The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Child of the 7th Age · 11-10-2002, 01:02 AM

Sorry, Burrahobbit, I agree with Kalimac and Bird. Speculation is fair game.

And the origins of hobbits can only be speculation, since Tolkien has given no hints as to what happened before the year 1050 Third Age, which is the first evidence of hobbits in the recorded history of Middle-earth. We all know that it is impossible (even in Middle-earth!) for a people to drop to earth from the skies fully evolved just 2,000 years before the Ring quest. What happened earlier in hobbit history was apparently hidden or forgotten. That, in itself, is suggestive.

Why would this be, and why would Tolkien draw attention to the fact that earlier history was hidden, unless it had some significance in his mind? Again, we can speculate what that significance might be. There is one intriguing allusion in the book that Gandalf may know more about hobbit origins, but no more is said on this. Again, why would a maia know more about hobbit origins han anyone else, unless there is more behind those origins than would normally be the case?

There are other interesting hints. In all of hobbit history, we are given only one instance of recorded murder, that of Smeagol and Deagol. We have no instances of hobbits conquering or attacking other peoples. And before the Ring quest, I believe there was only one example of hobbits sending archers to fight in the King's war. This group incidently disappeared without a trace.

All this is very different from the history of Elves or big folk. And it prompts one to ask why. Hobbits are certainly prone to 'small evils', e.g., coveting each other's property, minor theft and deception, etc., but the big sins of murder, conquest and unbridled ambition just don't seem to be there.

Bird suggests one possible reason for this unique history. And what I know about Tolkien and his personal beliefs suggests to me she may be right.

If not, Burrahobbit, can you think of another good reason to explain the uniqueness of this people, and their history, or rather lack of it? I guess you might argue that they were too small to conquer anyone else, but they certainly could have taken weapons to each other, either individually or in groups. The big folk did plenty of that. And still there's the puzzling fact that the hobbits drop out of 'nowhere' just 2,000 years before the Ring quest.

I think it would be hard to deny that these anomalies exist. I would certainly not classify them as 'fallacies' as you suggest in your last post. If you think Bird is off base, how would you explain these anomalies of hobbit history?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

11-10-2002, 01:02 AM	#22
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,133	Sorry, Burrahobbit, I agree with Kalimac and Bird. Speculation is fair game. And the origins of hobbits can only be speculation, since Tolkien has given no hints as to what happened before the year 1050 Third Age, which is the first evidence of hobbits in the recorded history of Middle-earth. We all know that it is impossible (even in Middle-earth!) for a people to drop to earth from the skies fully evolved just 2,000 years before the Ring quest. What happened earlier in hobbit history was apparently hidden or forgotten. That, in itself, is suggestive. Why would this be, and why would Tolkien draw attention to the fact that earlier history was hidden, unless it had some significance in his mind? Again, we can speculate what that significance might be. There is one intriguing allusion in the book that Gandalf may know more about hobbit origins, but no more is said on this. Again, why would a maia know more about hobbit origins han anyone else, unless there is more behind those origins than would normally be the case? There are other interesting hints. In all of hobbit history, we are given only one instance of recorded murder, that of Smeagol and Deagol. We have no instances of hobbits conquering or attacking other peoples. And before the Ring quest, I believe there was only one example of hobbits sending archers to fight in the King's war. This group incidently disappeared without a trace. All this is very different from the history of Elves or big folk. And it prompts one to ask why. Hobbits are certainly prone to 'small evils', e.g., coveting each other's property, minor theft and deception, etc., but the big sins of murder, conquest and unbridled ambition just don't seem to be there. Bird suggests one possible reason for this unique history. And what I know about Tolkien and his personal beliefs suggests to me she may be right. If not, Burrahobbit, can you think of another good reason to explain the uniqueness of this people, and their history, or rather lack of it? I guess you might argue that they were too small to conquer anyone else, but they certainly could have taken weapons to each other, either individually or in groups. The big folk did plenty of that. And still there's the puzzling fact that the hobbits drop out of 'nowhere' just 2,000 years before the Ring quest. I think it would be hard to deny that these anomalies exist. I would certainly not classify them as 'fallacies' as you suggest in your last post. If you think Bird is off base, how would you explain these anomalies of hobbit history? sharon, the 7th age hobbit [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ] __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.