|
Right, I think Tolkien had a little problem here (no pun intended): if, as in the 1950s, a huge Uruk is still only 'almost' man-high, and there are plenty of squat, or Hobbit-sized orcs around, then what about the First Age, thousands of years before the coming of the Uruks? Thus the 1930s quote would seem to indicate that (externally) Tolkien imagined Orcs, in general, as indeed not small, but of nearly human stature -- I mean there could have been some smaller ones, but generally orcs seem as tall as the uruks would become.
Granted, this is an external comparison, but I think Tolkien would need to allow for both things: that is, large enough orcs in the First and Second Ages (Maiar-orcs do not seem to be numerous enough), as enemies of the Noldor and Numenoreans -- considering that the larger orcs of the Third Age appear to be the Uruks -- themselves entering the scene relatively late in the history of Middle-earth.
Maiar-orcs could provide the answer in my opinion, as I think they could have provided an answer to the 'problem' of chronology with respect to Treebeard's statement, if Tolkien wanted Men to be the main stock: that is, if orcs first appeared in the Great Darkness as Treebeard notes -- the Great Darkness referring to a period of Melkor's influence before (it would appear) large numbers of Elves passed over Sea -- then Treebeard could be remembering Maiar-orcs, larger and more powerful orcs than those 'regular' orcs that would come later; but anyway 'orcs' in general to him.
Yet again I would agree: why do corrupted Men necessarily need to be so much smaller than Men? Imagining they were almost man-high, a gradual Third Age dwindling of Orcs seems a better idea to me, perhaps in part due to the great victories of the Last Alliance -- with their height coming back later with the Uruks of Mordor (though a number of Hobgoblin, or larger types, as exceptions up North would not be too problematic, I think).
|