Where did Hobbits come from?

[Morwen]

Very good points, Morwen. Your Silm quote does show, however, that the Hobbits can be created as the Dwarves were; half-alive, as it were, although the character of them in LotR surely belies any notion of them having no freedom of will. What you say about Aule going against Eru's will is true, but Eru (and Manwe and the rest of the Valar besides) is notorious for getting angry but not really undoing the bad things his underlings do. The Hobbits, on the other hand, would not have been made 'behind Eru's back' like the Dwarves, but would have been allowed as a partial answer to the unending destruction of M-e by Elves and Men. Otherwise, to have them be whole Children of Iluvatar in their own right, would of necessity force an inconsistancy in the Ainulindale itself, where they are not mentioned at all.

If hobbits are a type of human/man, then the fact that hobbits are not expressly mentioned in the Ainulindale is not a problem. They fall within the category of Man and are therefore accounted for.

If the hobbits are an independent creation, I don't think this is necessarily inconsistent with the Ainulindale, which, though important, is not the be all and end all with respect to Arda and its fate. The Ainulindale is the direct product of the Ainur and "because of the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them" (Silmarillion, The Ainulindale)

However,

Yet some things there are that they (the Valar) cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have not foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. (my emphasis) Simarillion The Ainulindale

Now if ever a passage allowed for hobbits I think it is this one. Their creation would then fall into the category of things that Eru knew about but did not reveal to the Valar rather than an idea that proceeds from the Valar themselves and receives the blessing of Eru.

[Finduilas]

So, from what I can tell, most of you think that Hobbits were made at the same time as Men, classified as Men, and since they did nothing they were ignored till Bilbo came along.

[Feanorsdoom]

Ah, but Morwen, I still don't think you quite see how having Hobbits arise as a new race equally considered Children of Iluvatar would be too important not to be mentioned in the Ainulindale. And having them be nothing more than oddly-shaped Men would make one wonder what the cosmic significance is of having them in the Fellowship. I fully believe Tolkien never meant their origin to be more than either of these scenarios, but a further meddling by one of the Valar in order to help look after and protect Arda itself would fit so much better to the feeling of the story. The way you project it, the Hobbits have no special significance; they just happen to exist. If they are a result of a request to redress the wounds to the land inflicted by thousands of years of war, then they are fulfilling divine destinies.

[Morwen]

But I think the quote I earlier provided suggests that there are significant things that Eru means to occur that are NOT mentioned in the Ainulindale, those conceived by Eru alone and only revealed at at a time of his choosing. In fact one might argue that Eru may wish to keep some of his more significant plans to himself as a way of safeguarding them. Rather than being so important that they must be mentioned, their importance requires that they should not be mentioned.

As for the significance of the hobbits, how exactly is their significance lessened by being part of Eru's specific design? I would think that hobbits as created and designed by Eru and Eru alone actually have greater significance than hobbits as a mere afterthought, the result of a latter day request by the Valar.

[Feanorsdoom]

It's exactly this dichotomy that a request by the Valar would diffuse. And such a request would not be just an "afterthought". Beren and Luthien, anyone? On the contrary, having Hobbits just 'pop up' in the middle of the Third Age is just an afterthought. If they are important enough to have such an impact on the Third Age built in to their very origin, then they would merit mention at least as much scrutiny as Men, who in the end are mostly cannon fodder for Elves and Big Bad Guys. Beyond Beren and Isuldur, who among them really became the vehicles for fate?

But this is all idle, wishful imaginings. Of course Hobbits are only pigmy Men. Tolkien never said any different; quite the contrary. But is it so wrong to think that it could have been done better?

[Morwen]

It's exactly this dichotomy that a request by the Valar would diffuse. And such a request would not be just an "afterthought". Beren and Luthien, anyone?

(a) If the Valar are asking Eru to create a new race in response to certain events that they see unfolding in Middle Earth then such a request and the race it produces are afterthoughts.

On the contrary, having Hobbits just 'pop up' in the middle of the Third Age is just an afterthought.

(b) I have never said that Hobbits just 'pop up' in the middle of the Third Age. In post #13 I in fact note that though hobbits first appear in records in the Third Age that does not mean that they originated at that point.

What I have argued is (a) that Eru creates Hobbits and (b) I don't believe, for the reasons I have stated, that the Valar had anything to do with such creation.

If they are important enough to have such an impact on the Third Age built in to their very origin, then they would merit mention at least as much scrutiny as Men, who in the end are mostly cannon fodder for Elves and Big Bad Guys.

Strictly speaking, hobbits as a race do not have an impact on the Third Age. There are 5 hobbit individuals (well, six if you count Gollum) who do in fact play an important part in the events of that Age.



As for wishing that it was "done better", by which I take you to mean the story of origin of hobbits, perhaps Tolkien simply thought that it was the contribution made by his main hobbit characters that deserved attention and not the minute details of their ancestry.

[Lalwendë]

Evolution made 'em.

Really. There's linguistic evidence in the texts that at some point they shared land with the ancestors of the Rohirrim - this could indeed have been a common ancestor from which descended both the contemporary Hobbits and Rohirrim. I've got something aeons old posted somewhere on here about that when I uncovered it, but I shall have to find it when I get a chance.

It's likely that this was Tolkien's desired intention as his work was as much constructed as a place in which to explore his created languages and their evolution as it was about many other things. To demonstrate common ancestry via linguistic roots is extremely apt for Tolkien. Note he also adds in the existence of faded legends of Hobbits amongst the Rohirrim, which adds extra texture to this sense of history.

How about the other evidence that the Ents did not know of Hobbits, Ents who were taught by the Elves? Here are two long lived races who know nothing of Hobbits so it is clear they originated elsewhere and at a later stage.

And who wants to have Tolkien write a Noddy Guide as to where Hobbits came from? It's far more fun to find out for yourself on a chance discovery like a real life etymologist or archaeologist striking gold in the stacks at the British Library or somesuch Plus it only adds to their folky mystique, like the boggarts, the hobgoblins and the brownies that live in our houses...