And after all this time, today I can say that only very slowly it has opened to me, but I can feel a little more welcome in there and I feel I can move almost freely there now.)
It's not that I would completely ignore Frodo's quest and the storyline: of course not, I was thrilled at many moments, I was moved, I shared his or his fellows' feelings. But it was not the first place for me, and only in later readings this gained more and more importance for me.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Davem, thanks for the reminder that not all we read today was originally printed. Still, when it was included it was within JRRT's lifetime, so he must not have seen the possibility of spoilers as a disadvantage.

Bêthberry, excellent thoughts! There were, of course, murder mystery writers back in Tolkien's day, so I assume the authors and readers of 'whodunits' must have been interested in keeping others from knowing the murderer, but your remarks on the non-existent role of spoiler warnings in traditional literature are a valuable addition to this discussion. And you make an interesting connection between novels and novelty! :)

Legate, I enjoyed your post about your personal reading experience. I find it fascinating to see how differently the same book is perceived by different people - and even by the same person at different times of her/his life.

[Rumil]

Well, to the Prologue, plenty of strange and interesting titbits here.

From the description of Hobbits, did anyone else think Leprechauns? Their ‘magical’ disappearing acts (to us ‘Big Folk’), diminutive size, dressing in green and yellow, curly hair, delight in simple jests and, to anticipate, Mad Baggins appearing with a bang and a flash laden with gold and jools. Maybe the Irish retain the last folk memories of Middle Earth, corrupted by the passage of millennia though they be?

The Harfoots’ section reminded me of ‘Of Dwarves and Men’. Here it seems as if the Harfoots, living on the Eastern foothills of the Misty Mountains in ancient times must have been the food-suppliers for Khazad-Dum.

Ancient hobbit settlements throughout Eriador sound intriguing, watch out in your next RPG, that Barrow might turn out to be an abandoned hobbit-hole!

Now we come to a really interesting bit-

For the Elves of the High Kindred had not yet forsaken Middle-earth, and they dwelt still at that time at the Grey Havens away to the west, and in other places in reach of the Shire.

OK, so we know the Grey Havens and the second dwelling of High Elves must be Rivendell. This leaves at least one other High-Elven settlement in Eriador, so where is it? I guess the candidates are Minhiriath, Enedwaith and around the Ered Luin. Minhiriath is most mysterious, plenty of white space on the map for unexpected places. Enedwaith seems least likely, extensively logged by the Numenoreans in the Second Age etc. I fancy the southern part of the Ered Luin, where the map shows a forest, as the most likely place. Any other bids?

They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as “colonists”;

Breelanders seem just like us ‘Cheeky Brits’ ;)

Always been interested in the ‘Bounders’ and the wandering Hobbits that lived outside the Shire. I wonder if life was a little less comfortable on the marches of the Shire, even given the Rangers’ protection?

The riddle ‘Authorities’ made me smile, sounds like a version of the MCC earnestly debating the merits of silly-mid-off (that’s cricket for the “colonists” information!). By the way did you notice that Merry eventually became a philologist? I guess it would be stretching the suspension of disbelief too far for Pippin to take up such an interest, as he merely becomes an ancient historian!

[Elmo]

OK, so we know the Grey Havens and the second dwelling of High Elves must be Rivendell. This leaves at least one other High-Elven settlement in Eriador, so where is it? I guess the candidates are Minhiriath, Enedwaith and around the Ered Luin. Minhiriath is most mysterious, plenty of white space on the map for unexpected places. Enedwaith seems least likely, extensively logged by the Numenoreans in the Second Age etc. I fancy the southern part of the Ered Luin, where the map shows a forest, as the most likely place. Any other bids?


It could just mean Forlindon and Harlindon.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Ancient hobbit settlements throughout Eriador sound intriguing, watch out in your next RPG, that Barrow might turn out to be an abandoned hobbit-hole!
Well, I always found rather interesting that the Hobbits, the Stoors in particular, used to live in Dunland...

OK, so we know the Grey Havens and the second dwelling of High Elves must be Rivendell. This leaves at least one other High-Elven settlement in Eriador, so where is it? I guess the candidates are Minhiriath, Enedwaith and around the Ered Luin. Minhiriath is most mysterious, plenty of white space on the map for unexpected places. Enedwaith seems least likely, extensively logged by the Numenoreans in the Second Age etc. I fancy the southern part of the Ered Luin, where the map shows a forest, as the most likely place. Any other bids?
Well, I think not - Enedwaith&Minhiriath, according to UT, were almost empty, no inhabitants, the original wild hunters and fishermen were diminished and almost died out by the end of the Third Age, and if there was any Elven settlement, it would surely be mentioned. No, I think Rivendell and Grey Havens were the only ones. Unless you count the White Towers as a place of pilgrimage visits.

And yes, Elmo may be right.

[Rumil]

Hi Elmo & Legate,

I see your points but I guess it depends on whether you class Harlindon and Forlindon as 'belonging to' the Grey Havens, and whether they are 'in reach of the Shire' (admittedly closer than Rivendell I suppose).

In my head at least ;) I'm going to stick with some elven settlement at the Southern end of the Ered Luin. Another point to consider is that during the Second Age Sauron over-ran all of Eriador apart from Rivendell, which would argue against a (very) ancient settlement of High elves in Minhiriath or Enedwaith.

As to the 'blank spaces' on the map, I've always thought they indicated lack of knowledge rather than lack of inhabitants, considering,

And the world being after all full of strange creatures beyond count,

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

As to the 'blank spaces' on the map, I've always thought they indicated lack of knowledge rather than lack of inhabitants, considering,
Yes, but speaking specifically about Enedwaith and Minhiriath, I was not backing my thoughts by the fact that they are empty spaces but by what is said about them in LotR and in UT. And any larger Elven settlement down there would have been mentioned, I'm sure. The Elves were diminishing and leaving Middle-Earth, not spreading.

[davem]

As to the 'blank spaces' on the map, I've always thought they indicated lack of knowledge rather than lack of inhabitants, considering,

Raynor Unwin, in a talk at the Church House Bookshop back in 1981 to celebrate the publication of UT, told of when Pauline Baynes went to see Tolkien about some difficulties she was having over a Poster-map of Middle-earth she'd been commissioned to paint: she'd noticed that when the map was reproduced on such a large scale there was a lot of empty space. Apparently Tolkien was very solicitous & helped her out by simply inventing some features/places on the spot for her to insert. It seems that the real reason for the blank spaces on the map was more mundane - that Tolkien hadn't realised they were there, & when they were pointed out to him he simply made up stuff to fill them....

[Rumil]

Hi davem and Legate,

Points taken indeed, I especially liked 'simply made up stuff', which in a way sums up the entire Legendarium ;)

I can imagine Tolkien making up a map feature on the spur of the moment then later weaving an intricate web of story and philology to explain its name and history. If we had been fortunate enough for him to live a thousand years I bet there would be few blank spaces!

Agreed on the lack of large settlements, I doubt there's an unmentioned Gondolin lurking in Minhiriath somehow! However I feel that there will be somebody around, even if just wandering elves, 'outsider' hobbits, Druedain, Rangers, Wild Men, Trolls etc. This is partly from the point of view that people always (on our world) move into new territory unless it is entirely inhospitable, and also from the books themselves. Whenever the protagonists move into a new area they meet new, and often unexpected inhabitants, eg. the three Trolls, Beorn, Tom Bombadil, Lothlorien (from Hobbits' point of view), Faramir, the Woses etc. Only the Trollshaws and Hollin appear properly deserted, the Brown lands are patrolled by orcs and even Midgewater has its midges (and, I strongly suspect, Mewlips). Many of these people are hidden away and therefore would not be shown on maps unless directly encountered by the mappers. (I guess you can tell I'm pro-Giant!)

[Mugwump]

One of the first things I noticed about the Prologue is it contains frequent references to and information about events that occur after the events of the rest of the novel. Apparently Tolkien is happy that readers will know in advance that many of the central characters who will be going into all sorts of dangerous situations during the course of the War of the Ring will survive. Interesting and unusual for a Prologue, but I think it's effective and does not detract from the rest of the book. As Fordim Hedgethistle explains above (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=329868&postcount=2), one of the purposes of this Prologue is to treat the fiction of the book as being historical and derived from older primary works, rather than a fictional story told by an author.

The next thing I noticed was a questionable grammatical usage, and I'm unsure, because I know that Tolkien was a master the language, whether it's just a typographical error introduced during the publication, or was done on purpose. I was taught that "farther" and "farthest" should be used (instead of "further" and "furthest") when discussing purely physical, geographical distances. Yet we read on page 7 about the three Elf-towers on Tower Hills, that the "tallest was furthest away, standing alone upon a green mound."


For they attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just.This is one of those wonderfully simple sentences that Tolkien so often writes that open up into all kinds of complexities when you pay it a bit of closer attention. How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say. ... I don’t think that this really is a contradiction, but it is a very complicated kind of statement, and one that goes to the very nature of the story that is about to be told.
I think there is a much less complicated explanation for this. The text is that the Hobbits usually "kept the laws of free will because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just." I believe this is simply a matter of an idiomatic difference between British English of Tolkien's time and the English of today. Simply, laws in the text refers to the laws of the ancient kingdom. Tolkien is not saying they are the "laws of free will"; he is saying that, regarding the ancient laws of the King, the Hobbits kept them of free will, or in modern idiomatic American English, kept them of their own free will. Note that free will is not capitalized, as one would expect if Tolkien were making of it a title, "the Laws of Free Will." In other words, of free will does not modify laws but modifies the verb kept. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Tolkien is merely saying that Hobbits kept the old laws of the king not because they were legal rules, but chose to keep them because they believed they were proper and just rules to live by.

[Mnemosyne]

I'm actually really curious about this and need to look into when and where this rule sprung up.

The reason I say this is that countless, countless, countless British Victorian novels consistently use "further" for "farther." Which makes me inclined to say it's either an American rule, or one that wasn't created until after that era. In which latter case it might simply be Tolkien deliberately evoking an older feeling, or simply not being aware of the newer rule as he was steeped in older culture (of course, if he knew, I have the feeling he'd deliberately ignore it).

Consequently when I encounter "further" for "farther" in my reading I like to think of it as a construction along the lines of "I should like" for "I would like"--something that is deliberately and delightfully British.

[Formendacil]

Mnemo is perfectly right about Tolkien's attitude towards "farther" and "further"--he makes a direct reference to this in one of his Letters--let me see if I can dig up the reference in the 23 minutes before class...

Aha! Here we are:

The galleys are proving rather a bore! There seem such an endless lot of them ; and they have put me very much out of conceit with pans of the Great Work, which seems, I must confess, in print very long-winded in parts. But the printing is very good, as it ought to be from an almost faultless copy; except that the impertinent compositors have taken it upon themselves to correct, as they suppose, my spelling and grammar: altering throughout dwarves to dwarfs; elvish to elfish; further to farther; and worst of all, elven – to elfin. I let off my irritation in a snorter to A. and U. which produced a grovel.
--emphasis Tolkien's own

I am afraid there are still a number of 'misprints' in Vol. I! Including the one on p. 166. But nasturtians is deliberate, and represents a final triumph over the high-handed printers. Jarrold's appear to have a highly educated pedant as a chief proof-reader, and they started correcting my English without reference to me: elfin for elven; farther to further; try to say for try and say and so on. I was put to the trouble of proving to him his own ignorance, as well as rebuking his impertinence.

Again, italics are from The Letters, not me.

I suppose I should be grateful that Cox and Wyman have not inflicted the change from elven to elfin and further to farther on me which Jarrolds attempted, but Jarrolds were at least dealing with a MS. that had a good many casual errors in it.

Those are all the references I found in The Letters, but none of them match my mental memory of how Tolkien put it, but as my memory is hardly infallible and these quotes suffice, it is probably sufficient to post these and note that Tolkien was well aware that the 'proper' usage would be farther, and decided he did not wish to use it.

[Mugwump]

The reason I say this is that countless, countless, countless British Victorian novels consistently use "further" for "farther." Which makes me inclined to say it's either an American rule, or one that wasn't created until after that era.
Bingo--I think you've got it! Using further in that sense must've been merely standard idiomatic British English of Tolkien's day, just as of free will meant of [his/her/my/our/your/their] own free will.

[Bêthberry]

All grammars leak, although not all grammarians and teachers like to admit the fact. So maybe it's the grammarians and teachers who leak?

It is really quite interesting to read what that bible of clear thinking and precise word choice has to say: Fowler's Modern English Usage. It would appear that usage has been muddled and only relatively latterly did the prognosticators declare a preference and even then they got the usage wrong, as applying a difference to which none of the practitioners of the language adhered.


The history of the two words appear to be that further is a comparative of fore and should, if it were to be held to its etymology, means more advanced, and that farther is a newer variant of further, no more connected with far thant further is, but affected in its form by the fact that further , having come to be used instead of the obsolete comparative of far (farrer), seemed to need a respelling that should assimilate it to far. This is intended as a popular but roughtly correct summary of the OED's etymological account. As to the modern use of the two forms, the OED says: 'In standard English the form farther is usually preferred where the word is intended to be the comparative of far, while further is used where the notion of far is altogether absent; there is a large intermediate class of instances in which the choice between the two forms is arbitrary.'

This seems to be too strong a statement [one often loves Fowler for his iconoclasm]: a statement of what might be a useful differentiation rather than of one actually developed or even developing. The fact is surely that hardly anyone uses the two words for different ocasions; most people prefer one or the other for all purposes, and the preference of the majority is for further. [my bolding] Perhaps the most that should be said is that farther is not common except where distance is in question, and that further has gained a virual monopoly of the sense of moreover, both alone and in the compound furthermore. The three pairs of quotations following are selected for comparison from the OED stores.

1. Comparative of far: If you can bear your load no farther,say so. --H. Martineau. It was not thought safe for the ships to proceed further in the darkness. --Macaulay.

2. No notion of far: Down he sat without farther bidding. --Dickens. I now proceed to some further instances. --De Morgan.

3. Intermediate: Punishment cannot act any farther than in as far as the idea of it is present in the mind. --Bentham. Men who pretend to believe no further than they can see. Berkeley.

On the whole, though differentiations are good in themselves, it is less likely that one will be established for farther and further than that the latter will become universal. In the verb, further has the field virtually to itself.

The first edition of Fowler was 1926; second in 1965.


:D :D :D

[davem]

Using further in that sense must've been merely standard idiomatic British English of Tolkien's day,]
It still is - both meself & Lal say 'further' (she's Lancastrian & I'm from Yorkshire, so I reckon its in common usage across the north of England). Mind you, here in 'God's Own County', we still commonly say 'thee', 'thine' & 'thou' (though we pronounce it 'tha')!

[Rumil]

I'm with Tollers on this one !

this makes me wonder if my subconcious grammar usage has been influenced by LoTR - probably.

So for me-


1. Comparative of far: If you can bear your load no farther,say so. --H. Martineau. It was not thought safe for the ships to proceed further in the darkness. --Macaulay.

Either would do, 'farther' sounds more antique (perhaps from Bible usage?)


2. No notion of far: Down he sat without farther bidding. --Dickens. I now proceed to some further instances. --De Morgan.

Definitely 'further' - Who the Dickens would use 'farther' here? :rolleyes:


3. Intermediate: Punishment cannot act any farther than in as far as the idea of it is present in the mind. --Bentham. Men who pretend to believe no further than they can see. Berkeley.

Still 'further', Bentham's sentence seems out of true for me.

[Faramir Jones]

I'm surprised that I saw nothing by you here, Legate and Thinlómien; because I feel the Prologue to be important.

It's important as a bridge between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings proper, intended to accustom the reader of the first book to the different atmosphere of the latter.

It's divided into 5 parts. The first is about hobbits in general, their origins and their history, including how they live (with its good and bad points) at the time of both stories.

The second is about the bizzare (to others) custom of the hobbits, of putting a herb into pipes and smoking it, The herb, called pipe-weed, is given enough of a description for the reader to identify it as tobacco. The reason why it's given such early prominence is that the reader will later see it cleverly used throughout the story as a symbol of hobbit identity, as something the four important hobbits miss when they don't have it, and enjoy when they do. I found this interesting; because although The Hobbit revealed that Bilbo, Gandalf and the 13 dwarves smoked pipes, no indication was given that this was originally a hobbit invention.

The third deals with the nearest the 'Shire' (the name the reader now finds out the hobbits call their country) has to 'government', again reinforcing what was told in the first part.

The fourth is an overview of what went on in The Hobbit, putting it into a wider context, suggesting that Bilbo getting the ring was no accident, and that his initial lying to Gandalf about how he did is a hint of something more serious.

The fifth is about the 'book', the first volume from which The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were 'translated' by Tolkien: The Red Book of Westmarch. There is a nice background to what it is, its history, and a heightened awareness of the hobbits of the 'Shire' being part of a far wider history, in which they, formerly unimportant, played a significant part.

There are also a lot of unfamiliar names to go along with the few familiar ones. By the end of the story the reader will understand what it's all about, but not till then.

This does not mean that the reader needs to read the Prologue; but there's a lot of helpful information to prepare him or her for the following story.

[Inziladun]

It's divided into 5 parts. The first is about hobbits in general, their origins and their history, including how they live (with its good and bad points) at the time of both stories.

One thing that's always stood out to me is the classification of Hobbits into Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides.
Why do Hobbits, being fundamentally Men, have characteristics of and respective affinity for the other 'Speaking Peoples' as well? Did that contribute to their innate peaceable nature and ability to live unobtrusively amid ME's other denizens?

[Formendacil]

After far too long (a couple years, I think), I'm rereading The Lord of the Rings (though, of course, having read it so much in my formative years, it's not as if I've forgotten it!) and having both the time and the inclination to share what stuck in my mind, where better to come than this trusty old thread!

I had two main thoughts:



- Mathoms. A useful word--an even more useful concept. (I might actually start a thread about this from a more general perspective, but let's at least document the origin of this thought here). I definitely have some ramblings in mind about how Tolkien shaped the architecture of my thoughts. This is one of those cases where fiction provides a word to fill a hole. A lot of the time we borrow words from other languages--think of German words like schadenfreude or weltanshauung that we've borrowed because it gives us a word that our language didn't posses before? It's also fascinating to me when fiction fills a void in the same way. Granted, "mathom" may not be part of an ordinary person's lexicon... but is "weltanshauung?"



- The Elf-towers of the Far Downs. These kind of fascinate me because they loom on the borders of Hobbit knowledge, but with our broader knowledge of Middle-earth they're still kind of mysterious. I believe we know (though I can't cite where off the top of my head--I suspect Unfinished Tales) that the central, farthest-west Tower was built to house the palantír for Elendil--and that Elendil waited here for the hosts of Gil-galad to join him during the Last Alliance.

But why three towers? Artistically (which could be both an in-universe and a literary reason), it does seem better, but what is the function? As a border, the Far Downs only seem to have ever likely needed fortifying with watch-towers--especially by the Elves, who are the explicit builders--during the Second Age. But if the westernmost tower was built for Elendil, were these towers for the defence of Lindon at all? Perhaps the two other towers are actually far older than the palantír's tower, dating back Sauron's war with Eregion or its aftermath. In any event, fun to speculate over.

[Inziladun]

But why three towers? Artistically (which could be both an in-universe and a literary reason), it does seem better, but what is the function? As a border, the Far Downs only seem to have ever likely needed fortifying with watch-towers--especially by the Elves, who are the explicit builders--during the Second Age. But if the westernmost tower was built for Elendil, were these towers for the defence of Lindon at all? Perhaps the two other towers are actually far older than the palantír's tower, dating back Sauron's war with Eregion or its aftermath. In any event, fun to speculate over.

I am working from memory as well, but I tend to agree with your theory.

Having watch-towers on the eponymous Tower Hills, a bit east of the Grey Havens, would seem sensible during the mid-Second Age war of the Eldar and Sauron. No other obvious reason for building comes to mind. To have been of any use in potentially observing sea and sky for sailing purposes, they could have been nearer the water.

[Huinesoron]

It's a nice thought, but Tolkien disagrees. From Of the Rings of Power...

At Fornost upon the North Downs also the Númenóreans dwelt, and in Cardolan, and in the hills of Rhudaur; and towers they raised upon Emyn Beraid and upon Amon Sûl; and there remain many barrows and ruined works in those places, but the towers of Emyn Beraid still look towards the sea.

[...]

It is said that the towers of Emyn Beraid were not built indeed by the Exiles of Númenor, but were raised by Gil-galad for Elendil, his friend; and the Seeing Stone of Emyn Beraid was set in Elostirion, the tallest of the towers.

Curiously, that doesn't answer the purpose. The White Towers seem to have marked the western limits of Arnor, but if they were watchtowers then they were watching the people who built them! We know that one of the three was set up for the Stone, but what about the others?

I've found a possible answer over in Unfinished Tales, with a note to Aldarion and Erendis discussing the return of Numenoreans to Middle-earth:

"It was six hundred years after the departure of the survivors of the Atani [Edain] over the sea to Númenor that a ship first came again out of the West to Middle-earth and passed up the Gulf of Lhûn. Its captain and mariners were welcomed by Gil-galad; and thus was begun the friendship and alliance of Númenor with the Eldar of Lindon. The news spread swiftly and Men in Eriador were filled with wonder. Although in the First Age they had dwelt in the East, rumours of the terrible war 'beyond the Western Mountains' [i.e. Ered Luin] had reached them; but their traditions preserved no clear account of it, and they believed that all the Men who dwelt in the lands beyond had been destroyed or drowned in great tumults of fire and inrushing seas. But since it was still said among them that those Men had in years beyond memory been kinsmen of their own, they sent messages to Gil-galad asking leave to meet the shipmen 'who had returned from death in the deeps of the Sea.' Thus it came about that there was a meeting between them on the Tower Hills; and to that meeting with the Númenóreans came twelve Men only out of Eriador, Men of high heart and courage, for most of their people feared that the newcomers were perilous spirits of the Dead. But when they looked on the shipmen fear left them, though for a while they stood silent in awe; for mighty as they were themselves accounted among their kin, the shipmen resembled rather Elvish lords than mortal Men in bearing and apparel. Nonetheless they felt no doubt of their ancient kinship; and likewise the shipmen looked with glad surprise upon the Men of Middle-earth, for it had been believed in Númenor that the Men left behind were descended from the evil Men who in the last days of the war against Morgoth had been summoned by him out of the East. But now they looked upon faces free from the Shadow and Men who could have walked in Númenor and not been thought aliens save in their clothes and their arms. Then suddenly, after the silence, both the Númenóreans and the Men of Eriador spoke words of welcome and greeting in their own tongues, as if addressing friends and kinsmen after a long parting. At first they were disappointed, for neither side could understand the other; but when they mingled in friendship they found that they shared very many words still clearly recognisable, and others that could be understood with attention, and they were able to converse haltingly about simple matters." Elsewhere in this essay it is explained that these Men dwelt about Lake Evendim, in the North Downs and the Weather Hills, and in the lands between as far as the Brandywine, west of which they often wandered though they did not dwell there.

The Tower Hills were a site of reunification; could it be that the Towers were raised partly in memory of that? If we think of Faramir's words at Henneth Annun - that before a meal they look west 'to Numenor that was, and Elvenhome that is, and that which is beyond Elvenhome and shall ever be' - then perhaps we can apply the same idea: three towers, one for the Men of the North, one for the Men of Numenor, and one for the Elves and Eressea. They would be monuments and places of thanksgiving and remembrance.

In fact, as the westernmost point in Arnor, they were also symbolically the closest point to the Hallows on the Meneltarma. If you think of the Jewish tradition of prayer at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, as the closest point to the temple, I can easily imagine the towers as the original way to look back on 'Numenor that was'.

(It might be interesting to compare this hypothesis with the Gondorian version, where they made a new hallows on their local highest mountain. Arnor looks west and to the past, Gondor faces east and south and thinks of the future... but that's getting a bit off topic. :))

hS

[Formendacil]

It's a nice thought, but Tolkien disagrees. From Of the Rings of Power...

Alas! I have been tripped up. I think your second quote, from "Aldarion and Erendis" is probably at the heart of some of my foiled hunch.

Your speculation, Huinesoron is rather fascinating: the idea that the towers are not martial in purpose certainly removes the necessity of finding a military purpose for them, which makes their location somewhat easier.

And non-military towers away from a populated spot are not without precedent in Númenórean history--I'm specifically thinking of Tar-Meneldur's astronomy tower in the Forostar of Númenor. Certainly the comparison to the Elf-towers in the context of the palantír has some merit.

The connection to the meeting of the Númenóreans and the Men of Eriador as an explanation for there being three towers is far more speculative, as you no doubt know, and I disincline away from it myself, simply on grounds of chronology--more than two millennia pass between the meeting of those peoples and the time of Elendil.

Actually, a couple things occur to me: first, what if these towers ARE astronomy towers? We know that the Númenóreans had considerably advanced knowledge relative to the medieval-esque cultures we know better from the end of the Third Age. Could multiple oservation towers have allowed the royal astronomers to triangulate things? This was right after the reshaping of the world, and it seems to me that there would have been plenty of curiosity in the new Arnor to map the new cosmology--and perhaps it was originally in onnection with this that Elendil placed one of the palantíri there.



Something about the Prologue that struck me marinating over it since I posted last is how it almost works best with the rest of The Lord of the Rings in the explicit context of rereading.

It's a little bit weird, because the Prologue *is* an introduction: it sets up the world a bit and in the first few chapters there are lines (such as the reader being expected to know what a Stoor is in "The Shadow of the Past") that assume the reader has read the Prologue.

But, on the other side, the Prologue talks about Frodo and Merry and Pippin all contributing to the Red Book and talking about the Red Book's textual tradition (including references to Gondor and the King) that only make sense after you've read The Lord of the Rings. It's an explicit reward for the re-reader--and if you're someone who makes a big deal out of spoiler alerts, not at all safe for the first time reader.

I'm not a spoiler alert kind of person (for various academic experiences that would be navel-gazing to go into here), but it is still Appendix-y enough that I would not recommend a first-time reader begin with the Prologue. Indeed, the nuggets of information we get about the surviving members of the Fellowship feel like parts of the Tale of the Years.

That said, I'm pretty sure I read the Prologue in its proper place the first time I read the book, and I don't think I ended spoiled at all, because I'd forgotten most of the "spoilers" by the time I encountered the characters they referred to--I'm pretty sure we see the name "Aragorn" referring to Strider nearly half a dozen times before Bree, but I never put two-and-two together until at least the second read-through.

Which is perhaps my point: the Prologue is the tape on the moebius strip where the Appendices loop back into "A Long-Awaited Party."

[Boromir88]

Something that really stuck out this time going through the prologue (and there was some earlier posts on it), is "The Authorities":

The Authorities, it is true, differ whether this last question was a mere 'question' and not a 'riddle' according to the strict rules of the Game; but all agree that, after accepting it and trying to guess the answer, Gollum was bound by his promise. And Bilbo pressed him to keep his word; for the thought came to him that this slimy creature might prove false, even though such promises were held sacred, and of old all but the wickedest things feared to break them.

Which begs the question who are the Authorities? There's perhaps a few layers to this because it's such an odd word to use.

If Tolkien wanted to give an answer of who the Authorities are within his story, he could have used the Valar, right? Or with it being the Prologue, if the Valar were in place of the Authorities, there would likely be more head-scratching by the first time readers. Then again, I get this image of the Valar sitting around in a council debating on the rules of a Riddle Game and it's not really an image that meshes with the Valar's laissez faire attitudes in the Third Age of Middle-earth.

As the Prologue connects The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings, I imagine an answer that is outside the story. The Hobbit being written primarily for Tolkien's children, I'm picturing "the Authorities" being Tolkien's original audience. And Tolkien asking his children about the rules of "the Game" between Bilbo and Gollum. The Authorities differed because Bilbo's "What have I got in my pocket?" technically isn't a riddle, but all agreed Gollum was going to break his promise and therefor it really didn't matter if Bilbo asked what he did or came up with a true riddle that followed the "strict rules of the Game." I can picture Tolkien's inspiration for the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter, coming from having "Riddle games" with his children, and they are "the Authorities" mysteriously referenced in the Prologue.

Neither interpretation is the wholly true and right interpretation, but it's fascinating thinking of the possible answers to the question: Who are the Authorities?