LotR - Prologue

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

H-I I’m afraid I must stand by ‘co-dependence’ of light and dark for the moment (insofar as we are discussing the Prologue here) – the relation between “magic” and “art/skill” here is not one of simple either-or; the Hobbits can “appear” magical through their “art” so these two terms seem to be connected to one another. Also, the discussion of mathoms is fascinating in that it points to how Hobbits can be possessive and even acquisitive – even as they are being celebrated as the possessors of the heroic traits necessary to combat the darkness (as Evisse points out). Thanks, also, to Firefoot for the quote:

Hobbits delighted in such things if they were accurate: they liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions.

This doesn’t sound bad or dark or evil, but it does echo (albeit faintly) the kind of ‘orcish’ thinking that comes to overtake the Shire under the “Rules” of Sharkey; it’s also an echo (perhaps very faintly now) of the way of Mordor in that there is no desire for more knowledge or learning (‘lore’ ) but singularity and conformity (“no contradictions” ). So while I agree with Evisse that the Hobbits are the real heroes (perhaps even more so than the extraordinary four who go forth on the quest?) I think as well that they have the potential for darkness within them (acquisitiveness, desire for singularity and order, desire/ability to become invisible). They are not ‘pure’ manifestations of natural ‘good’ who can be corrupted, but – like ‘us’ – regular and normal people who are capable of both “magic” and “art”, “Rules” and freedom, “order” and “contradictions”, generosity and possessiveness.

I think this is also why (to pick up on Saraphim’s post) the Hobbits are presented here as being like (as amalgams of?) the other races. They are most emphatically not ‘pure’ but a mixture of all the different types and traits that make up the denizens of Middle-Earth: Dwarves, Men and Elves – so easily distinguished from one another in more ways than the merely physical – are all ‘combined’ in some manner in Hobbit nature.

EDIT -- cross posting with Kuruharan: that is an excellent point! It points to the difference between orcs/Mordor and Hobbits/the Shire as being a difference in degree rather than kind.

[Lyta_Underhill]

As a pipe smoker I must take exception to the history of pipeweed being referred to as 'trivial'. It is, as the Blessed Merriadoc has stated, an 'ART'. This is clearly one of the most important parts of the book, & if Tolkien has let us down anywhere it is in only selectively quoting from the introduction to Merriadoc Brandybuck's classic work.

Indeed! It is also a wondrous thing to go back and read the Prologue once the book has just been finished. One finds out where Meriadoc learned parts of his lore, reads vague allusions to the extraordinary growth of "two characters of old" that are dealt with in the following work and exceed the great stature of Bandobras Took, etc. etc. It almost seems as if the prologue is an epilogue as well! It hints at the connections of Meriadoc and Peregrin with Rohan and Gondor, tells us that Frodo indeed lives to complete a history of the War of the Ring and that there are considerations made for the "children of Samwise."

I could probably say more on other points, but, alas, I have litle time! It is great to be joining the discussion, however!

Cheers!
Lyta

[mark12_30]

Kuruharan wrote:

Ordering and farming the land is in a sense dominating it.

To which Fordim replied:

It points to the difference between orcs/Mordor and Hobbits/the Shire as being a difference in degree rather than kind.

Only if you believe that any discipline is abuse and that any excercise of authority is subjugation. I certainly don't believe that (and I don't think Tolkien did). There is every difference between maintaining peace, prosperity, and productivity, vice, wrenching and using what is useful (from the land or the people) regardless of the cost or consequences. Intent is key.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

mark12_30 you wrote:

There is every difference between maintaining peace, prosperity, and productivity, vice, wrenching and using what is useful (from the land or the people) regardless of the cost or consequences. Intent is key.

While I agree with this, I could not help but thinking how well this would go over with an Ent if he caught one of the Hobbits hacking down a tree. Even if the Hobbit were cultivating the forest in the most responsible manner and desired to use the wood of the tree only to build a barn. . .I don't think that the Ent would be too pleased!

"Intent" is indeed the key -- but as we learn in the Prologue, there are a number of intents that the Hobbits have in common with Sauron:

Order
Invisibility
'using' the land
Rules

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

(Crazy idea: they also echo Sauron insofar as they produce smoke? Mount Doom as the anti-pipe? Desire for pipeweed akin to desire for power? Both are forms of self-gratification that are unhealthy if not taken in moderation. . .???)

[Bêthberry]

Helen, re: no mention of the Hobbits in New England. Perhaps not, but two weeks ago I toured a museum which depicted the "pit houses" of the Indian clans of the West Coast and they were certainly very warm, comfortable and 'smial-like." Also, eastern European immigrants to the Canadian prairiers, for that first winter faced without a house, built homes in hillsides. Just imagine!

I appreciate Seraphim's and davem's defense of the art of pipeweed, the emphasis on art. One of the most delightful traits of this description of the Shire is, to me, the manner in which hobbits appear to appreciate leisure, a lost habit in our hurried times of the Seventh Age.

I would like to add an observation on the point which Heren Istarion and Fordim are discussing. As idyllic as Shire-life is presented here, it is a life I am not completely comfortable with, for the reason which Fordim has pointed out: the Hobbits' dislike of any book which required thoughtful interpretation of tangled threads. There is a view here of their simplicity which makes me feel it is an incomplete or untried goodness.

there in that pleasant corner of the world they plied their well-ordered business of living, and they heeded less and less the world outsider where dark things moved, until they came to think that peace and plenty were the rule in Middle-earth and the right of all sensible folk. They forgot or ignored what little they had ever known of the Guardians, and of the labours of those that made possible the long peace of the Shire. There were, in fact, sheltered, but they had ceased to remember it.

"A cloistered virtue is no virtue," I think Milton wrote. And before him we have Job, whose virtues were tested and tested again before they were finally proven true. To Fordim's points about the hobbits' conformity and acquisitiveness--wonderful thoughts on mathoms there!--I would add an ignorance of evil which, to me, limits the attractiveness of their haven. Often in Tolkien I see this sense that goodness must be parcelled off from evil, in Melian's girdle and then in Elessar's final decree that access to The Shire be restricted (yet even this did not ensure the hobbits' open survival to our own day). I'm not sure what to make of this, but it inclines me towards Fordim's thoughts on the lurking possibility of 'co-dependence' of good and evil, that they cannot be separated but must have knowledge of each other. Even Frodo's desire to save the Shire represents his effort to take on the job on behalf of the hobbits rather than allow them to make the horrendous discovery which Job and Frodo himself makes.

One other point which intrigues me relates to the issue of history. The Hobbits appear to have forgotten their history and the elves are "concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all." Here we have the selectivity of historical record which demonstrates its lack of authoritative voice: each race will have its own perspective and way of remembering. Rather like what I think we are all doing here, giving voice to our own various thoughts, the diversity giving form to a more complete picture than any one of us can, at least initially, make.

EDIT: About this issue of the correct stewardship of the land, and the felling of Ents, there is something in a later chapter which suggests that not all was peaceful in the hobbits' use: The Bonfire Glade in the Old Forest represents a time when the hobbits attacked the trees in the Old Forest. I side with Fordim that the hobbits are neither perfect nor idyllic, but contain within themselves aspects which we need to consider carefully.

And cross posting with Durelin, who seems to have anticipated me in wondering about the ignorance or loss of their sense of history.

[davem]

Fordim

I think as well that they have the potential for darkness within them (acquisitiveness, desire for singularity and order, desire/ability to become invisible). They are not ‘pure’ manifestations of natural ‘good’ who can be corrupted, but – like ‘us’ – regular and normal people who are capable of both “magic” and “art”, “Rules” and freedom, “order” and “contradictions”, generosity and possessiveness.

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

Kuruharan

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[Orofaniel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Oro

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

[Nurumaiel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mark12_30]

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

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

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

Nuru, we cross-posted!

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

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

[Firefoot]

Fordim, post #14

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: cross-posting with Mark12_30 and Nurumaiel.

[Boromir88]

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

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

[Nurumaiel]

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

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

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

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

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just a quick reply here to two points.

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

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

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

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

Fordim -

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

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

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

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

[Durelin]

Like Fordim, I am not even going to try and be organized in my thoughts. I'm just going to talk aloud (talk-type?) for a bit...

From Concerning Hobbits:

...they suddenly became, by no wish of their own, both important and renowned, and troubled the counselfs of the Wise and the Great.

Upon reading this quote, I immediately thought back to how we had considered the fact in the discussion of the foreword that Tolkien had expected his small audience to remain small. Though Tolkien most likely had written this prologue before there were any signs of his audience growing larger (I confess that I have no idea if the prologue was written when the book was originally published, sadly.), this was probably part of the Hobbit character. I think it can be added to Evisse's list. But I also believe that that quote came to mean something more.

Of their original home the Hobbits in Bilbo's time preserved no knowledge.

This, in relation with "the fiction of the book as being a historical document" (Fordim), expresses a common occurrence in history: the lack of preservation of knowledge. It also expresses it's importance. An example of this, in history, is the fall of the Roman Empire followed by the Dark Ages. Still, this is an example of a loss of knowledge through lack of preservation. Was there ever any signs of that in Tolkien's writings? Now, perhaps he thought of the Hobbit's general lack of interest in knowledge as a key aspect of the story...Okay, now, I'm just rambling...

And in those days also they forgot whatever language they had used before, and spoke ever after the Common Speech...yet they kept a few words of their own, as well as their own names of months and days, and a great store of personal names out of the past.

This is one quote that could be used to make the arguement that Tolkien was 'anti-imperialistic'. But all I believe this is only yet another aspect that makes this book, and especially the prologue, a fictional historical document. This kind of melding of cultures occurs so often in history, but this statement shows how an independence of culture is kept through a preservation of the old.

They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical.

Just think of how funny it is that two hobbits, and a hobbit-like creature, were ringbearers, and used it most often to make a disappearing act. I can only see this as an irony, though it can express so much more. Fordim's idea of "art" vs. "magic" is an interesting one. It reminds me of the Istari and their 'magical restraints'. It was said that they could not do 'magic' outside the natural plane, and when creating this 'magic' they had to use what was found in nature. It was the same with the elves. They never were truly 'magical' beings, it was more that they were so in-tune with nature that they could use all of its secrets and 'magic'. Their relationship with nature obviously came from their ties to the Earth, how they are bound to it until the End. There is much to think about, concerning that topic...

I believe I should collect my thoughts and let my mind rest. It just doesn't seem to be working properly, at the moment.

-Durelin

EDIT: It was inebvitable that I cross-posted with at least three people...