[Galin]

My guess is that Tolkien was thinking of giants when he began this description, and that through revision, Sam uses "tree men" because whatever was seen was as big as a tower or a tree.

I take Sam's "Elm remark" as part of the comic flow of the conversation: he begins with the Elm as a comparison for size, and an Elm then enters the conversation more generally (as a probability that it was simply an Elm), with Sam adopting this in his response (correct or not he hadn't actually seen the being in question in any event). Even if that's off target, it's interesting what is said later in the narrative, surviving into the published tale:

"He [Sam] had imagined himself meeting giants taller than trees, and other creatures even more terrifying, some time or other in the course of his journey, but at the moment he was finding his first sight of Men and their tall houses quite enough, indeed too much for the dark end of a tiring day." Three Is Company

I note that in the early writing giants were mentioned in narration right before the conversation in the Green Dragon is described. But for the sleep inducing textual history (as far as I could wrangle it out, and only hopefully correctly) see below the line of dread. As noted, Christopher Tolkien comments:

"(Was this passage (preserved in FR, p. 53) the first premonition of the Ents? But long before my father had referred to 'Tree-men' in connection with the voyages of Earendel: II. 254, 261)."

As far as the final version of the passage is concerned, the being described is too tall for an Ent or Entwife in my opinion, and its stride too long, unless one prefers to see the description to have "grown" in the telling, and that Hobbitish fancy has embiggened this being to great heights.

What might be safe to say is that at the time of writing the drafts of the conversation, Tolkien had yet to invent "Ents" as we know them, so that I doubt the history of the Ents and Entwives splitting apart was in his mind.

That said, beyond the line of dread lurks a very tall "Tree Giant" who seems to have followed close enough in the draft progression; again not Treebeard or Ents as according to the conception arrived at later (as Tolkien recalls), but giant Tree Beings.

_________________________________ line of dread


There appears to be at least a couple of years between the writing of the Green Dragon discussion and the writing of the chapter Treebeard, and I think we should take Tolkien at his word, that he invented Ents when he came to the particular chapter Treebeard -- that is, in the sense that it was only here that Ents came to be fully realized -- as compared to the idea of there being any tree-like giants in the story. These came earlier.

So whatever Tolkien meant with his early addition of Tree-men: in probably late Sept 1938, or early October 1938, he writes the chapter Ancient History (partially based on some earlier material), within what is called the 'Second Phase', this will include the descriptions:

"Trolls of a new and most malevolent kind were abroad; giants were spoken of, a Big Folk only far bigger and stronger than Men the [?ordinary] Big Folk, and no stupider, indeed often full of cunning and wizardry."

"(…) But what about these what do you call 'em -- giants? They do say as one nigh as big as a tower or leastways a tree was seen up away beyond the North Moors not long back.' [changed at the time of writing to] 'But what about these Tree-Men, these here -- giants? They do say one nigh as big as a tower was seen up away…"

From probably mid October 1938 -- December 1938 the 'Third Phase' is completed, meaning Tolkien returns to the beginning of the story making a new fair copy manuscript of the whole work as far as the conversation between Frodo and Gloin at Rivendell. This phase includes the mention of Gandalf being imprisoned by 'Giant Treebeard.' Thus a reference to Giant Treebeard (however conceived, with his admittedly suggestive name), exists quite close on the heels of the first version of the conversation in the Green Dragon. In this Third Phase the passage concerning giants becomes:

"Trolls and giants were abroad, of a new and more malevolent kind, no longer dull witted but full of cunning and wizardry."

So giants of some sort are still around in the same phase as the mention of Giant Treebeard. No notable revision (with respect to our purposes here) is made to the passage concerning the conversation in the Green Dragon, noting that this version would appear to still contain as big as a tower but without or leastways a tree. Pausing to consider the final, published passages:

"Trolls were abroad, no longer dull-witted, but cunning and armed with dreadful weapons."

"… Tree-men, these giants as you might call them? They do say that one bigger than a tree was seen up away…"

I don't know when these final revision were made, but Tolkien will take out the reference to giants in the passage where trolls are noted, and revise the comparison to a tower to a comparison to a tree -- so now not 'as big' as a tower, or as big as a tree -- but bigger than a tree.

It would be interesting to know when this revision was made, especially if it came after Treebeard became much smaller. Nothing of note here seems to have been altered in the 'Fourth Phase' of this chapter, and Hammond and Scull generally explain (unless I missed something earlier) that in 1946-47 Tolkien would make further alterations to books I and II (as well as later), which would be after the chapter on Treebeard in any event.

Back to the 1930s: from Dec 1938 we jump a bit to February 1939, where Tolkien states in a letter: "though there is no dragon (so far) there is going to be a Giant."

Jump to Summer: on a letter dated 27-29 July 1939 "Treebeard" emerges: in this short text Frodo thinks Treebeard's leg is a tree-trunk and he has a "rootlike foot and many branching toes." Treebeard is in league with the Enemy here, pretending to be friendly. An outline page dated August 1939 reads: "Adventure with Giant Tree Beard in Forest."

Continuing with the tale, Gandalf (in the house of Elrond) will warn of the Giant Treebeard who haunts the forest between the river and the South Mts. And at about this time Tolkien will write an outline in which its described:

"Fangorn is an evergreen (oak holly?) forest. Trees of vast height. (…) If Treebeard comes in at all -- let him be kindly and rather good? About 50 feet high with barky skin. Hair and beard rather like twigs. Clothed in dark green like a mail of short shining leaves. He has a castle in the black mountains and many thanes and followers. They look like young trees [?when] they stand. (…) The tree-giants assail the besiegers and rescue Trotter &c. and raise siege."

So not relatively long after the conversation in the Dragon was written, Tree-beard is certainly more like a tree than simply being as tall as one, and he has thanes that look like young trees. Later when Tolkien is working on the chapter for Galadriel, Christopher Tolkien notes:

"Here the name Entwash clearly implies that Treebeard is an Ent, and he is specifically so called (for the first time) in the outline just given; but since Treebeard was still only waiting in the wings as a potential ingredient in the narrative this may be only a slight shift in the development of the word. The Troll-lands north of Rivendell were the Entish Lands and Entish Dales (Old English ent 'giant'); and only when Treebeard and the other 'Ents' had been fully realized would the Troll-lands be renamed Ettendales and Ettenmoors (see p. 65 note 32)."

CJRT, commentary, Galadriel

In The Story Forseen from Lorien there is an interesting note: "it could be Merry and Pippin that had adventure in Minas Morgul if Treebeard is cut out" [this was struck out]. We also have an description of Fangorn that now seems to indicate that Fangorn forest itself was not gigantic (along with Treebeard being so giant), as implied earlier with the huge flowers, since the description seems to say that the forest was once part of a larger forested area.

Before we get to the actual chapter Treebeard there is a page of notes about how Ents came to be, including statements like: "Did first lord of the Elves make Tree-folk in order to or through trying to understand trees?", or wondering about what they are, with: "hnau that have gone tree-like, or trees that have become hnau?" and other details. But by the end of 1941 -- beginning of 1942: Tolkien finishes book II and began book III, completing the chapter Treebeard around the end of Jan 1942.


Another interesting thing is that Christopher Tolkien quotes his father's letter about Tolkien having no recollection of inventing Ents, and writing the chapter without any recollection of previous thought and so on. Christopher Tolkien comments: "This testimony is fully borne out by the original text. 'Treebeard' did indeed very largely write itself."

And so at this point we begin to find out about Ents as Tree-shepherds, and Entwives and so on, or Ents as readers will come to know them.

Tree Tall

The "Giant Treebeard" is ensmallened when he becomes "Treebeard the Ent", then Treebeard the Ents embiggens again, but not back up to about fifty feet! In an early draft for the chapter itself, Treebeard was originally ten feet tall, revised to twelve, and then to "at least" fourteen, which while obviously tall, and even more so to Hobbits, is yet not really close to, say, the height of a fifty to one hundred foot oak or pine.

"an Ent would take nearly nine hours to do 70,000 strides and presumably in that time would go 70,000 yards at least, probably 4 ft a stride."

Hammond and Scull, Reader's Companion to The Lord of the Rings

A 4 foot stride is yards away from a 7 yard stride

And in The Road to Isengard, three Ents are described "as tall as trolls they were, twelve feet or more..."

A Tall Tale

"(...) it thus became a jesting idiom in the Shire to speak of 'on Friday the first' when referring to a day that did not exist, or to a day on which very unlikely events such as the flying of pigs or (in the Shire) the walking of trees might occur."

The Return of the King, Appendix D, footnote

This is the short version of my response!