The Third Theme

[leapofberen]

Before it gets too far long, my apologies. Going back to the original question, in my haste I think I confused the Themes of the First Music with the Second Music that (if I remember rightly) Men will play a part in, but it was not specified if the Eldar or even the Valar will participate though the Eldar believe Eru will not abandon them.

I agree with the line of thinking in the posts...my thoughts (conjecturing here) are that Eru seems to have tied himself forever to the Children in a way that he did not tie himself even to the Valar; rather the Valar forever tied themselves to the world for their love of the Children. The Children were something of an enigma even to the Valar, and up through the end of the Third Age I think we see what appears to be their apparent dis-involvement because they are not "seeing" prophetically as clearly as they once did, perhaps because the Themes of the Music are being fulfilled. As the age of Men approaches, it seems they become less and less involved. So like the Elves, who are destined to fade, the Valar essentially "fade" as well, as they and the Elves now reside (mostly) in the uttermost West. So comes the age of Men.

The Beren/Luthien them here is an excellent point in that Beren gave up his life for Luthien and Luthien for him, I suppose, in a way that (following with the Christian theme) does seem to foreshadow the eventual Incarnation alluded to by Finrod Felagund. That is, Eru, having forever tied himself to the Children out of love must go to all ends to eventually save them, even tying himself to mortality through death and resurrection (as Luthien tied herself to Beren, I suppose.) And that tie, specifically to men, seems to be:

1) mysterious and troublesome to even the Valar and the Eldar (at least I get that feeling in reading the Silmarillion.) It would be appropriate that Finrod Felagund would seem to understand the most about the future of Men (the possible incarnation of Eru) as he is the most compassionate and loving towards Men from the very beginning.

2) that mortals, though weak, seem to hold the key to defeating evil...ultimately, the Hobbits best demonstrate the power to overcome evil with good, the weak overcoming the strong. Where the might of the Noldor could not defeat Morgoth, nor even the Valar (fully) as it seems Morgoth "dispersed his power into the very matter of Arda," along come the Hobbits who ultimately defeat the last of Morgoth's incarnate print on Middle Earth. It does seem to foreshadow the Christian theme of God binding himself to Man (via the Incarnation) and defeating evil, not through power, but through the weakness of death (becoming mortal, weak.)

I know much of this is conjecture, but just writing out what I began to see in Tolkien's stories recently...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

...and defeating evil, not through power, but through the weakness of death (becoming mortal, weak.)

I have to disagree. I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

Moreover, there are different types of weaknesses. There is a difference in being physically weak and weak inside.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I have to disagree. I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

I think it is not simply "down-to-earthness", and the word "simplicity" can be misleading as well - it could be interpreted the way that the hobbits were able to overcome Sauron simply because they were stupid enough to misuse the Ring, in such a case, Saruman and all those who scorn Hobbits would have been right about them being simpletons - but I think they weren't; and, in many ways, the important aspect of the hobbits, which made Bilbo and Frodo (and Sam) able to withstand the lure of the Ring, was their humility (you can use the word "down-to-earthness" and "simplicity", but with the added specification or explanation that what it means is not stupidity, but humility - humility which, of course, to those who lust for power might seem like stupidity, as it did to Sauron, and thus proved to be his undoing...). It was the humility in which the hobbits didn't wish more than what they had, in which they didn't want to control, to hoard (with the exception of the Sackville-Bagginses and their like), to spread their own domain in expense of the others... That is what I believe is their true "advantage" over the others.

In other words, it isn't so that the Hobbits would be so stupid not to understand power (as some might interpretate the terms G55 used): they do, and it showed itself to Samwise when he put the Ring on in Mordor. He wasn't so "down-to-earth" that he wouldn't be tempted. The point is that he was tempted, but refused it - because of his humility, because he understood that it wouldn't do any good and because he was able to withstand the illusions of grandeur.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that the hobbits you talk about defeated Sauron not because of any specific weakness, but because of their natural un-tendency to to evil. Because of their down-to-earthness, simplicity.

Originally Posted by Legate

It was the humility in which the hobbits didn't wish more than what they had, in which they didn't want to control, to hoard (with the exception of the Sackville-Bagginses and their like), to spread their own domain in expense of the others...

I think it's a mistake to think that Hobbits as a group (ethnic or what have you) have a natural un-tendency to evil, or have a predisposition to humility. Their relative size doesn't necessarily lend itself to that. There are more exceptions than the Sackville-Bagginses. Tolkien goes out of his way to contrast Sam to a group of other Hobbits early in LotR. Hobbits are typically small-minded in the worst way. Sméagol was a forebear to Hobbits. The mill owner was a particularly unpleasant and unscrupulous character. The name "Proudfeet" speaks for itself. Tolkien purposely characterized Hobbits as typically human with all the foibles one finds among them.

So it was the humility, determination, and big-heartedness of these four quite special Hobbits that helped to bring about the destruction of the evil of Sauron.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The name "Proudfeet" speaks for itself.

Does it? and with what voice?

I don't think it would be fair to assume the Proudfeet were characterised by any very malevolent kind of pride; if anything I can see Tolkien, with his own peculiar surname and fondness for linguistic pedantries and oddities, being quite fond of them...

germane to the Ainulindalé? maybe not. Melkor, He Who Arises in Might, Morgoth, Dark Enemy of the World, also occasionally known as Proudquavers

[leapofberen]

A hobbit's weakness would not lie in their being "evil" or "good." Rather, I was speaking more to their inherent mortality and the world-view within Middle Earth that hobbits were inherently "weak" when compared to Elves, the Noldor of old, some Men, etc. They were mortal, prone to illness and death, not as spiritually aware as the Elves. Much like most in the race of Men. In that sense, I said they are "weak." They were taken for granted, in other words. True, it was also their inherent earthiness and simplicity that makes them so attractive at the same time. Gandalf loved the "halflings" because he too was an exercise in humility, being one of the greatest Maiar, but taking upon himself an inherent humility upon his venturing in Middle Earth as a wizard. He, I think, prophetically recognized their greatness though he did not understand why or how they would play such an important role at the end of the Third Age. Hence the beauty of the whole Story which brings us out of the mythic stories of power, magic and struggle to a more "earthy" reality that we are all familiar with. I think all this goes to show that the mighty throughout the ages could not accomplish what the "weak and foolish" did at the end of the Third Age; though without the help, inspiration and wisdom of the great elves and men of ages past, even the hobbits probably would not have succeeded. And herein lies the wisdom of Eru.

As to questions of good and evil, I think the hobbits could just be as prone to evil and pride as anyone else...perhaps they had just not had the opportunity, as other races had, to exercise it in any kind of terrible way. Bilbo and his Ring. Gollum and his Ring. FRODO and his Ring. They were all ensnared, to some measure, by the Ring. The Ring brought out the worst in everyone, including hobbits. Only a few wise were able to resist it's power, though no one present was strong enough to actually wield it in Middle Earth in the Third Age (minus Sauron.)

[Mithalwen]

Also proud does not always relate to proud, it can mean not flush with a surface - as in proud flesh (scar tissue). Tolkien is reported (and I think in the letters admits to) a childish sense of humour. He may have just meant that their conspicuously big (as indeed they were). Most English surnames are based on relationships, professions, places, or physical attributes. He was rather prone to descriptive names - Ioreth, Arwen, Gandalf even at a stretch even Legolas (can be interpreted as sharp ears ).

As for hobbits, I don't think it is a question of humility or some innate predisposition to be good: Tolkien tells us that they are literally and metaphorically small people. The just aren't open minded or intellectually curious enough to go beyond their familiar world on the whole. When sufficiently stimulated some rise to the challenge of heroism while others are easily tempted to profiteer. I rather think that the wise having been exposed to the best of them see them rather as "noble savages" like Omai the south sea islander who Captain Cook brought to London for a while. If they had met others their opinions might be closer to those expressed by colonials - My father inherited a set of books called "People of all Nations" dating back to the heyday of the British Empire, which basically describes the natives of most (certainly most non anglophone) countries as peasants. Either hard working, plucky and resourceful peasants or feckless, idle criminal peasants dependant on the political relationship with England at the time).

If I were cynical I might say the wise needed people who were totally unaware of the severity of the situation becasue noone who was would be very keen..rather like when my car needed to be towed and the nice AA man assured me that women who had never been towed before were best at it, and I believed him just long enough for us to get going - I then realised it couldn't possible be true and had a very panicky 10 mile journey but at least I didn't end up in Mordor.