Dunedain policy vis-a-vis hobbits: wise or flawed?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I think you have put your finger on the heart of the problem: the reason for Tolkien's isolationism in the Shire, at least in terms of the ending of the book. Part of him wanted to preserve or embalm the past, much the same as the Elves in Lothlorien. He actually commented on this at some point in the letters. In this particular case, he was presumably motivated by a desire to protect his remembered images of the West Midlands as exemplified by the Hobbits.

His setting up a barrier aroundthe Shire is reminiscent of a number of devices used in the wider Legendarium. The three obvious ones that come to mind are the girdle of Melian, the encircling mountains of Gondolin, and of course the bent road set up to guard the way West at the fall of Numenor (to say nothing of Lothlorien's own defenses). In these cases Tolkien used geographical and/or 'magical' barriers to protect a culture. Within the Shire, he employed Man's law to try and protect the land itself and the best character traits of those who lived there.

Yes, I suppose we can treat the Shire as the "exception", the wonderful magic land where a bit of the past is preserved when we all know that in reality it has all been swept away. And in a general sense, he does indicate the passge of time and people in the prologue. Yet, as an author, Tolkien wasn't willing to admit that particular reality in terms of Hobbits. It's clear from the book that Elves, Dwarves, and Ents are gone from our world. Yet, in the early pages of LotR, Tolkien can't help telling us that there are still some Hobbits about in the recesses of the English countryside, although somewhat diminished in size, a device that seems almost reminiscent of those tiny goblin feet, which he had grown to dislike. Once again the Hobbits are the exception: Tolkien just couldn't bring himself to let them go the way of the Elves or the Ents.

But what about the fact that it wasn't only in the Shire where Men were refused entry? There's also the Woses. This can't be the author preserving treasured images. To me, it's always seemed like a veiled comment on man's imperialism and the destruction of less technological cultures.

Viewed as the effort to protect treasured images from the past, or as a protest against Men who run roughshod over cultures different than their own, I should perhaps be more willing to let the author off the hook with his little device regarding the Shire. After all, I'm a historian and a card-carrying curmudgeon. There are certainly cases where I wish I had the means to preserve certain things from my own past that I have since seen the world sweep away.

Yet I am unwilling to accept Tolkien's gated community at face value. My main problem is that such a device flies in the face of the themes the author so carefully developed in his book. The fellowship itself started with a group of nine but was gradually expanded throughout the tale to include more and more folk of divergent backgrounds. Again and again, JRRT suggests the free peoples of Middle-earth succeeded because, unlike the baddies, they had two things: imagination and the ability to cooperate with each other (plus a bit of luck or providence). Why show the budding friendships (and marriages) between those of different races and backgrounds if, at the end, your response is to take a step backwards and re-create the isolationism that existed at the beginning of the story?

It almost seems as if Tolkien is saying the only time we can (perhaps should?) sweep such barriers away is when we are actively engaged in a struggle of cosmic portions against the forces of the Shadow. When victory comes, even temporary victory, we can dispense with such things and retreat back into our gated community. I still find that image disturbing, even when understanding why it arose in Tolkien's mind.

[davem]

It is interesting that the end of LotR is the end of the Middle earth that Tolkien has built up in the greatest detail. All the cultures, the history he has created, the greatest flowering of his creation happens at the end of the story of that world. In other words, there isn't a tailing off, but rather a crescendo. Middle earth passes not with a whimper but with a bang.

What is preserved is the Shire, almost in a desperate effort on the part of Elessar (& Tolkien) to hold onto something of the past, yet what is held onto is in many ways the most simple thing in that world. The hobbits are in many ways the most vulnerable race in Middle earth - the greater races - Elves in particular - bring their destruction on themselves, but the hobbits will pass from the world not because of their own failings, but because the world of men will impinge on them & drive them to virtual extinction, & certainly their way of life will pass away. They are the supremely vulnerable race, because their survival will not depend on themselves. I can't help feeling that Aragorn's decree is a tacit admission that they can only survive if others, stronger than themselves, work to ensure that survival.

Ultimately, for all their faults, they are helpless - yes, they can see off the ruffians, but only when they outnumber them massively. The hobbits' tragedy is that they are so small & innocent. In a middle earth which is sparsely populated they can survive unnoticed, yet their innocence (& it is a moral innocence - no hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire) makes them vulnerable. They will pass into the woods & lonely places - like any Elves that remain in the world. Yet the elves can leave, & such a fate is their choice. The hobbits don't have such a choice, because they have no-where to go.

I think Aragorn is simply acknowleging that hard reality. What happens to the hobbits under Saruman is a horror, & if Sam, Merry & Pippin hadn't returned they would have been enslaved & that would have killed them. Just those three hobbits ensured the survival of the race. Their race story is a tragedy. They appear out of nowhere, settle & make a peaceful home for themselves, save the world, & disappear again.

When Aragorn bans Men from entering the Shire he is acknowledging a harsh fact about his own race. It is Men who will destroy the hobbits in the end, not anything the hobbits could do to themselves (yet it is also men who will ensure their survival for as long as possible).

The Woses are in the same position - they won't survive for long either. So the question is, do we struggle to artificially keep alive the vulnerable, or simply shrug our collective shoulders & leave them to their fate? We can condemn Aragorn (& Tolkien) for the solution he comes up with, but what other alternative does he have?

[akhtene]

Davem,
your post is what I was actually thinking about while reading the whole thread. Hobbits had to be protected, just like ant-hills are fenced near kids’ playgrounds. An ant can bite, so what? A child can ruin its home just to know what is inside, or to try make it better (from their point of view).

Encaitare wrote

For a culture to expand and grow, it cannot be isolated from a vast and vivid world; it must be opened to it.

I only wonder why so many distinctive cultures of the world have nowadays been reduced to mere tourist attractions

Hobbits were not locked in the shire. They could go anywhere if they wished. But they were really given a choice – to remain what they were or to interact with other peoples and change – and the choice was left to them.
Besides, the King’s law was probably the only way to prevent a flood of intruders, even wishing well. Just think of the crowds of admirers willing to see the savers of the world, or just curious of the ‘newly discovered’ land and people, or even going to take advantage of their size and physical strength (as private property is not much respected in or just after wartime).

No law holds forever, but it gave time for the hobbits to get used to the changing world around them, and for Men – to lose acute interest. To my mind, as a temporary measure it was definitely a wise decision

[Encaitare]

I only wonder why so many distinctive cultures of the world have nowadays been reduced to mere tourist attractions

You make a very good point about how people would want to visit the Shire; I had never thought about that before! This does make Aragorn's desire to preserve the Shire and its innocence that much more understandable.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Their race story is a tragedy. They appear out of nowhere, settle & make a peaceful home for themselves, save the world, & disappear again ... When Aragorn bans Men from entering the Shire he is acknowledging a harsh fact about his own race. It is Men who will destroy the hobbits in the end, not anything the hobbits could do to themselves (yet it is also men who will ensure their survival for as long as possible) ... We can condemn Aragorn (& Tolkien) for the solution he comes up with, but what other alternative does he have?

But the tragedy of the Hobbits, and Aragorn's limited choice, arises solely from the fact that Tolkien wrote his Middle-earth tales as an account of our own world's long-lost history. Given this approach, what choice did he have but to write Hobbits out of the story (or at least into the hidden, secluded spots of the world), given that we do not see any Hobbits around us today?

Had he written Middle-earth as a truly fictional world, he could have had the Hobbits integrate with the world of men through greater interaction and understanding, in a larger scale version of the community of Bree. Which I think is what Child was getting at with her unease at Aragorn's (and before that the Dunedain's) policy. In an ideal world, it ought to be possible for Hobbits and Men to integrate. And it is possible in reality for peoples of different cultures and traditions to integrate (although there are, sadly, far too many examples of where they have been unable to do so ).