LotR - Prologue

[davem]

Fordim

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 certainly don't think Tolkien idealised Hobbits in any way. They are meant to be ordinary, with faults. They are incredibly parochial, intolerant & quite smug. Frodo (& Bilbo, Sam, Merry & Pippin, to a lesser extent) outgrows the world of the Shire because of his experiences. Without wanting to jump ahead too far, I think its worth noting that there are some similarities between the Hobbits treatment of the trees in the Old Forest & what the Orcs do to Fangorn. How much of Treebeard can we see in Old Man Willow?

Kuruharan

Quote:

Speaking strictly of England, the Picts were in Scotland and the Germans drove most everybody else off to the west.

This is certainly a difference between the Hobbits who come into a mainly deserted Eriador, & the Anglo-Saxons, who found Britain far from deserted. Whether they 'drove everybody else off to the west' is another question - there is some evidence of it being merely a change of ruling houses. I can speak for both sides as, while being English, my ancestors were from Brittany, & came over (going as far back as possible) with William the Conquerer when he invaded. The Bretons were Britons who had been driven into northern France by the Anglo-Saxons - Hence two 'Britains' - 'Lesser' Britain (Brittany) & 'Greater' (or 'Great') Britain. (Here endeth the lesson
).

It is interesting that Tolkien, if he is indeed trying to draw a conection between the Hobbits & the incoming English, has them coming to a deserted country.

Its interesting also that he presents the climate of the Shire as being suitable for growing a form of Tobacco, though. Apparently England used to have a warmer climate.

[Orofaniel]

For they attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just.

How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”?

I think that's a very good question. Although, for me, Tolkien has made it quite clear. As Firefoot said earlier;

1. They are peaceful, and do not like violence. 2. Hobbits like things that make sense

I do believe that Tolkien wrote in the Prologue (and later in LotR too, I think) that Hobbits loved peace and quiet. They didn't want to be disturbed by the "outside" world. I can't recall his exact words because my book isn't here.

But the question is how, even though they want peace and quite, they can keep such rules. Maybe they are just disciplined? Maybe it never occurred to them that they could do "otherwise?" As a matter of fact I think Tolkien once mentioned that Hobbits have a strong belief in the ordinary common sense, and that they use it. (I can't recall exactly where I read that, but I'll try and find it.)

Cheers,
Oro

EDIT: Didn't notice the last posts here...sorry.

[Nurumaiel]

They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently... and this art they have developed.

This is some way strikes me as interesting. 'They possessed from the first...' It seems to me that this hints that this art was, to say, a sort of natural instinct to the Hobbits. In the same way humans have a natural instinct when feeling vulnerable to sort of crouch up to protect their stomach and chest, 'possessed from the first' seems to indicate that Hobbits, when feeling unsafe when going about in the woods, had a natural instinct to 'disappear swiftly and silently.' So then, a natural instinct rather than some hobbit thinking it would be wise and the whole race developing and learning the art. It is stated that they did develop the art, but it seems to imply they developed this 'natural instinct' that they already had. Just an observation and a thought...

Helen, the above quote with the addition of the blundering large folk is the one thing that has distinctly stuck in my mind, though it has been long since I have last read the Prologue. Since then I have never 'blundered' through the woods; I always walk very quietly so perhaps I might see a Hobbit. I also attempt to attract them by aspects of my personality... I exaggerate my delight over the wildflowers, eat hearty meals in the plainest of plain views, sing delightful hobbitish songs, etc. in hope they will consider me someone they do want to meet. After all, it was not said they did not wish to meet anyone but those 'large folk whom they did not wish to meet.'

And laugh they did, and eat, and drink, often and heartily, being fond of simple jests at all times, and of six meals a day (when they could get them).

When I was younger the 'six meals a day' led me to believe that this was why they were so stout... but now I reconsider. Despite the six meals a day the hobbits also seem to get much physical exercise, what with their farming, gardening, 'disappearing swiftly and silently,' and so on and so forth. And now I wonder why I have always assumed that hobbits were stout. The Prologue states they were 'less stout and stocky' than Dwarves, not equal nor more. Does anyone here know of instance where it was specifically stated, whether in LotR, the Hobbit, Letters, etc., that Hobbits were particularly stout and stocky? Or would the words of 'less stout and stocky' mean that while they were not as stocky as Dwarves they were yet stocky?

Now I must say that the relationship between Hobbits and Men cannot be distinct at all... After all, while reflecting on the three breeds of Hobbits I find I am not one in particular but a little bit of all!

Now also when the Prologue speaks about the three breeds, was I the only one who found it rather easy to tell just by their descriptions which breeds associated more with which race... Dwarves, Men, and Elves? 'The Harfoots had much to do with Dwarves in ancient times.' When I first read the description of the Harfoots I didn't give a second thought to the fact that they were 'beardless and bootless.' 'Browner of skin' immediately made me think of Dwarves for some reason. The Stoors were 'less shy of Men' and I saw it coming in their phsyical description when it was stated they were 'broader [and] heavier in build.' It was the most obvious that the Fallohides were the closest associated with Elves... fair of skin and hair, taller and slimmer, and lovers of trees and woodlands... I suppose this has nothing to inspire discussion but it was an observation of mine.

I am awful for I have made my own selfish observations and I'm not replying to any others... but I'm already half an hour late for lunch. I will return, and I will reply to previous observations if my mind considers itself intelligent enough.

[mark12_30]

This Old Forest question is niggling at me. We can take a closer look at it when we get there. I thought that the hobbits were essentially attacked and they built the High Hay in self defense? They did have their border quarrels, I am sure, but it wasn't due to hobbits that the Old Forest had been beaten back into a fraction of its old territory, and blaming the anger of the forest on the hobbits hardly seems realistic. It seems to me that men were more responsible for that.

No doubt this will clear up when we get to that chapter...

Regarding Bethberry's point about being sheltered from evil: since Tolkien carefully chooses Shire hobbits for his quest (and not Bree-Hobbits), we never get to learn how a Bree-hobbit might have faced such a quest, or whether they liked books with tangled plots. Too bad...

Nuru, we cross-posted!

In the opening chapter of The Hobbit" it does say that "They are inclined to be fat in the stomach." Also, here is a rough rendition of Gandalf's description of Frodo:

"A stout little fellow with red cheeks. That won't help you much, Barley, it applies to most hobbits. But this one is taller than some and fairer than most; and he has a cleft in his chin. Perky chap with a bright eye."

[Firefoot]

Fordim, post #14

I must disagree with your point about hobbits/Sauron, etc. You say that hobbits and Sauron share some similar qualities, and to an extent I agree with this, but the qualities that you listed (Order, Invisibility, 'using' the land, Rules) all seem to me to be portrayed in a completely different manner.

Order: Hobbits like to have everything ordered, in that their holes are neat, everything is set out fair and square with no contradictions, well-ordered countryside, and this quality goes has much to do with agreeing and getting along with other hobbits. Sauron, on the other hand, wants Order and dominion over all other beings. He wants to control everything else and have them ordered under him. Using Sam as an example: "The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command."

Invisibility: Hobbits use this quality to disappear "when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by" and it comes from "a close friendship with the earth". Sauron's invisibility, however, comes from using the Ring, which is pure evil. He made the Ring in order that he might dominate others, making his invisibility evil.

'Using' the land: Hobbits like to farm ("for they love... good tilled earth a a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside was their favourite haunt"), and they do the farming themselves, which goes back to Sam's "his own hands to use...". Sauron has innumerable slaves to do his work for him ("the hands of others to command").

Rules: I have already written quite a bit about hobbits and rules, but I will just repeat a single point and that is that hobbits do not seem to have rules because they are "necessary", but rather because they like to have everything set out fair and square (going back to order...). Sauron has rules to dominate, control, and command others to do what he wants.

So perhaps the point that I am trying to get to here is that a quality is just that. It is how the quality is used in a person (for good or evil) that determines who they are. I am not trying to say that hobbits are perfect. They aren't. They are ordinary, and therefore imperfect. The statement that I have a problem with (and I may be misinterpreting this) is that hobbits have these qualities which are similar to Sauron's and are therefore evil qualities. (This is a bit over-simplified, I think) But I have always held the opinion that hobbits are in nature good and peaceful beings, which contributes to their resistence to the Ring and other like qualities.

Edit: cross-posting with Mark12_30 and Nurumaiel.

[Boromir88]

Mark, you have brought up a valid point, for if you notice Tolkien writes in point of view as well.

This I believe is in the Appendix, that it stated no matter what the traditions of men tell you very few dwarves ever succumbed to Sauron. The reason for men to write about dwarves succumbing to evil was because the Men were jealous and wanted the riches of the dwarves. I will have to go back and look at the prologue to see some of the dialogue but you could be correct it could just be according to the tales of men.

[Nurumaiel]

Helen, Thanks for the quotes! It's been awhile since I read either LotR or the Hobbit, but still I feel like a fool for those are such obvious (and to me memorable) sections of the books. 'Inclined to be fat in the stomach...' But does this mean that they are 'built' that way, in other words that this is just how they are and it doesn't have much to do with the amount they eat or the exercise they get, or are they 'inclined to be fat in the stomach' because of the amount they eat? I find the latter hard to believe because of the activities they absorbed themselves in. Farming, for example, would require much physical activity. Faith, if I, known for great energy, can become exhausted after two hours of hoeing and weeding in my garden, the more strenuous work of farming must be positively fatiguing!

Firefoot, I will add another point to your already well-stated point of 'using the land.' As well as the subject of working themselves vs. the slaves, so far as I have been able to gather the Hobbits used to land for good purposes, such as farming and gardening which will give added life and beauty to that same land, while Sauron's use of the land was for evil and certainly did not beautify!

As you have already said, while the qualities are the same that does not make the Hobbits evil, nor does it make Sauron good, but the uses of the quality determine, in this case, whether it is good or bad. I've been taught there are three actions: good actions, indifferent actions, and bad actions. Good actions are good in themselves, and likewise bad actions are bad in themselves, and indifferent actions are neither good nor bad but the intent and use of the action will determine whether it is actually good or bad.

Therefore I do believe that the the intent and use of these qualities so far as the Hobbits were concerned make these same qualities good, while it is the opposite for Sauron.

[mark12_30]

Nuru, it seems to me that although hobbits were active, still, they had that tendency to eat and drank a little more than they worked, calorically speaking.

Frodo himself was aristocracy, and although he liked to walk, he also liked ffod and wine, and ale. The book states that he indeed lost some extra pounds between Hobbiton and Rivendell (that wonderful moment when his reflection peeps out at him from the looking-glass in Rivendell.)

Sam, while a hard-working gardener, was also fond of (and seemingly had free access to) Bilbo's beer-cellar, and was no stranger to the Inn either. I suspect that even the hardest-working hobbits, had balancing social "skills".

[Nurumaiel]

Helen, could it also depend highly on just what the individual hobbit's occupation was? In example an innkeeper might be more fat in the stomach than a farmer, for an innkeeper wouldn't move too much and would have more time to eat. A farmer, however, would be doing more labor and might also have less time to eat. Of course then we could go on the track of how late hobbits stay up... if they stayed up later they could use that late-night time to accomplish any eating they missed during the day. And I suppose this subject isn't too important, though very interesting (the Hobbits might not like us discussing the finer points of their weight, however ). Could hobbits ever be as dear if they were slim and slender, or (horror of horrors) outright skinny?

Fordim, I see what you mean. In the extreme basics the desires are similiar but it seems to me that to an extent the desires would also be influenced by the intents. In example, the desire of the Hobbits and Saurons to use the land. The basic desire is the same... to use the land. But the desires are also changed by their intent to use the land. The Hobbits desire to use the land to grow and farm, while Sauron desires to use the land for ill.

But if you are saying the barest basics of the desires make them alike, I cannot disagree, for it is true if you write merely Order, Invisibility, Using the Land, and Rules and discard the intents, etc. of it, which, reading your original post, is exactly what you did. So then the basic desires are the same, but to go to an advanced description of the desires would include the intents which would make a difference between their desires.

[Guinevere]

posted by Nurumaiel: Farming, for example, would require much physical activity.

Yes, but not all the hobbits were farming! Bilbo, Frodo, Merry & Pippin seem to be well-off gentlehobbits who don't have to work for a living!

Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time , and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all. Yet it is clear that Hobbits had in fact lived quietly in Middle-earth for many long years before other folk became even aware of them.

That way it is cleverly explained why Hobbits aren't mentioned in the earlier tales (the Silm.) and why Sauron didn't even know of their existance.
This whole "feigned history" is very convincing indeed. What I think is not so convincing is the fact that there are still some hobbits supposed to be around nowadays (or at least in Tolkien's time ) We don't see them because they can disappear swiftly and silently. But what about their dwellings and farming land etc.? Have they since been obliged to take to the woods to hide from us?

I remember so well when I first read the prologue how mysterious and intriguing sounded to me the mention of

... the Dúnedain, the kings of Men that came over the Sea out of Westernesse; but they were dwindling fast and the lands of their North Kingdom were falling far and wide into waste.

edit: I'm too slow! 4 new posts appeared while I was writing...
(Child of the 7th age, I agree very much with your post! )

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

A lot has been said so far about the contrast of the Hobbits' skill in disappearing when it suits them as opposed to Sauron's magical invisibility (although presumably he could override this aspect of his creation). Hobbits are not, however, the only people to be so contrasted, and indeed 'magic' itself is often called into question throughout the work. Later on it is noted that the virtues of Elven implements are often confused with the arts of the enemy, but probably this is best left until we reach those parts of the book.

For me, the difference between the Shire and Mordor is that between a people who co-operate with each other and the land to earn a prosperous living, and a people divided each against the other, ruled by a lord who cares nothing for them and tearing from the land what they can get. The Hobbits build, cultivate and care for their country and it rewards them with plenty. The Orcs and their masters know only how to take, and so they must maintain slave populations simply in order to survive.

I'm getting ahead of myself here, though, since all of this becomes clear later in the book. I'll restrict myself to Hobbits for the remainder of this observation.

The society of the Shire is an interesting paradox, in that it appears to be Tolkien's ideal society and yet he would probably not have been comfortable in it. The Hobbits share his love of simple food, simple jokes, plain speaking and good living; but he was a man who made a living out of telling people things that they did not know, and by his own admission disliked reading the same book twice. In his letters he admits to finding Hobbits irritating on occasion, and I think that this is because they only reflect one aspect of his personality. Hobbits could not live up to his love of the high, learned and noble that we see in the Elves and the Dúnedain. They are too comfort-loving, too parochial and self-satisfied, and this is reflected in their greatest heroes: Bandobras Took, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin do not fit the mould of comfortable Hobbit society, which quietly farms its land and shuts its eyes and ears to the troubles of the world. Nonetheless, Tolkien still attributes the attractive traits of Hobbits to the entire race, and in his final chapters he reveals them as they are when 'The Rules' cease to suit them, and when their leaders are no longer ceremonial.

The Shire is a vast paradox: a stratified society with a definite class system, and yet one in which each individual is convinced of his own personal freedom. It has a number of noble families who command theoretical powers and loyalties that are never used, almost on the understanding that this remains so. This paradox is one that any Englishman will recognise immediately: Tolkien's countrymen continually assert that they obey the law because it suits them, and woe betide anyone who tries to impose one that does not. Holders of titles are expected to behave as though their honours do not exist, in return for which they are awarded all the honorifics associated with them. This is how a lot of English people see themselves, and this is how the Shire really works. Later in the book, this attitude will come into contact with a world in which kings and rulers are treated with great deference and respect, but we shall cross that bridge when we come to it.

The Hobbits' parochialism is complete. Like the foundation of Rome and, more disturbingly, the Cultural Revolution, the foundation of the Shire is taken as the beginning of a new calendar. Before their community is even off the ground, the Hobbits have begun to distance themselves from world events; but this also exhibits a huge self-confidence, which is exhibited throughout The Lord of the Rings by all but the most sensitive of Hobbits. They cut themselves off from the world as they have cut themselves off from their own history, as something that is inconvenient and unnecessary. There are things in both that are likely to upset them needlessly by making them ask difficult questions that will not be answered by a complicated and well-compiled genealogy. In short, they exhibit the most militant complacency that I have ever encountered. As an Englishman, it makes me feel quite at home.

I should like to finish by examining an interesting point about the history of Hobbits that is also to be found in the history of Men. There is a distinct change in their attitude toward the Elves from the beginnings of the Shire, when they are presumed to have learned a great deal from them, gradually subsiding into dislike and mistrust. Interestingly, the arch-traditionalists of Middle-earth become a source of anxiety from the ever-changing races that surround them, usually as those races fall into foolish or evil practices. The Elves are anything but comfortable: sophisticated, powerful, ageless and wise, they are everything that the Hobbits are not. They do not belong in the well-ordered, earthy, common-sense world of the Shire, which the Hobbits regard as the acme of achievement. Nor, for that matter, do wizards, heroes, myth and magic. The Shire is a stifling world for such an exponent of these ideas as its creator, and perhaps this is the greatest paradox of all.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just a quick reply here to two points.

Several folk have mentioned the hobbit's "lack of historical memory" as reflected in the prologue. I see two important correlations here. On the one hand it is clearly indicative of the Hobbits' lack of book learning and their tendency to take things at face value: what Bethberry defines as " the Hobbits' dislike of any book which required thoughtful interpretation of tangled threads. " Hobbits are certainly parochial, so parochial that they not only reject looking outside the boundaries of the Shire, but even over their shoulder to their past. We learn that the only history books of interest to them were the genealogical ones that set out things very clearly; other knowledge of the past, more complex or reflective, had been lost.

This parochialism is certainly a flaw inherent in the Shire. But there is a second way of looking at this situation. If the Hobbits had remembered their history, indeed if there had been any "real" Hobbit history available in written form, then it would have been accessible to Sauron and Saruman as well. And it is quite possible that these two would have become aware of the Hobbits and ultimately of the Ring much earlier than they did. It is the Hobbit's "lack" of history that makes the journey of Frodo and his fellow Hobbits possible. Without this veil of anonymity alluded to in the prologue, the entire story is unimaginable.

***************************

Regarding the relative "goodness" of Hobbits and their supposed affinities with Sauron...

Fordim -

In relation to this question, here is my opinion. In one sense you are perfectly right, and in another you are far from the mark.

In Tolkien's eyes, every free people bears the stain of evil, just as Arda itself was marred, even in the making. It would be possible to compile a list of good and bad points for every single race we encounter. This is as true for Hobbits as it is for Men, Ents, Dwarves and, yes, even Elves! If we read over those lists of "bad" traits, each list will be different for every race. Yet every trait included will in some way remind us of Sauron (or Morgoth) and lesser minions like Saruman or the Orcs, or at least will be something they can exploit.

This is true even of the Hobbits' ability to become invisible, where you drew a parallel with Sauron. On the one hand natural invisibility is put there by Eru for the Hobbits' protection and is not an evil thing. It emphasizes the Hobbits' close ties to the earth. For me, such a characteristic conjres up images of small rabbits disappearing harmlessly into the brush. However, this talent for "hiding" can also be abused and become somethng close to parochialism: not caring about anyone different, not even being aware of what's going on elsewhere, but simply "hiding" from others in the underbrush, in effect turning one's backs on the world to concentrate solely on your own concerns and community, a situation that Saruman would exploit among the Hobbits.

So, yes, it is possible to compile such a list of "faults" and point to ties with Sauron or other evil ones. But so too could we compile similar lists, with different content, for every race on Middle-earth.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Child and Nuru -- herm (or should that be, "hoom") I'm not arguing that hobbits are in any way 'evil' or that they are alike Sauron in terms of good vs bad. In fact, in my first post about this I said that I find it interesting that the hobbits are not being contrasted to Sauron in terms of good vs bad, but in other terms that seem to be relatively value neutral (art vs magic, for example). I totally agree that the Hobbits' intentions (nod to mark 12_30 here) are good and Sauron's are evil, and that this is a qualitative difference between them (now nodding to Evisse). What I am saying is that the Hobbits share certain desires with Sauron (for invisibility, for simplified order, for control of nature). What's more, as Child points out, these desires are directed 'inward' toward the self -- in particular, to cut the self off from the outside world, and to isolate the self.

In other words, I would argue that the Hobbits are governed by self(ish?) desire in the same way -- but certainly not to the same extent -- as is Sauron. Their desires are 'good' and Sauron's are 'evil', but they do have this in common.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fordim,

I agree with much of what you say. The point you raise about 'invisibility' is interesting. I can't help but wonder if that play on the word was "intentional" on the author's part. Moreover, as you state, Hobbits are not evil. But like other free peoples of LotR, they are "flawed", each race in different ways, and each share characteristics with Sauron.

However, at some point, I feel you may push the semblance too far:

....there are a number of intents that the Hobbits have in common with Sauron:

Order
Invisibility
'using' the land
Rules

Again, I would argue that the difference is one of degree not kind -- yes, the Hobbits intend to establish order for the sake of a well-regulated life, and intend to use the land for 'good'. So they are emphatically not the same as Sauron, but they do share his desire for the above things.

I see this as more than a simple difference of degree. For example, the desire to garden and to tend the land, to beautify it and bring forth productive fruit, stems from goodness. Such an impulse can certainly be abused, but at its best this is an example of subcreation in natural rather than artistic terms.

Sauron's path was different in its origin. His acts were the opposite of subcreation and involved setting his own will in opposition to what was natural or true.

You can apply the same words to describe what Sauron and the Hobbits were doing, as your list suggests. But these are mere labels--not the thing itself. The two lists share no real common ground. Their origins, their wellspring are different: one springs from goodness, and the other the perversion of goodness. Only in abuse by a Hobbit could you forge an actual tie. This is not to say that abuse did not occur. Most certainly, it did. But that is different than seeing an overall similarity of kind.

It is possible our differences may stem from the way we are using words... I am not sure.

*************************

There is something no one else has mentioned on reading the prologue: how familiar and comfortable the Hobbits feel. I am certainly not the first reader to see this, but every time I read the prologue it strikes me. While the Hobbit perspective is not identical to my own, it's enough alike that I can identify with many of their desires and their shortcomings. There are hints of the goodness and failings in my own life, the small victories and numerous frustrations. Hobbits are not great "heroes" but folk whom I can understand, at least to some degree.

Today perhaps, we're more used to this device. Featuring the "small" character has become a stock usage in fantasy. But, way back then, it was not the norm. And I still feel Tolkien has done this as well as any other fantasy writer who has come since then.

*******************

Thirdly, when I read the prologue this time, I was extremely curious when the author had written it. After all, we'd just finished discussing the foreward in terms of its dating. It also struck me as strange that it was written in numbered parts.

I scrounged around and did find a hint in HoMe for the part of the prologue labelled "i". CT says his father did this just around the time that the Hobbits had reached Bree. Some things about hobbit holes were actually dredged out of the general manuscript and put back in the prologue.

This implies that the latter parts were written later (as well as the lengthy note at the end). But I couldn't find any reference to their composition. Does anyone know? There are certainly references to people and events that had to come from later in the writing process.

To me, the prologue is like an old friend, full of names and hints of later developments. But I am wondering if maybe it's not so easy for the newbie, especially if they haven't read The Hobbit itself? Can anyone remember being confused by all these names and details on an early reading?

*************************

Squatter,

We cross posted. How interesting that our responses should be so different!

Yes, I can see the "littleness" of the Shire in more ways than one. Yet it is a world that I can understand in a way that Lothlorien or even Rivendell elude me.

I think Tolkien would very much have identified with the non-conformists Frodo and Bilbo, living in a world where they were surrounded by "smallness" while yearning for something more. And perhaps it is that which sticks with me. I can sense how the Shire would be stiffling. But what I remember with a smile is Bilbo out walking the paths, searching for Elves, while his neighbors gossipped about his actions.

It is that yearning, that search for more, which makes the Hobbits and the Shire appealing to me: Sam's love of Elven tales, Frodo's halting attempts to speak Elvish, how Elanor and Fastred journied out to new territory to live in the shadow of the Elven towers. Despite all the monotony and the parochialism of the Shire, we still find extraordinary people like this.

Tolkien was very aware of the limitations of Hobbits. At one point, he has harsh words to say about his character Sam as embodying the parochialism and short sightedness of the "typical" Hobbit. Yet the appeal of family, the beauties of nature and growing things, and the simple pleasures of home life seem to have overridden the more negative characteristics for him.