LotR - Prologue

[davem]

From the '37 Hobbit:

But funnily enough he need not have been alarmed. for one thing Gollum had learned long long ago was never, never, to cheat at the riddle-game, which is a sacred one & of immense antiquity. Also there was the sword. He simply sat & whispered.

‘What about the present?’ asked Bilbo, not that he cared very much, still he felt that he had won it, pretty fairly, & in very difficult circumstances too.

‘Must we give it the thing, preciouss? Yess, we must!. we must fetch it, preciouss, & give it the present we promised.’ So Gollum paddled back to his boat, & Bilbo thought he had heard the last of him. but he had not. The hobbit was just thinking of going back up the passage - having had quite enough of Gollum & the dark water’s edge - when he heard him wailing & squeaking away in the gloom...

Bilbo turned round & waited, wondering what it could be that the creature was making such a fuss about. This proved very fortunate afterwards. For Gollum came back & made a tremendous spluttering & whispering & croaking; & in the end Bilbo gathered that Gollum had had a ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages & ages before in old days when such rings were less uncommon...


I don’t know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo’s pardoned. He kept on saying: ‘We are ssorry; we didn’t mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only present, if it won the competition.’ He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation...

‘Finding’s keeping!’ he said to himself; & being in a very tight place, I daresay, he was right. Anyway the ring belonged to him now.

‘Never mind!’ he said, ‘The ring would have been mine now, if you had found it; so you would have lost it anyway. And I will let you off on one condition.’

‘Yes, what iss it? What does it wish us to do, my preciouss?’

Help me to get out of these places,’ said Bilbo.

Now Gollum had to agree to this, if he was not to cheat.

Unfortunately, for copyright reasons I can't quote the whole thing. It is included in the Annotated Hobbit, but those are the most important sections. Whether we consider Bilbo's original account as constituting a 'lie' is down to the individual.

Its interesting that he would claim that magic rings were once 'less uncommon', & expected his readers (& Gandalf) to believe that at one time they were actually so common that even Hobbits would give them to each other as birthday presents! Did he expect his readers to believe that there was once a time when individuals in possesion of magic rings were appearing & disappearing at will?


..

[mark12_30]

Bethberry wrote:

Why did the annals of the Men make no mention of the Hobbits? Oh, I bet they were there alright. At the battle. But maybe memory of them faded as contact dwindled or their importance to Men lessened as Men regain their strength. Like the contributions of women throughout history, that of the hobbits became invisible. (oh, the irony here. ) And good empiricists simply shrug that the evidence is not as fullsome as they would like.

All this is true; and another point is this: Archers are not in general big-ticket items. We're all very fond of Legolas, and proud of his skill, but archers normally are not the focal point of the battle. Generals, sword-wielders, axe-weilders get all the glory. Eowyn wouldn't have gotten nearly as much glory if she had slain the Witch-King with an arrow from a battlement.

Archery is important, but not glamorous. I don't wonder that archers were forgotten. Especially little archers, probably dressed in green.

[Kuruharan]

All this is true; and another point is this: Archers are not in general big-ticket items.

This is a possible explanation of why the hobbits may have been overlooked in the records of the big folk. Whether or not archery is considered to be of great importance depends on the culture. However, this makes it a little complicated.

The Dunadan were famous in the golden days of yore for their steelbows. To anticipate matters somewhat, the Gondorians were willing to rely heavily on the bow in their warfare in Ithilien, and certain areas of Gondor seemed to be famous for their bowmen. It is hard to make a comparison of the attitudes of the Arnorians regarding the bow since their society had sort of ceased to exist.

Whether hobbit bows would have been much use against armored enemies might be a matter for wild and unfounded speculation (particularly if the hobbits were only two feet tall ).

Especially little archers, probably dressed in green.

I think this is the key to the explanation. There were probably only a comparitive few hobbit archers present and they may have been of very limited use (if any at all). People there at the time may have forgotten that the hobbits were present.

[Bêthberry]

Little green men, Helen! Trust our balroggie fan girl to come up with a hotness rating for weapons.

I think there was one battle in Britiannia's past that was determined by the long bow, no? I could be mistaken.

There are a couple of questions about "this very specific lens" which has not yet been considered. When was it written or added to the typescript? Before "The Long Expected Party" or after the book proper was completed?

I can understand how the Appendices came about. I wonder what urges prompted Tolkien to offer a short history of Hobbits as a prologue to the story. What was to be gained? Why not just let Bilbo's party speak for Hobbits?

Or was it necessary to prepare the 'fiction' that this is recorded history, recorded by representatives of a group of people who did not write histories and in conjunction with other peoples who did? And necessary to recap The Hobbit?

[Child of the 7th Age]

When was it written or added to the typescript?

Bethberry,

This is the question I raised in an earlier post that no one picked up on: when were the different sections of the prologue written?

The only one I can find evidence for in HoMe is section i which was written at the point in the narrative when the Hobbits were reaching Bree. At that point Tolkien actually yanked things out of chapters already written. This suggests that the entire prologue was a later addition.

Another reason for raising this question is that there is at least one inconsistency in the prologue with other things in the book (possiubly more?). Tolkien refers in the prologue to a long period of prosperity in the Shire that he says goes back to the Long Winter. Yet, this conflicts with evidence in the Appendix: just 100 years before when Bilbo was a young Hobbit there had been the Fell Winter when wolves invaded the Shire and there was bitter cold. That was not too very long ago. Why was this not mentioned in the prologue?

Can anyone find any other information on the dating of the prologue?

[Mister Underhill]

HoME XII is the relevant reference. The earliest form of the Prologue, then titled "Foreword: Concerning Hobbits", dates from 1938-9 (this version is printed in HoME VI). Much new material was added to wind up with the Prologue as it now stands, but a glancing history of the text indicates that it was developed concordantly with the rest of the book. For instance, "Concerning Pipeweed" began as "a lecture on the subject by Merry to Théoden at the ruined gates of Isengard".

[Bêthberry]

Thanks Child and Mr. Underhill for your comments. Sorry that I had missed your earlier query, Child. I am rushed these days. I have only three volumes of HoME. They cost, in paperback, $25 here.

So, the Prologue was written concurrently and finalised after the book was finished. Likely then it became an apparatus like the Appendices to establish the fiction of recorded history and to incorporate material which Tolkien felt would ruin or disrupt the pattern of the narrative. He had so much to juggle!

[Carnimírië]

Hmmm, I wonder why the Prologue could not have just been part of the Appendices? It's written in much the same style as the appendices, and like them it deals with the nitty-gritty history of certain aspects of Middle-earth. I'm sure that sounds heretical, but there must be a logical reason that escapes the scope of my simple mind...

Oh my, I knew that in the old version of The Hobbit Gollum led Bilbo out of the cave, but I had never read it. Thanks for posting that, davem!

I don’t know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo’s pardoned. He kept on saying: ‘We are ssorry; we didn’t mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only present, if it won the competition.’ He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation...

Very amusing, but I'm sure I like the revised version better.



~Carnimírië, she of the red jewels~

[Mister Underhill]

Christopher Tolkien's analysis indicates a very fluid development within the various relevant texts. Material would be yanked out of a chapter where it was presumably disrupting the flow and moved to the Prologue. An inspiration in the drafting of the Prologue would lead to alterations in the story proper. An idea that popped up in the Appendices would then propagate back through the story and the Prologue. And so on. Lots of revising and rewriting and conforming one new draft to another. Typical Tolkien.

Looking at the Prologue from a more "meta" point of view, it's a bold and fascinating authorial choice. Part of Middle-earth's enduring appeal lies in its verisimilitude -- its quality of seeming to be real or true. I think it's interesting that Tolkien foresaw the usefulness of a Prologue to set the stage from very early on.

This lengthy chunk of exposition has the effect of establishing a tone of historical authenticity. It's a way of telling you, "This all really happened." The flavor of it matches the tone of prologues found in real history books -- authoritative, meticulous, able to take a somewhat detached, amused view of its subject.

In a very economical way, Tolkien is able to suggest a broad and deep history of Middle-earth, of which the following tale will only examine a relatively small -- though significant -- part. It's a bold move which risks boring the reader before the story has properly begun. Certainly in today's publishing world, where the mantra is "Show Don't Tell", Tolkien would be obliged to battle tooth and nail to open his tale in this way.

P.S. -- Canadians fought in WWII?

P.P.S. -- Cross-posting with Carnimírië. Perhaps my musings have somewhat addressed your question.

[Son of Númenor]

Why did the annals of the Men make no mention of the Hobbits? Oh, I bet they were there alright. At the battle. But maybe memory of them faded as contact dwindled or their importance to Men lessened as Men regain their strength.

This is just a quick addendum to what Bêthberry and others have said concerning possible reasons why hobbit bowmen (bowhobbits?) at Fornost were not remembered in the annals of Men. A major fact to consider is that the battle against the Witch-King in Fornost was the battle that brought an end to the North Kingdom. When a kingdom is vanquished like Arnor was, it is not surprising that detailed records are not kept by those defeated, of the battle which caused the defeat. It would have been easy to overlook a few short archers when finally a written account of the battle was produced who knows how many months or years later.