[Child of the 7th Age]

Bill,

As has already been stated, the edict of Elessar was not an imposition on the Shire, but, as is made plain throughout the narrative, the actual will of its inhabitants. Hobbits preferred not to interfere in the affairs of the big people, or have the big people interfere in their affairs. The edict highlights the fact that the king does not rule the Shire, but the hobbits do. Elessar is simply respecting the sovereignty of the Shire.

I totally agree that this edict was not imposed on the Shire. It was the product of the hobbits' own desire. That's what makes it particularly sad to me. It is an admission of the "fact" that when a large and mighty people meets a small and less mighty people, the end result is negative and destructive.

At least in theory, I believe it is possible to maintain one's cultural traditions and political independence, while still being willing to meet and interact with people who are different than ourselves. Do we have to put up huge blockades to define our culture and our lives? I hope not, but perhaps in this flawed world it is inevitable. However, I don't have to be happy about that, or see it as a virtue.

The edict supported by the hobbits makes the underlying assumption that the big folk were an inherent threat. Their very presence in the Shire is undesirable, and should be eliminated in all respects. This attitude is actually quite typical of the hobbit community as a whole right from the very beginning of The Hobbit. Tolkien makes the point in his Letters that those hobbits whom he writes about were the exceptional ones, those who could see beyond the usual limited atttudes. JRRT calls them "specially graced and gifted indviduals who were selected for ther task precisely because they were abnormal (Letter 281)." At the same time, he says that the hobbits as a whole are not to be recommended as an ideal (Letter 154).

Yes, after the Scouring, certain things did change in the Shire. There were more blond-haired children who looked a bit Elvish, the beautiful mallorn replaced the party field tree that had been cut down, and there was much rebuilding and regrowth, both in terms of knocking down the hated symbols of Sharkey and Sam's re-planting of the trees. Most importantly, the beauty of the Shire was protected and nurtured, and the values of family and growing things was again placed at the fore.

But did general attitudes actually change beyond those of the "extraordinary" hobbits who'd been chosen to go on the quest? Were the overall body of hobbits less insular than they'd been? I don't see clear evidence of that except in the case of Sam's own children who were obviously enamored of Elves and the stories Sam told (just as Sam himself had been!).

Nor do I think that most hobbits had a "choice" in regard to their own lifestyle, ie., that they could choose to remain in the Shire where there were no men, or travel outside the Shire where they could meet others. A choice implies that you have a clear idea about the options that are open to you. But, if you are blinded by insularity, how can you truly be said to have any choice? All you can see is one side. And most hobbits were apparently limited in this regard.

I don't think Tolkien saw hobbit insularty as a particularly positive trait. In Letter 246, he says that all hobbits at times irritate and even infuriate him. JRRT points negatively to the "mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to sum up all things from a limited experience..." This is, I believe, exactly the kind of attitude that produces hobbit insularity.

But the strongest indication of Tolkien's feelings are given in Unfinished Tales, Quest of Erebor. In the course of these two manuscript versions given to us, Tolkien has Gandalf clearly state about Bilbo, "I dare say he was 'chosen', and I was only chosen to choose him; but I picked out Bilbo." Gandalf talks extensively about the central criteria he used to pick Bilbo. Time and again, he refers to the fact that Bilbo had curiousity about thing outside the Shire. Bilbo kept asking questions about the Tooks who had "gone off" by running away to Sea. Again, Gandalf mentions Bilbo's "love of tales and his questions about the wide world outside the Shire."

The clearest statement comes in a conversation between Holman (Bilbo's gardener) and Gandalf. The former was explaining why his master wasn't at home"

Off again. He'll go right off one of these days if he isn't careful. Why I asked him where he was going, and when he would be back, and I don't know he says ; and then he looks at me queerly. It depends if I meet any, Holman...It's the Elves New Year tomorrow! A pity and him so kind a body. You wouldn't find a better from the Downs to the River.

Tolkien gives us a half-humorous look at Holman's inward-looking attitudes. But the author's own sympathies, and those of Gandalf, are clearly with Bilbo who does look out beyond his gated world. In fact, this seems to be the chief critera that the istari uses to "choose" Bilbo.

This is why I can accept the Shire as a gated world by necessity--the product of human nature with all its limitations, as well as the fact that we live in a 'fallen' world. But I can't accept this aspect of the Shire as an ideal, and I don't think Tolkien did either.