LotR - Prologue

[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'. 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]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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