LotR - Prologue

[HerenIstarion]

Fordim I did not intend it to sound if I were to denounce your entire post. Points you list are verily very much valid. Evaluation you provide seems a bit misplaced only, for word 'co-dependence' bears an implication both parts, qualities that of Sauron and of average hobbit are both necessary, part of 'world order' somehow.
Yet application of rightful authority is a treat good in itself, and mastery/domination is just authority put to its extreme (as Kuruharan points out), its abuse and perversion. But if there were no abuse of authority, authority will not cease to exist, whilst if there were no authority in the first place, its abuse would not be possible either. Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

Per instance, militant complacency mentioned by Squatter in excellent post of his is abuse of self-confidence, and self-confidence is good in itself, if not taken to extreme.

Magic re: more to be said when we reach 'Mirror of Galadrilel'. Brief note here - the whole talk of art/magic in the prologue seems to me to express Tolkien's desire to uproot in his reader notion of magic as something unnatural (or supernatural). Supernatural implies in itself something 'proceeding outside nature'. Such and outside intrusion may be called 'a miracle', but not magic. And there are several instances of such an intrusions into ME nature, and all by Eru himself. Now magic in ME, as I argued elsewhere (and here too), seems to be application of its practitioners inherent, natural abilities, and therefore should not be called 'magic' at all. That includes 'deceits of the Enemy' too.

[the phantom]

The analogy you draw, Phantom, between hobbits (two to four feet in height) and humans (three to six) is actually not entirely accurate.

The analogy is entirely accurate. The human range is larger because humans are larger. The percentage change remains the same. Two is to four feet as three is to six feet. The range should not stay at two feet for humans.

I'll take this to an extreme to illustrate. If the range stayed at exactly two feet then what if there was a race of giants that averaged 1,000,001 feet tall and nearly all of them fell between 1,000,000 and 1,000,002 feet? As you can see, the range is still two feet but if you stood the tallest and shortest giants next to each other you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But if there was a race of mini-hobbits that ranged between one millimeter tall and about 2.01 feet tall, there would be a huge difference if you stood them side by side, though the range was still two feet.

Firefoot said what I'm thinking-

Because hobbits are smaller, I would expect them to have a smaller range of height because proportions are smaller.

Oh, and Nuru-

It could also make an interesting fan fiction/RPG, concerning how they actually fought or concerning how they came up with the idea that they did.

I'm sure that ff/rpg will be done eventually, and I'm also sure it would be really funny.

[mark12_30]

The Barrow-Wight had started a story of the hobbit-archers sent to the battle: go here .

[Estelyn Telcontar]

A brief passage in the Prologue that troubles me is this one on the custom of living in holes, as only the richest and the poorest Hobbits did:

The poorest went on living in burrows of the most primitive kind, mere holes indeed, with only one window or none; while the well-to-do still constructed more luxurious versions of the simple diggings of old.

This brings a vision of Hobbit slums to my mind that disturbs me greatly! How does that go with their friendliness and peacefulness, with the familial ties they hold high? Is Tolkien thinking of the Biblical “The poor you have always with you”? Is it inevitable that there will be poverty, and the kind described by Tolkien is great poverty indeed, even among a society with so many idyllic traits?

And what causes the poverty? Natural catastrophes (droughts, etc.) have not occurred for a long time, the land is fertile, and there doesn’t appear to be much serious illness amongst Hobbits – so would it be due to laziness? Or is the tendency to have many children (feeding them is expensive, we hear later in the first chapter) one that creates poverty?

Why is the poverty not alleviated by others? Apparently there are no social or health insurances, so if there is no other family member available, are the old and impoverished left uncared for? Many questions, and I have no answers. Is this something Tolkien didn’t think through to its conclusion?

[Guinevere]

To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it.

Were the little guys lying?

I don't think they would downright lie ! Perhaps as the years passed and the tale was told and retold, the number af archers they sent would increase and their feats exaggerated etc . Perhaps it was only a very small number or, as the Phantom suggested, they might have arrived too late .. but anyhow it was in this battle the North Kingdom ended and the Dunedain had to flee. Perhaps those who had seen the hobbit-archers hadn't survived the battle to tell of it... Did those archers themselves return to the Shire at all ? We just don't know it.


How do you suppose Tolkien thought the Hobbits would live in his time? (Since he hinted they were still around in the NorthWest of the old World, although rare and dwindled.) They could hide themselves, but what about their settlements and tilled fields ?

edit: cross-posted with Estelyn.
I agree, this bit about the poor hobbits living in primitive burrows, sounds disturbing, once I stop to think of it! And what about the very rich ones?
Where did the fabulous wealth of Bilbo's father Bungo originally come from?
The Shire isn't just a community of farmers... there are gentlehobbits and working class hobbits ...and even paupers?
Really,the Shire is not all that idyllic as most people seem to think!

[Kuruharan]

If most of the arable land was already farmed out, and all the necessary crafts were already adequately filled, this could leave a proportion of the population without the means of making a living. This could cause poverty (statement of the obvious). I’d suppose that propertied members of the extended family would do their best to help, but they might have several groups of poor relatives to assist, and they would certainly not want to go without their six meals a day served on crystal dining-ware (let us be reasonable now )

[Boromir88]

Guinevere this goes back to my first post. I agree I don't see a reason for the hobbits to lie. What happens is Tolkien writes in perspective. If he has Gandalf talking he thinks what would Gandalf say? It doesn't mean it is accurate or correct.

In the appendix of LOTR it stated how very few dwarves ever succumbed to sauron or morgoth, no matter what the tales of men say. Then it goes on to state how the men were jealous of the dwarves wealth. So, I think it is very possible that men found a reason to be "jealous" of hobbits so they made tales. Tolkien often writes this way which makes his characters have their own "identity" and really pulls you into the story. You just kind of got to remember when someone says something from the book that is their opinion on it doesn't mean it is true. It very well could be true but not necessarily.

Besides the example from the appendix there are no more I can think of off the top of my head where Tolkien uses the characters "perspective," but I know I've caught more than one. So if anyone else found one please feel free to add in.

[mark12_30]

Define "poorest". To me this conjures up just-a-little-smaller-than Number Three Bagshot Row (See Tolkien's watercolor of The Hill) which has two windows, one door, and a contract with the upscale neighbor for earning bread.

Sam is used to helping himself to Bilbo's beer, although he is no stranger to the Inn's beer either. I'd suppose he gets a wage; does he also get meals onsite?

I wonder if it is a question of priorities.

Lothlorien elves live in simple flets, not because they *can't* do better, but because they prefer nature. Why expand your home when you'd rather be outdoors anyway?

Edit: Boromir88, good point-of-view!

[davem]

HerenIstarion wrote:

Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

I have go along with this. As Brian Rosebury in his wonderful recent book Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon has stated:

Any analysis of the aesthetic power ot the Lord of the Rings needs to take into account the fact that its values are organised around a moral conflict: Sauron’s despotism is not only to be ‘undesired’, it is to be undesired in the specific sense of being percieved as categorically morally bad. Nothing could be more false, however, than the notion that the Lord of the Rings represents a deterministic, or Manichean, universe of struggle between the innatley & unalterably good & the innatley & unalterably evil. On the contrary, as several critics have noticed, the imagined world is underpinned by an optimistic, & occaisionally explicit, theology of quite a different kind. ‘Nothing is evil in the begining’, Elrond observes. ‘Even Sauron was not so’. Though God is not referred to in the Lord of the Rings (except fleetingly in an appendix), & though the world is preChristian, there is no doubt that we are in an Augustinian universe, in which all creation is good, & evil is concieved in terms of freely chosen negation, of a willful abdication from an original state of created perfection. Sauron, the Dark Lord, is not a countervailing deity, but a fallen angel who, for all his awesome power, cannot create new life, only strive to annhiliate it or pervert it into abominable forms. Whether the reader consciously recognises the theology is unimportant: the essential point is that the negativity of evil, & the intrinsic goodness of ‘the effoliation & multiple enrichment of creation’ are consistently & palpably maintained.

...The defeat of the forces of evil should ideally appear, not as a lucky accident, or as a punishment inflicted from outside by a superior power (which deprives the actual process of defeat of any moral significance), but as the practical consequence of wickedness itself: Evil must appear as intrinsically self defeating in the long run. Sauron & his servants, despite their steadily growing superiiority in crude strength & terror, are hindered by weaknesses which are themselves vices: their lack of imagination, the irrational cruelty which denies them the option of voluntary assistance (the victim must be made to act against his own will), & the selfishness which disables their alliances.

It is the intellectual myopia of evil, however, on which greatest explicit emphasis is laid in the text. Just as the created world is intrinsically good, so disinterested curiosity about that world is an atribute of that good; the negativity of evil entails a loss of insight & of the desire to understand others. Whereas the light percieves the very heart of the darkness, its own secret has not been discovered’. (FR 366)

In Tolkien's world evil is self defeating - perhaps another meaning of the 'Long Defeat' that Galadriel mentions.Not the long defeat of the good, but the long defeat of evil - they fight to hold it in check till it defeats itself. Sauron's defeat is inevitable because of the very nature of evil itself. Because evil is not a co-equal force with good, but a perversion of good, it has no true existence, it is onoly a perversion, & so can only pervert other things - even its own aims, ultimately defeating & destroying itself from within.

The Hobbits are curious to some degree about the world beyond their borders - Sam has heard abouts Oliphaunts. In the poems from the Red Book contained in the Adventures of Tom Bombadil there are accounts of othe lands & races. I think they simply became too inward looking, & caught up in their own affairs, rather than deliberately cutting themselves off, then, eventually, the outside world would come to seem alien to them. But I wouldn't describe them as not being curious - I think they were intensely curious about whatever they felt safe with - the land, plants, animals - woods, fields, little rivers. They preffered order, but not in the way or to the extent that Sauron did. They loved diversity, but struggled with it if they were suddenly confronted with things beyond their experience. I can't see any similarity between Hobbits at their worst, & Sauron, & I can't see that Tolkien wants us to.

As to 'poor Hobbits', well, their society is not perfect. Even within the Shire there is distrust of Hobbits from other areas. We don't know enough about their society or economy. I would speculate that large areas of the Shire were either not owned by anyone or owned in common, so I don't think anyone would have been denied access to natural resources. And if your idea of home is a hole in the ground, all you need is a shovel, & an axe to make yourself a place to live.

And we can't assume that any hobbits would live in a permanent state of poverty.

[Kuruharan]

mark12_30 and davem, to my mind, bring up an interesting point.

Poverty might only be in comparison with the wealthy hobbits. It does not necessarily mean that the poorest hobbits lacked the means of survival. Even if a poor hobbit’s extended family could not be of help, I think that other members of the community would step in to prevent crippling deprivation.

I would speculate that large areas of the Shire were either not owned by anyone or owned in common

I agree that there were likely large areas held in common, but it has always been my notion that the Shire was a fairly well-populated area. I don’t mean to say that I think the hobbits were crowded, but I think that at least most of the farmable areas would have had some form of ownership.

However, I don’t know if there is much to support either view. A glance at the map of the Shire shows that the hobbits were at least spread out over the area, but I suppose that does not necessarily imply that they were thick on the ground everywhere.

[Saraphim]

Define "poorest". To me this conjures up just-a-little-smaller-than Number Three Bagshot Row (See Tolkien's watercolor of The Hill) which has two windows, one door, and a contract with the upscale neighbor for earning bread.

Like you said, Mark12_30. While poor, perhaps, the lower-class hobbits were not badly off. Especially if they had a neighbor such as Bilbo, who well, let's see:

~gave both the Gaffer and Samwise jobs as gardeners, despite his own proclivity to gardening. He could just as well have done it himself. And probably more hobbits too, for cleaning and the like.

~Paid them well

~Question to the rest of you: did Bilbo actually own Bagshot row? If he did, he gave hem free housing. If not... well then disregard this.

~Like it was mentioned earlier, Sam apperantly had free reign where the beer stores were concerned

~And Bilbo taught Sam to read and write, something he would not have had the opportunty to do otherwise.

So things can't have been all bad. I simply can't picture a permenently homeless hobbit.

Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

I'll agree with that as well. It takes a good person (eg. Frodo) to remain uncorrupted for so long, by something that would be so easy to put on.

I have a cheap little copy of the Ring that I always wear around my neck. I constantly have it subconciously on a finger. And it's not even evil and whispering to me.

More on this when we get to the end, but Frodo was indeed, good. As was Bilbo, Boromir and probably Isildur. The Ring, obviously an evil object, corrupted them all.

And look at Smeagol. He was corrupted by the Ring almost before he set eyes on it. I don't think he was a very good person to begin with. This is just my opinion, now. I've got no proof behind it, other than the fact that he was under the influence of the Ring before anyone else was.

But Evil contains the seeds of its own demise. When Sauron made the Ring, he made himself stronger, and capable of controlling others. But he also made something that could be easily lost and destroyed. And, indeed, it was.

If not for the Ring, Sauron may never have been destroyed.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I've a short series of thoughts besides that of the heights of hobbits (although I have indeed thought about the image of a 2 foot hobbit running around the Men in Bree). Of the quotation, all boldings and italics are my own, and I did indeed slice a few words out here and there.

The Authorites... differ whether this last question was a mere 'question' and not a 'riddle'... but all agree that... Gollum was bound by his promise. And Bilbo pressed him to keep his word; for the thought came to him that this slimy creature might prove false, even though such promises were held sacred, and of old all but the wickedest things feared to break them.

Just who were these Authorities, and do they just sit around all day judging the fairness of riddle games? I assume no. For them to know of the true finding of the Ring, Gandalf must have been involved, otherwise The Authorites would be busy discussing the ethics of Bilbo keeping the Ring AND making Gollum show him the way out instead. Who do you think made up this group of Authorities... the White Council?

all but the wickedest things feared to break them

If everybody (excepting those wicked 'uns) feared the reprocussions of said promises, then just what were the punishments given to the oath-breakers of Riddles? They must be pretty harsh for so many people to be afraid to test them.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I wanted to add two brief caveats to this thread: one regarding Hobbit parochialism and the other Hobbit population.

Several writers (including myself!) have commented on the Shire's parochialism, the Hobbit's tendency to look within their own community, to enjoy prosperity and to ignore what was happening outside. The Prologue stresses the peace and prosperity of the Shire before the War of the Ring, yet this was a relatively recent development. As late as 2911, the Shire faced a serious problem with famine, wolf attacks, and frigid weather, an event suggesting that true complacency and prosperity only occurred about 100 years prior to the events of LotR. (Interestingly, Tolkien refers in his prologue to a "long" period of Shire prosperity going back to the Long Winter of 2758, and doesn't mention the major problems of the Fell Winter in 2911 that do appear in his appendix.)

In any case, it's clear the Hobbits hadn't always had the "luxury" of being able to shut out the world. Between 1050 TA and 2340 TA, there were four separate Hobbit migrations, when significant segments of the community packed up everything and moved to find a new home. The prologue and/or appendix mention the Great Plague of 1636, the wars of 1974-75, the Long Winter of 2758, and the Fell Winter of 2911 as other events originating from outside that disturbed the peace of the Shire. The Fell Winter was no easy thing: the Hobbits dealt with famine, wolf attacks, and bitter cold. It is likely that the Rangers helped them turn back the wolves. Bilbo would have been just 21 years old. (What a great RPG that would be!)

So it was only in the past 100 years that the Hobbits forgot about the Rangers and became a sheltered, complacent and parochial people, something of which Gandalf disapproved. The istar's wonderful words in UT say it all about parochialism and hint at an earlier time when this was not the case:

They had begun to forget: forget their own beginnings and legends, forget what little they had known about the greatness of the world. It was not yet gone, but it was getting buried: the memory of the high and perilous.

As far as population goes, my impression is that the Shire was not overcrowded. Fonstad's map in the Middle-earth Atlas shows only a middling density in the middle of the Shire, with sparse population in the outlying area. More importantly, if you look at the historical pattern since settlement in the Shire, you can see that every 300 years or so, something happened that cut down on the population. Look at this pattern, which is reflected in both the prologue and the appendix: 1636 plague; 1974-75 war; blizzard and famine 2758; further blizzard, famine and the attack of wolves, 2911. Michael Martinez has a good essay on this called "Charting the Shire Lines". Click here.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Feanor makes an excellent point; if this book is based on 'historical' accounts that have been written and compiled by 'others', what sorts of biases, limitations, prejudices, blindspots, missing information and outright fabrications do we need to worry about? The issue of the hobbit archers at Fornost has already moved into this territory, but not really resolved it.

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

We've already discovered that the Shire is not the idyllic and faultless land that it first appears to be -- is it possible that the same standards that lead the hobbits to aggrandize and idealise themselves will work later in the book to devalue or misrepresent other peoples or ways of living that are not 'up' to their standards?

[Kuruharan]

Just who were these Authorities

The Authorities are the Valar by another name.

I assume no.

For them to know of the true finding of the Ring, Gandalf must have been involved

While Gandalf was their servant, they did not need him to inform them of anything.

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

Perhaps in a way. However, this does not mean that the text should be treated as biased regarding the events discussed in it (at least as regards the events themselves in the context of the story). In other words, (to borrow an example from later in the story) I mean that we shouldn’t think that Merry did not stab the Witch King just because he was a hobbit and the book was written by hobbits. We should treat that as actually having happened in the story.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

Fordim,

Yes, the Red Book of Westmarch is definitely hobbit-centric. Yet the Hobbits of the Shire were not collectively responsible for the Red Book, rather it is the three individuals who were most closely associated with the matter of the Ring.

In judging the Red Book's narrative and determining whether it is "parochial" and "limited", we have to focus not on the Hobbit community as a whole but on those three individuals who were the primary compilers/editors/writers of this unique document: Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise. The earliest chapters concerning matters of Hobbit culture and history, to which you refer, would indeed have been the responsibility of Bilbo.

Bilbo was cetainly capable of "altering the record" as we see in the chapter Riddles in the Dark that appears in the Hobbit. It is also true that he was "under the influence of the Ring" directly or indirectly when he wrote his portion of the Red Book. Yet, the one thing I would not accuse him of is being "parochial" and "limited". He is the compiler not only of the Red Book, but also of the Silmarillion. His knowledge of Elves, of Elvish culture and language, and hence his exposure to other cultures was second to none in the Shire. In Gandalf's words from UT, it was Bilbo whom the istar chose to break through the parochialism of the Shire and teach them about the wide world that surrounded them. In Gandalf's words....

....you cannot teach that sort of thing to a whole people quickly. There was not time. And anyway you must begin at some point, with some one person. I dare say he was "chosen" and I was only chosen to choose him; but I picked out Bilbo.

I do not think Gandalf was mistaken in his choice of Bilbo to break through the parochialism of the Shire. And as an experienced historian, Bilbo would have been capable of dealing with any bias in the local sources he encountered. That said, we can not expect an Elvish or Mannish viewpoint from either of our three Hobbit narrators. Any more than we could expect a Hobbit viewpoint from an Elf or a Man.

In the writing of history, we are all limited by who we are. Yet that is a different thing than saying that the Redbook may "devalue or misrepresent other peoples or ways of living that are not 'up' to their (i.e. Hobbit) standards." I don't see a consistent pattern of such negative judgements in the latter pages of the book.

In my opinion, the three Hobbits responsible for the Redbook -- Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise -- as well as their two companions from Buckland and Tukborough--show a refreshing attitude towards many of the new cultures that they encounter in their journeys. I would not accuse them of parochialism, although their understanding on many points is necessarily limited by the bounds of their expeience.

Strange to say....the same thing that seems to bother you about the book, its Hobbit-centric narration, is one of the principal things that brings delight to me.

Are we straying too far from the prologue itself?

[Carnimírië]

I've been reading the discussions that took place prior to the initiation of this read-through, and after seeing again and again (and again and again and again) that it's ok for newbies to join in the discussion, here I go...

This book is largely concerned with hobbits, and from it's pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history.

How's that for a succinct summary of The Lord of the Rings?

The first time I read LotR the paragraph describing Hobbits, how they like good tilled earth, don't practice magic, etc. made me feel as if I had known about them all my life, and made me tremendously curious to read the entire book. I haven't skipped the Prologue (or the Forword, or even the Note on the Text ) in any of my subsequent re-readings, because I think it puts you in the right frame of mind to enter Middle-earth in Chapter 1. It really sets up LotR as a "history" rather than just a made up story. Hobbit life seems so ideal, living off the land, being in tune with nature, keeping the laws of free will, just peacefully going about their lives and minding their own business.

There's also quite a bit of humor in the prologue, I missed most of it the first time around, but picked up on it later on. I'm not exactly sure why, but the phrase "Hobbitry-in-arms" cracks me up! Maybe it's the mental image... Also this:

The Bree-hobbits claim to have been the first actual smokers of the pipe-weed. They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as "colonists"; but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.

I was really glad that an abbreviated version of the finding of the Ring was included, because I hadn't read The Hobbit when I first read LotR. Reading The Hobbit for the first time was a real eye-opener...

~Carnie~

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Child, you wrote

Strange to say....the same thing that seems to bother you about the book, its Hobbit-centric narration, is one of the principal things that brings delight to me

As it happens the hobbit-centric narration is the most delightful aspect of the book for me as well. It's the tone that Tolkien strikes in the Prologue that makes LotR so readable when compared to The Sil; the tales there are, well, let's just say for the sake of peace in the thread, badly in need of a hobbit perspective. . .

I'm not exactly bothered by the hobbit-centrism, just intrigued by it. I don't mean to question the veracity of the tale, or the good intentions of its 'authors' -- it's just that the Prologue gives us an invaluable opportunity to assess the world-view of those narrators. It gives us a chance to see what kinds of things hobbits find important, and to reflect on how that will effect the telling of the story.

For example, would an Elvish narrator have said much about Bilbo's birthday party? Or described in such loving detail the first journeys through the Shire? Or Farmer Maggot? (But I get ahead of myself.) I don't think so. A Man would not have given much attention to the Scouring of the Shire -- but since our 'authors/historians' are hobbits, the realtively 'small' battle is given equal attention in the text as is the battle of the Pelennor (but now I really am getting far to far ahead of myself. . .!)

To be brief: whatever we come to say about hobbits based on this reading of the Prologue will have to be taken into account in the later chapters as we read through those events, since those events are being reflected through a very specific lens (which we are invited at this stage to examine).

[the phantom]

They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire...but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.

Ah, a second instance in the prologue that hints at hobbits lying about things. I was sort of joking the first time I talked about hobbits being a bunch of liars, but maybe they really are.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

It does seem like the hobbits lie a bit, or at least it is alluded to them not being all together honest, but the difference between hobbit-lies and lies of say, the Enemy, are that hobbit-lies are not malicious in nature. And to steal Nuru's quote:

the intent and use of these... make these same qualities good, while it is the opposite for Sauron.

Bad guys are decietful for their own gain, and nothing else. They don't care who gets hurt, but with hobbits, they might exaggerate the truth a bit, or tweak it a bit, but it's nothing that will do lasting harm. What is the worse lie? "I am your friend, Men of Numenor. Heed my kindly words of wisdom." or "Yep, we were the first to smoke the good stuff."

[Firefoot]

The Bree-hobbits claim to have been the first actual smokers of the pipe-weed. The claim, of course, to have done everything beore the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as "colonists"; but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.

By the general tone of this section of the prologue, I do not get the impression of hobbits being liars. It has always seemed to me that hobbits from Bree and the Shire have a sort of friendly "competition". Here you see the Bree-landers refer to the Shire hobbits as "colonists" and yet in "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony" Shire folk refer to Bree hobbits as "outsiders". Then there is the "Sure as Shire-talk" and "News from Bree" quote, which I can't seem to find. Being that this particular information is (supposedly) being presented by Merry, it seems to me that rather than accusing them of being liars, per se, he is boosting up the Shire hobbits (Bree hobbits claim to have done everything before Shire hobbits) at the same time as giving credibility to the Bree hobbits for the smoking of pipe-weed.

And maybe this is just because I have a problem with lying hobbits...

[Son of Númenor]

I don't understand why everyone is talking about hobbits being liars. Can anyone find an example (besides Bilbo's lie about Gollum giving him the Ring as a present, which was mostly because of the nature of the Ring) of a hobbit telling a lie? The examples of Shire-folk being the first to smoke pipeweed and hobbits bowmen aiding Arnorn from the prologue are things that are maintained in hobbit lore, but that is probably just because they are stories that have been passed down from generation to generation; and whether there is truth in them or not, I doubt the hobbits intentionally lied.

Edit: I cross-posted with Firefoot (who made some excellent points ).

[Child of the 7th Age]

Son of Numenor -

I don't understand why everyone is talking about hobbits being liars. Can anyone find an example (besides Bilbo's lie about Gollum giving him the Ring as a present, which was mostly because of the nature of the Ring) of a hobbit telling a lie?

I agree. That Hobbits exaggerate or stories get reshaped in the telling I do not doubt. But that is a long way from what I would term a real "lie" -- the conscious fashioning of an untrue story to achieve a particular end, usually for individual or group self promotion.

There are several points in Tolkien's writings that suggest conscious lies were far from the norm. Why would Tolkien make such a "big deal" about Bilbo's alteration of his story on how he got the Ring if telling lies was a normal feature of Hobbit life? The very fact that this was chosen as an example of the power of the Ring, that a Hobbit would lie and alter a story under the influence of a powerful talisman of evil, suggests the opposite to be true: such behavior, that of conscious lying, was not regarded as normal.

Secondly, if we accept Tolkien at face value, then Bilbo was the author of the early part of the Red Book including the reference to Hobbit Bowmen. The prologue does give the impression of being Tolkien's personal introduction to the Red Book. But, even so, Tolkien would have had to get the data from Bilbo, since he does not claim to have other sources. Given this context, it is quite extraordinary that Bilbo would have included a detail that the presence of the Hobbit archers was not corroborated by any of the Big Folk. If anything, it would seem to indicate that Bilbo was being scrupulously honest as an author by telling his readers that, although he has heard this tale, it can not be verified in any other way.

Thirdly, just look at the tale of the Scouring of the Shire. What was the chief "sin" of Ferny and his men? One could well argue that their most blatant shortcoming was that they were bald faced "liars". Whatever words the outsiders used, they twisted the meaning of these in clever ways. Thus, they came up with a long list of "Rules" supposedly for the Hobbits' benefit, when their real intention was to haul off all the goodies. Why portray the "bad guys" as lying if this same behavior is part of the normal culture of the Shire? It doesn't make sense.

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

In regard to Hobbit "poverty"..... There is no doubt that the Shire was a stratified society, just as was true of rural Edwardian and Victorian England. Wealth was presumably based on land, which some folk had and others didn't.

Yet, the writings give no hint of anything equivalent to Dickens: terrible abuses, children going hungry, and people turning to criminal behavior because they had no option. The only indication of this type of discord is in the period prior to the Scouring when Saruman and Ferny and their types took things over and hauled off the harvest so the hobbits were left with very little. The only other examples of such hardship that I can think of were the Long Winter and, by implication, the Fell Winter when the harvests totally failed.

What we do have is several indications that the Hobbits as a whole were fairly generous. Bilbo's treatment of Samwise has already been cited. There is also a telling statement by Gandalf in regard to the Shire that occurs in UT, which indicates Hobbits had a gift for sharing things with each other:

And then there was the Shire-folk. I began to have a warm place in my heart for them in the Long Winter, which none of you can remember. They were very hard put to it then: one of the worst pinches they have been in, dying of cold and cold, and starving in the dreadful dearth that followed. But that was the time to see their courage, and their pity, one for another. It was by their pity as much as by their tough uncomplaining courage that they survived.

If Hobbits were this generous at a time they were starving, they would surely have attempted to make sure everyone had at least the minimum to get by in better times.

Is such an idealized picture of a rural society 'realistic'? To be truthful, no, at least in terms of the world that I live in. As a historian, I can cite examples of real hardship resulting from the inequitable distribution of wealth in the very period which Tolkien loosely uses as his model for the Shire. And I have played in a few Middle-earth RPGs where questions of poverty and injustice are investigated even in the so-called 'good' Shire.

But, if I confine myself to Tolkien's writings alone -- not "real life" or my own fanciful flights of imagination -- then I have to admit that, while I see differences in social classes, possessions, and amount of land held, I have no hint of real hardship except in those rare instances of famine caused by natural disaster.

~Child, "Defender of the Hobbits"

[Bêthberry]

A rather late and incomplete response to this general question of whether Hobbit archers did or did not attend a certain battle.

Whenver I read this, I think automatically about the contribution which Canadian soldiers made on the D-Day, June 6th assault on the beaches of Nazi-held France. Yes, yes, indeed. The Canadians had their own beach, Juno beach. But you know what? That wasn't as big a newstory as the beaches taken by the Brits or the Yanks, where the 'really big shews were' to paraphrase Ed Sullivan.

I cannot tell you the numer of times that I have read newspaper or magazine reports of D-Day which refer solely to the British and American efforts. Small little unimportant Canada doesn't get a mention. I recall particularly an essay in a Norton Anthology of Essays about D-Day. A footnote commemorated the American and British efforts, without a word about the Canadian troups at Juno. (Let alone the various other battles such as at Caen which the Canucks won. Or the fact that, in World War I, it was a major Canadian offensive which began the last Hundred Days' battle which finally ended that war. Or Ypres.)

My point, other than personal jingoism? That history is written by the victors and their successors and when circumstances change, the successors may not necessarily bother with what really happened but might be more concerned with the alliances and allies and rapprochments of the current age in which they live.

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.

[the phantom]

a real "lie" -- the conscious fashioning of an untrue story to achieve a particular end, usually for individual or group self promotion

The lies that the hobbits are possibly telling seem to be all about self promotion. Saying they sent archers to help the good guys makes them look better as does claiming to be the first to discover or do something. Here are some more definitions-
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression.

Either Bree discovered things first or the Shire did. Whoever didn't but said they did is doing exactly what the definitions above state.

And if they didn't really send archers then someone (likely several someones) definitely lied big time.

The problem is most people have this messed up opinion about what a lie is. It's like they think lies have to be malicious or something. Well, they don't. If I meet some girl and in order to impress her I tell her some stories about things I've done but exaggerate a bit and make myself look better, that's lying just as much as a murderer denying he murdered someone and inventing an alibi.

I'm not trying to say hobbits are evil, merely that they don't always stick to the truth.

Now I don't want to get ahead here, but just wait until the next couple chapters. Remember when Bilbo is giving away presents and moving out of Bag End? I recall that Merry was kept very busy trying to stop hobbits from stealing things, buying things that weren't for sale, and knocking holes in the walls.

What a bunch of criminals!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Phantom,

Well, what can I say? I never claimed Hobbits were perfect (nor did Tolkien)! In fact, he once explicitly denied this in his Letters. Since objects seem to change hands frequently in the Shire, one mathom here or there doesn't seem to make a difference! I say this only half in jest, since objects seemed to change hands regularly in the Shire between people of all stations in life.

Moreover, the "mayhem" you refer to was not the result of some diabolical plot or series of lies, but the natural outgrowth of the Hobbits' generous custom of giving away things to people on their own birthday coupled with their own attachment to their possessions. One gets the sense that Bilbo could be incredibly generous but still had a minor streak of possessiveness even before the Ring. He was probably not unique in this regard. Tolkien stood back with a gentle smile on his face, viewing the disorder and the pranks of the children, human/hobbit foibles that he could surely understand. This is intended to be funny, precisely because it was not the kind of raid, pillage, and lies that appear later in the book. This is a difference that Tolkien assumed his reader would share in the humor and understand.

Now, on that question Guinevere raised earlier on the thread concerning the Hobbits in the modern world.... I can't say where they are in 2004, but there is an interesting hint in a treatise written by Michael Aislabie Denham between 1846 and 1859 entitled "When the Whole Earth was Overrun with Ghosts". Look at the second paragraph from the bottom, nine lines up, and you will see a clear reference to "hobbits" who, according to the author, lived seventy or eight years before, which would date them as late as 1780.

Click here.

I seriously wonder whether JRRT ever read this and it sank into a dark corner of his head, later retrieved when he was writing those exam papers.

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

Fordim -

I certainly concur that because LotR has "hobbit" narrators we are given a certain viewpoint, and that it's interesting to consider how that viewpoint influenced the narrative as we discuss the chapters. In the Silm we also have a unique view--that of the Elves,-- since Bilbo apparently did a job of simple compilation rather than reconstructing the entire narrative. Both books are "limited" as well as enriched by their unique perspective.

Rather, my differences come in the other issue you raise: to what extent is the hobbit view specifically provided by Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise marked by a parochial outlook, implicit acceptance of lies, and a possible tendency to look down their noses at other cultures. I don't see it. This seems to me to be the opposite of what Tolkien was trying to get across.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[galadriel'smaiden]

What I enjoyed about The Prolouge was how Mr. Tolkein described humans. The Big People, we were called. I wondered though if he wrote that part last because the Hobbits were said to be disappearing. Or maybe it was written as if the story had taken place a very long time ago. Yeah, that's it. ...I think.

[Orofaniel]

Fordim Hedgethistle wrote;

We've already discovered that the Shire is not the idyllic and faultless land that it first appears to be

Ouch! I've always thought of the Shire as very idyllic. I mean, compared to now a days and just in general - (at least for "me"). I think it depends on how you see it though. There will always be minor, and big, faults in a society, although some of them may not matter if you see it in the bigger picture. I'm not sure what you exactly you're thinking about when you say this Fordim. Is it about the poverty that has been discussed earlier? Is it about the Hobbit "lies". I use the "-" because I think it's rather funny; Hobbit liars. I don't really see it that way.

Phantom wrote:

The problem is most people have this messed up opinion about what a lie is. It's like they think lies have to be malicious or something. Well, they don't. If I meet some girl and in order to impress her I tell her some stories about things I've done but exaggerate a bit and make myself look better, that's lying just as much as a murderer denying he murdered someone and inventing an alibi.

I'm not trying to say hobbits are evil, merely that they don't always stick to the truth.

I have to say that I agree with you at some point. Lies doesn't always have to be malicious, but I'm not very fond of lies even though they may not be malicious, (or used as a "tool" to impress a girl. ) But at the same time, you're being honest; we lie all the time, we may be aware of it and we may not. They can be cruel but they can also be harmless. We also use the so called "white lies", that just hides the truth a bit from the open.

I'm convinced ( ) that Hobbits aren't evil. Didn't we just say that they wanted peace and quiet? That there never has been a Hobbit who has killed another Hobbit/anyone else (until the sourcing)? I wouldn't say that Hobbits "lies" are malicious. I'd say that Hobbits "tell many things, but not always the whole truth.” That’s different things, but they can be mixed sometimes.

**

Okay, I may have been a bit off topic here. I apologise.

Cheers,
Orofaniel

[Child of the 7th Age]

Carnimírië -

I wonder why the Prologue could not have just been part of the Appendices?

I'm glad you asked that question! It immediately crossed my mind as I was browsing over the recent entries on this thread.

Mr. Underhill -

Thanks so much for those references and for your ideas on why these materials were placed in a prologue. I had read the material in HoMe VI as the basis of my post but wasn't aware of the materials in XII. I do have the volume, but have yet to master the contents of HoMe; the chapter XIII index only shows references for the prologue in VI.

I think your words about authorial choice are key. This would explain the one example I raised. Tolkien omitted reference to the Fell Winter and dated the Shire's peaceful period all the way back to the Long Winter precisely because he wanted to use the prologue to establish the prosperity and complacency of the Shire for a long period---250 years-- prior to the War of the Ring. The Fell Winter that occurred in Bilbo's own lifetime was just too close for that purpose so it remained peacefully 'hidden' in the appendix.

The prologue is similar to the foreward in certain respects. We can clearly hear the author's voice in establishing some basic themes; he carefully picked what he wanted to tell us and relegated other material to the appendices.

Mr. Underdown - I think you are right in saying the prologue was a "risk". One of the most frequent "complaints" about the book, even among those who enjoy it, is that the beginning chapters are too "slow". I have heard this said any number of times. Presumably this complaint about the pacing of the early part of the book also refers to the prologue. In a sense it is the prologue that establishes the tone and pace of the early chapters, Frodo's rootedness in the Shire (which becomes more understandable in light of all this Hobbit information in the prologue) and his delays and excuses to keep from leaving.

My guess is that a modern publisher would have told him that a single foreward is quite enough, and ask him to toss most of the detail back into the appendices, perhaps sparing a point or two with the suggestion that it be tacked onto the foreward.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Orofaniel -- I don't think that the Shire is terribly 'flawed'. I would live there in a second, given the option; but I do think that after a very short while I would begin to go mad looking for the kind of discussion and inquisitiveness that characterises communities like the BD! I would also chafe against the provicialism of the place and await with great joy the arrival of the occaisional visitor from outside for a piece of news. I'm also not so sure I would enjoy the rather strict class system, no matter how benign it might be.

Still, like I said, the Shire is a better place than just about any I can think of in the Primary World and well worth the struggles of those who give so much to protect it, even if their struggles go unnoticed.

Herm -- there's a balace isn't there, in that? The hobbits might be ignored by the other peoples, but the hobbits return the favour. . .

Child -- very interesting point about the apparent discrepancy between the Prologue and appendices regarding the long prosperity, versus the set-backs. Is it possible that the Prologue is giving an overview ("everything was generally pretty good") and the appendices are more particular? I mean, we still refer to post-war North America as enjoying unprecedented prosperity and stability, despite things like the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the recessions of the early 80s and 90s, etc etc