Where did Hobbits come from?

[Morwen]

If we can accept that hobbits were around long before the mid-third Age, we have to sk why they weren't noticed. Tolkien gives one brief answer: it's merely a matter of historical recordkeeping, or lack of it:

Quote:
The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only Elves still preserved any records of that vanished time, and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all. Yet it is clear that Hobbits had, in fact, lived quietly in Middle-earthfor many long years before other folkbecame even aware of them. And the world being full of strange creatures beyond count, these little people seemed of very little importance.

One reason that hobbits may not have much of a presence in the recorded history of Elves or the oral history of other peoples is that, for others, they apparently never did anything worth mentioning. Theoden says as much to Merry when they first meet.

Merry bowed....."I have wandered in many lands, since I left my home, and never till now have I found people that knew any story concerning hobbits.

"My people came out of the North long ago," said Theoden. "But I will not deceive you: we know no tales about hobbits. All that is said among us is that far away, over many hills and rivers, live the halfling folk that dwell in holes in sand-dunes. But there are no legends of their deeds, for it is said that they do little, and avoid the sight of men, being able to vanish in a twinkling...."

TT, The Road to Isengard

Haldir of the Galadhrim has also heard of hobbits. However, his people have not heard of them "for many a long year, and did not know that any yet dwelt in Middle Earth" (FotR, Lothlorien)

So hobbits, for others in Middle Earth who might once have known about them, have dropped out of existence and even while they were still to be observed they were not doing anything worth remembering or writing about.

But what I would like to know is why hobbits don't appear to have any information/legends/tales about their own origins. Merry at one point, in response to a remark from Treebeard, observes that they never seem to be mentioned in any of the old tales. This would have been a good place for him to say what old tales Hobbits have about themselves and their origins, but he doesn't do so.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morwen

But what I would like to know is why hobbits don't appear to have any information/legends/tales about their own origins. Merry at one point, in response to a remark from Treebeard, observes that they never seem to be mentioned in any of the old tales. This would have been a good place for him to say what old tales Hobbits have about themselves and their origins, but he doesn't do so.

Which almost forces one to ask, what would be the Hobbits' status if we take in account the Athrabeth... the Hobbits, as it was agreed on, and mentioned even in the Appendicies and foreword to LotR, are basically Men...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bb, thanks for the kind words!

I agree with you William Cloud Hickli. Tolkien was so opposed to the idea of Empire that I don't think this was part of the equation.

My gut feeling is that hobbits were chosen, but "chosen" in a more limited sense. Their particular combination of strengths and weaknesses made them perfect for a mission that required secrecy, endurance, pluck,and a natural aversion to projects requiring great ambitions. Even beyond the choice of the hobbits as a people, there was also the element of choice that came into play when the particular individuals were chosen for the job. Most stay-at-home hobbits were too complacent and lacking in imagination to go on a quest of the type that Bilbo and Frodo did. These two were chosen because of two apparently contradictory reasons. On the one hand, their lives embodied many of the strengths and weaknesses of the hobbits as a whole; on the other hand, both were non-conformists who rejected many aspects of hobbit life. Both elements had to be there.

It wasn't so much the designation of a chosen people but finding the perfect individuals to take up a particular job. Still, my gut feeling is that for a very long time it was clear that a hobbit would have to be the one to do something like this. Gandalf was the critical factor here. He had to look over the community and study it to find which individual(s) would be the best. If he had made the wrong choice, there would have been disaster. We've always assumed that Gandalf made the choice on his own to spend time with Hobbits and study them. Yes, that is possible. He certainly liked them. But it's also possible that he knew from the time of his arrival in middle-earth that part of his job was to get a closer look at the hobbit community so that he would be prepared to make a choice when and if the time came.

[Feanorsdoom]

I share Child's view with respect to the canon. JRRT purposefully left many origins obscure because the histories were written by Elves and Men (and Hobbits) who were never shown all the facts, and often held irrational prejudices. If one were to trace a 'true' mythological history of the Hobbits, I think it would be more true to the flavor of the Legendarium to place them apart from Men, Elves, Dwarves, and all others in origin, because of their eventual role in the ending of the Third Age. The central story of the Fellowship in the LotR is one not only of companions in a quest, but of all the races coming together (in miniature) to fight the common Enemy. We have a Dwarf, an Elf, a Maiar, and Men. Surely, the prominent position of the Halflings among them deserves a more dignified origin than 'short humans'. JRRT didn't write of their origins explicitly, but then he didn't write explicitly of Man's emergence, either.

If I were asked what the origin of the Hobbits should be, I would put it something like this: After the downfall of Numenor, one amongst the Valar, presumably Yavanna (or perhaps Vana, the "queen of flowers"), is so distraught at the destruction of Middle-earth by Men and Elves that she asks Manwe permission to create a race whose sole purpose would be to care for the living things of their world. Manwe, knowing the consequences of the misjudgement of Aule in creating the Dwarves, councils against it, but Eru changes his heart. She is allowed to bring them to life, but with the understanding that they would be the weakest race, afraid of interactions with others and utterly helpless in the face of battle, yet that this would be coupled with an inner strength against corruption of evil. Possibly, she might be given the cryptic promise that their fate would be to stand alone against that evil when all others prove unable to resist it.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Feanorsdoom

If one were to trace a 'true' mythological history of the Hobbits, I think it would be more true to the flavor of the Legendarium to place them apart from Men, Elves, Dwarves, and all others in origin, because of their eventual role in the ending of the Third Age. .....Surely, the prominent position of the Halflings among them deserves a more dignified origin than 'short humans'. JRRT didn't write of their origins explicitly, but then he didn't write explicitly of Man's emergence, either.

Tolkien himself makes the link between Men and Hobbits and the idea of hobbits being a type of Man seems similar to the idea that there can be dwarves and petty dwarves, i.e., main race and a subset/offshoot of that main race.

Originally posted by Feanorsdoom

If I were asked what the origin of the Hobbits should be, I would put it something like this: After the downfall of Numenor, one amongst the Valar, presumably Yavanna (or perhaps Vana, the "queen of flowers"), is so distraught at the destruction of Middle-earth by Men and Elves that she asks Manwe permission to create a race whose sole purpose would be to care for the living things of their world. Manwe, knowing the consequences of the misjudgement of Aule in creating the Dwarves, councils against it, but Eru changes his heart. She is allowed to bring them to life, but with the understanding that they would be the weakest race, afraid of interactions with others and utterly helpless in the face of battle, yet that this would be coupled with an inner strength against corruption of evil. Possibly, she might be given the cryptic promise that their fate would be to stand alone against that evil when all others prove unable to resist it.

Neither Yavanna nor any other Valar can bring a race to life. When Aule takes it upon himself to create the Dwarves, Eru is very clear it isn't just that Aule lacks authorisation but that he, Aule, lacks the ability to create a race that is independent of his will.

"Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? For thou hast from me as a gift thy own being only, and no more; and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle." Silmarillion, Of Aule and Yavanna

Also,apart from Aule and excluding Melkor, do any of the Valar possess the capacity to physically construct new beings? All the Valar may have desired to see the Children but I think that it is only Aule, coming from the part of Eru's mind concerned with the creating of things, who could attempt to create physical forms and even so his creation was imperfect.

Whatever the precise origins of hobbits I think that they would have to be Eru's creations.

[Feanorsdoom]

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

[Morwen]

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

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

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

However,

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

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