[Child of the 7th Age]

Mithadan -- You have given us a thoughtful and thought provoking post.

I agree with what you and others have said concerning the Valar. From our perspective, at this end of history, we know the Valar will increasingly withdraw from Ea, and Eru will become more central in the mind of Man. In Morgoth's Ring, Andreth the Woman and Finrod the Elf state that Eru may actually enter into Arda at some future date to bring about healing. The withdrawal of the Valar and the dimming of their power is a necessary prelude to this involvement by Eru, in the same way that the diminishing of the Elves is required for Man's dominion.

I also want to allude to what Birdland said about hobbits. Mithadan's statement seems to assume that hobbits, as exemplified by Frodo and Sam, are the true embodiment of the new mankind in this shift of ages. Like Birdland, I am not certain of this.

Yes, I know JRRT said hobbits are a branch of mankind, but their ways differ sharply from the central line of humanity, as represented by heroic cultures like Gondor and Rohan. Aragorn and Faramir are concerned with military matters, the establishment of right order, and building the foundations of a just kingdom.

Compare this with the Shire. At the outset, hobbits are childlike, inquisitive, and capable of learning, but basically unaware of wider evils or what we call political realities. Most critically, hobbits have not historically killed one another and rarely engage in military exploits. Frodo's path to Mordor is not the military heroism of Aragorn, but rather one of obedience and suffering coupled with moral insight and growth. None of this seems to be terribly in tune with the fourth age. And, just as Birdland implies, you don't see many hobbits around today (plus they have shrunk in size) which makes one wonder how the new age treated them.

Where does this leave us? There are, I think, at least three ways of viewing hobbits and their relation to Man.

First, we could say hobbits represent one side of human nature, while heroic Man represents another (local government vs. a just kingship, lower classes vs. aristocrats, childlike wonder vs. mature accomplishment), and we can not become full humans until we integrate the two. In this scenario, the hobbits pass away because, at least symbolically, they and the heroic men merge to create a new humanity.

Secondly, you could take the view that Frodo, Sam and the hobbits are transition figures: they represent the childhood of mankind which must pass away, just as the Ringbearers pass away, so the true human Aragorn can usher in a new adult age. Just as Birdland said, this assumes hobbit culture will be destroyed, much like the diminishing of the Elves.

There's a third possibility. You could argue that the hobbits begin as children, but, during the Ring quest, grow to maturity, with their culture and awareness evolving into something much closer to that of Man. Frodo's spiritual growth, Merry and Pippin's new political and military sense, and the recognition of evil as seen in the Scouring of the Shire--all these could point to maturation.

Some of this comes perilously close to allegory which Tolkien detested. And I am still not certain which view makes the most sense. The optomist in me votes for the third one where the hobbits evolve and have a better chance of defending at least something of their culture, but my pessimistic side points to number two. Like Birdland, I have a sinking feeling that, with the passing of Aragorn, hobbit culture may have gone the way of Elves, Ents, and oliphants.

sharon, a saddened child of the 7th age

[img]smilies/confused.gif[/img] [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]