The downfall of the hobbit-folk

[Farael]

First of all I would like to start with the customary apology for being unable to use the Search function of this site properly, but I THINK there are no other threads on this topic. Now, I must say that while I think I came up with this idea, it is mostly inspired by something Lalwendë said in Here

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

…though they [the hobbits] may have appeared small and insignificant, they were not delicate, but incredibly hardy beings. And powerful too, if they so chose to be. In this way Hobbits survived where many Men, Orcs and even Elves did not.

But while Tolkien did not kill off his Hobbits, he did inflict terrible injuries on The Shire. He could easily have had Sam restore it fully (i.e. right back to the original state, with all trees restored, and with the Elven 'soil'. But he did leave the hint that the recovery was not complete, and that this was a very different Shire than the one the four Hobbits first left behind. For me, it seems Tolkien treated his landscapes with as much (and at times more) affection as he treated his characters, so to have The Shire marred in this way very much mirrors what happens to Frodo. Survival, but not a full recovery?

My bolding, of course

Now, this brings up an interesting point… The Professor says that the hobbits dwindled and diminished as the fourth age came along and men took over Middle Earth. Yet why would a people so hardy when pressed, so entrenched with all the forces of life become a shadow of their former self and finally disappear for all intents and purposes?

It might have been Tolkien trying to reconciliate the fact that he presented Lord Of The Rings as an alternate history of mankind and as we all know there are no hobbits to be found nowadays. Even if some people has us wondering if… maybe… perhaps… but I digress.

Yet it might have been something else. Perhaps, as I thought after reading Lalwendë’s post, the marring of the Shire (in spite of Sam’s best efforts) started the beginning of the end for the Hobbit folk. Perhaps The Shire (which as far as I know was the main hobbit-only settlement of Middle Earth) was never exactly the same and maybe this caused a change in the people that lived there. Maybe Mormegil is right when he says that the destruction caused by Saruman may have taken away the innocence from the Hobbits in general, something that neither Sam’s nor Pippin’s nor Merry’s best efforts could ever heal. Possibly because they had also lost their innocence somewhere along their adventure.

I must say that up until now I thought that my first argument was the most likely one. There are no hobbits nowadays so the Professor had to find something to explain why the hobbits had disappeared. Even if he says that there may still be some hobbits around yet they are so skilful in avoiding us that we would never know it, for all intents and purposes he is telling us that hobbits are nowhere to be found, as far as we are concerned. Yet the more I think about it, the more I see that the very same thing that made The Shire unlike any other place, even Bree (that had a high hobbit population) was their innocence. They were completely and blissfully unaware of the world outside their little parcels of land and that ignorance was what permitted their society to work as well as it did. Yet whether they liked it or not, they had had a first-hand experience of the “real” world with Saruman and his ruffians and that was something that could probably not have been forgotten so easily.

I am not as versed in Tolkienism (or should it be Tolkienity? ) as some of my fellow posters here, but as far as I know we have no information on what happened on The Shire after Sam’s lifetime. Isn’t it possible that their society collapsed, their innocence taken away by the spite of Saruman? Wouldn’t that plausibly explain what happened with the hobbits much better than a simple notion that “They don’t really liked the big noisy men so they retreated into the forest, slowly loosing all knowledge of the arts that they once had. Nowadays, should any hobbits be found, they would probably be concerned only with their most primal needs, which one of them happens to be avoiding us humans” (Which is, very very paraphrased, what I understand Tolkien is telling us)

[Rhod the Red]

Perhaps he meant dwindled as in declined in population? Either by lack of reproduction, mixing with other races, or left Middle-earth? For the men of Numenour in Gondor, it was the first two.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

If lack of reproduction was the problem, there must have been some very great changes after Sam and Rosie's time!!

[lathspell]

Well, as I recall Saruman wasn't their first experience of the world outside the Shire. Their has been the Fell Winter when the wolves crossed the river Isen and had to be fought be the Hobbits. THe Hobbits had also fought a battle against the orcs of mount Gundabad (when the Bullroarer invented the game of golf by hitting an orc's so hard it flew a hundred yards into the air and vanished in a rabbithole). And last, the passing of the Ringwraiths through the Shire would be an experience to remember as well, especially since buckland raised the alarm for the first time in ages. So, I don't think the Hobbits actually lost their innocence in this matter.

What did happen I don't know. It could have been a hundred things. I mean, look at the Ents. The have been around for ages and now they lost the Entwives and are dying out.

However, even Tolkien doesn't know wether their are Hobbits nowadays. When he gives an explanation about them in the Hobbit he says:

I suppose Hobbits need a description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People as they call us. They are (or were) a litte people...

greetings,
lathspell

[tom bombariffic]

If lack of reproduction was the problem, there must have been some very great changes after Sam and Rosie's time!!

I'm not sure I follow. Please elaborate at length, in full detail, preferably with images to aid understanding.

bombariffic

[lathspell]

Now I shall certainly keep an eye on this thread... or two eyes, as often as I can spare them.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by tom bombariffic

I'm not sure I follow. Please elaborate at length, in full detail, preferably with images to aid understanding.

Believe me, you don't want images. The idea behind my words is simple math - at a rate of two children per couple, a population does not die out - it remains the same (does remembering the term "Zero Population Growth" date me terribly?). Sam and Rosie had thirteen. Other Hobbits listed in the family trees were also prone to engender large families. Only a natural catastrophe or an annihilation of huge proportion could have wiped out such a people. There is absolutely no comparison to the Gondorian situation.

davem makes a very interesting point concerning the division of Hobbit society following Sharkey's rule. Could the seed of mistrust been sown then?

[davem]

Originally Posted by lathspell

Well, as I recall Saruman wasn't their first experience of the world outside the Shire. Their has been the Fell Winter when the wolves crossed the river Isen and had to be fought be the Hobbits. THe Hobbits had also fought a battle against the orcs of mount Gundabad (when the Bullroarer invented the game of golf by hitting an orc's so hard it flew a hundred yards into the air and vanished in a rabbithole). And last, the passing of the Ringwraiths through the Shire would be an experience to remember as well, especially since buckland raised the alarm for the first time in ages. So, I don't think the Hobbits actually lost their innocence in this matter.

lathspell

I think the difference is that in the Saruman period some Hobbits went over to the 'other side' (Lotho, Sandyman, some of the Shirrifs, etc). It wasn't the fact that they'd suffered under Saruman & the ruffians, but the fact that they weren't a 'united folk' anymore. It was no longer a case of all pulling together to get through the bad times - some Hobbits would turn on their own for their own benefit. It would have been that betrayal that shocked them out of their innocence & complacency - which Hobbits could be trusted if a similar situation recurred?

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Farael

Yet why would a people so hardy when pressed, so entrenched with all the forces of life become a shadow of their former self and finally disappear for all intents and purposes?

Even the hardiest can not endure everything.

I would add one more theory to why hobbits were lost. Maybe the Shire became unfertile and the hobbits either wandered away or perished in famine. Maybe Saruman's work had marred Shire too deeply. Or maybe the hobbits used the land too much. Or maybe there was a natural disaster.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

In the CbC (LotR: Book 6, Ch.9) davem made me think of the fading of the Shire from a new angle. After the scouring the Shire was in a pretty bad shape, but with hard work and a bit of dust from Galadriel it looked like things could have been mended. Year 1420 was wonderful in its "air of richness and growth, and a gleam of beauty beyond that of mortal summers".

When the One Ring had been destroyed and Galadriel and Nenya left Middle-earth, Lothlorien began to fade. A lot of good had been done with the the gift that Sam had received from Galadriel, but if the dust had got its powers from Nenya, I'd assume that the things that had been made with the aid of it started to fade as well.

I rather like Lal's poetic explanation, too. Perhaps with a little of "Elf-magic" the Shire became the mysterious place that it now is, out of ordinary people's reach.

[davem]

So maybe the world split, beginning with the Fall of Numenor. The flat, Elven, world moves further & further away from the round, human, world. While the Elven Rings retain their power they hold the worlds together at certain points, but when they fail the last 'nails' are drawn & the two worlds drift apart. Galadriel's gift draws the Shire into the Elven world & it is lost to us. Yet it was also once part of the Human world, so maybe its the nearest part of Faerie to us.

Some of Tolkien's comments on the relationship of this world & Faery are interesting in this context. (This is from his essay on Smith of Wooton Major)

The geographical relations of Wootton and Faery are inevitably, but also intentionally left vague. In such stories there must be some way or ways of access from and to Faery, available at least to Elves as to favoured mortals. But it is also necessary that Faery and the World (of Men), though in contact, should occupy a different time and space, or occupy them in different modes. Thus though it appears that the Smith can enter Faery more or less at will (being specially favoured), it is evident that it is a land, or world of unknown limits, containing seas and mountains; also it is plain that even during a brief visit (such as one on an evening walk) he can spend a great deal longer in Faery than his absence counts in the world; on his long journeys an absence from home of, say, a week is sufficient for exploration and experiences in Faery equivalent to months or even years.
As far as geography goes, Faery is situated (or its entrances are) westward. 'From Far Easton to West' denotes the bounds of the world to the villagers: from the most eastern village of people of their own kind to the Forest, yet uncultivated, immediately to the West. Wootton thus represents an earlier intrusion of men's settlements into the foreign country of Forest; Wootton Minor is [s]till a village in a clearing. The Forest is still close to the western edge of Wootton Major. The smithy is at the extreme western edge of it (if you like because of the need of wood fuel). It is at any rate thus made easier for the Smith to go into the Forest unobserved by any but his household, or to go on journeys 'on business', without his movements being the matter of gossip.
In many Fairy Tales use is made of the idea that time passes quickly in Faery, so that a man who finds his way there may come out after what seems a brief episode to find that years, even centuries have passed. Except as a mere device to bring a man out of the past into contact with a (to him) future time — that is in a tale of which this is the real point, and Faery as such is not seriously considered — I have always felt this to be a mistake: a mistake in credibility, if Faery of any kind is taken seriously. It is true that the seeming time in Faery being immensely longer than it is felt to be is usually told of mortals that intrude into Faery. It is also true that in some actual experiences the time they take may seem short, and be found to be much longer when contact is made with ordinary affairs again. This occurs especially after absorption (mainly of intense interest and also usually pleasure) in some such things as reading, seeing plays, revelry or meetings with friends. I have often said that this idea must have originated in inns: for nowhere does time 'fly' so fast compared with daily experience as when sitting and drinking and conversing with dear friends in an inn. I am sure there is some truth in this. But there are other experiences. Notably that of dreams, in which a long (or full) experience may be found to have occupied a short time in the extramental world. 'Narrative' is perhaps the only common measure. What takes a long time to relate adequately is long. (I mean: relate, if one wishes to, or has to, relate it. A diarist who enters against one day 'nothing to relate' probably means nothing that interests me, or nothing of the kind that I usually record for future reference.) 'O minutes great as years!' Dream is perhaps a better analogy for the purpose. But also this must be considered: the Faery of this tale is a particular one. If one accepts it, while 'within' the tale, then clearly the Rulers of Faery — who are presented as interested in Men (not necessarily primarily) and beneficently - must be able to arrange that the experiences in Faery of favoured human persons may be enjoyed without dislocation of their normal human life. The time of their Faery must be different, even though it may be at points contiguous. For them human time is or may be also longer than that of Faery. The King dwells in Wootton for 58 years.
As for place. Entry into the 'geographical' bounds of Faery also involves entry into Faery Time. How does a mortal 'enter' the geographical realm of Faery? Evidently not in dream or illusion. Physical objects, such as the star, the Living Flower, and the elvish toy, survive transplantation from Faery to the World. It is common in Fairy tales for the entrance to the fairy world to be presented as a journey underground, into a hill or mountain or the like. The origins of this do not concern me here. They lie largely in necrological imagination. But as used they are often mere 'rationalizations' - like the diminution in the size of 'elves' - a way of providing for a land of marvels within the same geography as that of Men. They are no more credible and no more interesting than Edgar Rice Burroughs tales dealing with a vast subterranean world. To me they kill the very kind of 'literary belief that they are supposed to produce.
My symbol is not the underground, whether necrological and Orphic or pseudo-scientific in jargon, but the Forest: the regions still immune from human activities, not yet dominated by them (dominated! not conquered!). If Faery Time is at points contiguous with ours, the contiguity will also occur in related points in space - or that is the theory for the purpose of the story. At certain points at or just within the Forest borders a human person may come across these contiguous points and there enter F. time and space - if fitted to do so or permitted to do so. Within the relatively short time of the story (or indeed of several generations of Men in its suggested 'historical' background) these points will remain recognizable and able to be revisited by those who have once found them. Going deep or far into Faery from such points represents a passing further and further away from a familiar or anthropocentric world. But in this tale Forest and Tree remain dominant symbols. They occur in three of the four 'remembered' and recorded experiences of the Smith — before his leave-taking of the Queen. They do not occur in the first, because it is at that point that he discovers that Faery is 'limitless' and is mainly involved in vast regions and events that do not concern Men and are impenetrable by them.

[Lalwendë]

It makes sense that The Shire was drawn into Faerie, after all, the inhabitants, Hobbits, remind us of the 'little people'. They are like the creatures of Fairy Tales, boggarts, hobgoblins, pucks. Maybe The Shire really is there, just inside Faerie, which is why these little creatures pop out now and then to play games with us. Perhaps Valinor too is there, but further in, only to be visited by those mad or brave enough to really venture far...

A couple of interesting points struck me from what Tolkien said in the passage davem used, though I'm not sure how useful or relevant they are. I'll post my thoughts anyway. Firstly, why a Smith? The smith was in ancient times often associated with magic; he would take stone and turn it into swords through his craft. Smiths are a common figure in mythology too, symbolic of both strength and magic - e.g. Wayland, Vulcan. Why did Tolkien choose a Smith over say, a farmer?

Secondly, does Tolkien seem to deny the underworld as a possible entrance to Faerie? His work does not bear this out, as it filled with those symbols and images. But he then lays claim to the woodland as his own entrance to Faerie. What interests me here is that the Druidic religion revered the woodland, worshipped there instead of using man made buildings.

[davem]

This was pointed out in a review of 'LotR: A Reader's Companion' in the latest Amon Hen. Its from a paper Tolkien wrote circa 1969 & is now in the Bodleian Library:

The much later dwindling of Hobbits must be due to a change in their state & way of life; they became a fugitive & secret people, driven as Men, the Big Folk, became more & more numerous, usurping the more fertile & habitable lands, to refuge in forest or wilderness: a wandering & poor folk, forgetful of their arts & living a precarious life absorbed in the search for food & fearful of being seen; for cruel Men would shoot them for sport as if they were animals. In fact they relapsed into the state of 'pygmies'. The other stunted race, the Druedain, never rose much above that state.

How 'canonical' this statement is, is open to question. It seems very 'negative', & perhaps Tolkien was in one of his 'depressed' phases. Certainly, though, he seems to have been pessimistic about the Hobbits' ultimate fate. It seems that Tolkien's words regarding Hobbits in the Prologue to LotR, about them still being around even now were not meant to be taken to mean that they are still around living as they did at the end of the Third Age, in their comfortable Hobbit Holes, but rather as existing in a state little better than the Druedain, scraping a bare existence from their surroundings & living in fear us 'Big Folk' hunting them for sport.