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

[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 ).