LotR - Prologue

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Let's discuss the Prologue to LotR! Fordim Hedgethistle, the initiator of this project, will post his introduction. After that, everyone is welcome to participate. Tell us what you especially like (or don't like!) about the Prologue, what affects you personally, or what puzzles you. We look forward to reading many different contributions!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Welcome to the discussion thread for the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings. There is so much to discuss that I will not even attempt to be comprehensive in this initial post. Instead, I will merely point out three passages that I think open the door to themes and ideas that will become extremely important in the book as it proceeds.

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. But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that hereditary and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races.

This passage clearly sets up a debate between “art” and “magic” that goes to the very heart of what differentiates good from evil in Middle-Earth. On the one hand there is the ‘natural’ (“close friendship with the earth" ) “art” of the Hobbits who can disappear through their “skill”; on the other there is the “magic” of the Enemy whose Ring confers invisibility. The effect of the magic and art is the same (invisibility) but the means are completely different. This passage is extremely dubious about magic insofar as it seems to be a kind of a ‘cheat’ (“may seem magical" ) – instead, this description of the Hobbits would seem to suggest that their abilities are derived from their own efforts. What I find most interesting about this passage is how it begins the book’s exploration of the relation between Hobbits and Sauron (the Ring) not in terms of good versus evil, but in terms of natural skill versus unnatural/deceitful magic.

At the same time, the passage hints rather darkly at a connection of some kind between Hobbits and the Ring, insofar as the magic (or ‘magic' ) of each is defined by the ability to confer invisibility.

The Mathom-house it was called: for anything that Hobbits had no immediate use for, but were unwilling to throw away, they called a mathom. Their dwellings were apt to become rather crowded with mathoms, and many of the presents that passed from hand to hand were of that sort.

I always like to think of the Ring as a mathom when I read this. It is the ultimate Object for which there is no “immediate use” and yet which anyone who possesses it is “unwilling to throw away.” Unlike true mathoms, however, the Ring is not something that is willingly “passed from hand to hand.” As in the passage I cited above, this one points to the profound and important differences between Hobbits and the Ring, while at the same time hinting at some kind of dark connection. On the one hand, the Hobbits seem to have found the ‘solution’ to the Ring: rather than letting it ‘clutter up’ one’s hole, it is better to “throw away” the Ring. Hobbits, with their desire to live a quiet and simple (elsewhere in the Prologue we hear it is a “well-ordered" ) life, really do have “no immediate use” for the Ring. At the same time, however, while they are willing to give up their mathoms, they are not willing to let them be destroyed or cast away: they end up in the “mathom house.” So even though they are apparently able to rid themselves of the things that threaten to overwhelm them, they are not willing to forsake these objects entirely.

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.

This is one of those wonderfully simple sentences that Tolkien so often writes that open up into all kinds of complexities when you pay it a bit of closer attention. How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say. (Again, there is a dark premonition of how the Hobbits are perhaps connected to the forces of evil at an intrinsic level: when the travellers come back they are upset by all the Rules that Sharkey has put into place. But I am getting ahead of myself by about 13 months!) I don’t think that this really is a contradiction, but it is a very complicated kind of statement, and one that goes to the very nature of the story that is about to be told.

The important point about all three of these passages is, I think, that they are about Hobbits and not about Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin. They are all extraordinary people – heroes, even – but their ability to do good in the war against evil is here, I think, being set up as being the result of their Hobbit-natures. The book thus begins with a celebration not of the individuals who will be combating evil, but of the ideals and qualities that can be successfully pitted against the forces of darkness. At the same time, the Prologue seems to acknowledge that connection that exists between the forces of good and the forces of evil – perhaps even acknowledges the co-dependence of light and dark.

One last point to make about the Prologue is, of course, how it works so hard to establish the fiction of the book as being a historical document retrieved and recovered by an editor from older primary works, rather than a fictional story told by an author. It is here that Tolkien makes his most apparent move, I think, into the idea that these events are ‘historical’ and therefore open to interpretation by a community of readers rather than subservient to any single interpretation, be that interpretation authorial or from a single readerly perspective.

[Saraphim]

Here we go...now the fun really begins.

From the start of the Prologue, Tolkien has the same tone that he took on with the First Foreward. The sense of having something fictional explained to you as if it was real, and in such a way that you are at once immersed in the very core of Middle-Earth, and more specifically the hobbits, which as Tolkien mentioned, the book is largely concerned with.

In the first section, Concerning Hobbits, one sees a glimpse of rare hobbit history. The three original groups of Hobbits, the Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides all have different charictaristics, but invariably they all end up in the Shire and intermingle. By the time of Bilbo and Co, the different strains are all mixed, but one can still see the vestiges of the old clans in the prominent hobbit families.

The Tooks, for instance, are obviously decended from the Fallohides, given thier fondness for adventure and elves.

Also, the Brandybuck clan is given as having the Fallohide traits, but they also show a few similarities to the Stoors, like thier liking for water and boats (Smeagol and Deagol come to mind here) and for consorting with men.


In addition, to interesting points on hobbit history, Tolkien gives a small insight into the Dunadain and thier relationship with hobbits. Despite their previous relationships with other races, hobbits grow closer to Men than Dwarves or Elves, even though there are communities of both within easy reach of the Shire. I think this has to do with thier (much) earlier relation with Men, and the fact that they have similar qualities.

Of the second section, Concerning Pipe-Weed, I feel I must quote Gandalf in saying that Hobbits could sit on the edge of ruin and discuss such trifles as pipe-weed. Tolkien mentioned that he was, in all but size, a hobbit, and here he is, proving that fact by devoting an entire section to something as trivial (when compared to the plots of the story) as the origins of this mysterious weed.

In fact, the quote I mentioned above is given in relation to Merry, who spoke in earnest to the King Theoden about pipe-weed. Again, this proves my point made above that Men and hobbits are indeed related, since (as it seemed to me) that Theoden was as interested in carrying on the converstation as much as Merry was.

[davem]

What immediately struck me was the fact we have three 'breeds'' of Hobbits, Three houses of Men, Three branches of the High Elves. Why? Of course, Tolkien did originally set out to create a mythology for England, & England was settled by three peoples - Angles, Saxons & Jutes. Its so blatant that he must have intended something by it, but why always Three 'houses'?

Of the second section, Concerning Pipe-Weed, I feel I must quote Gandalf in saying that Hobbits could sit on the edge of ruin and discuss such trifles as pipe-weed. Tolkien mentioned that he was, in all but size, a hobbit, and here he is, proving that fact by devoting an entire section to something as trivial (when compared to the plots of the story) as the origins of this mysterious weed.

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.

How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say. (Again, there is a dark premonition of how the Hobbits are perhaps connected to the forces of evil at an intrinsic level: when the travellers come back they are upset by all the Rules that Sharkey has put into place.

But Rules (even capitalised ones ) are optional - It is customary to keep them, its what ('decent') people do, in a sense, its how you distinguish decent people from 'indecent' ones (ones who go off & have adventures ). All communities have such 'Rules', because they promote social cohesion. Clearly some people are just waiting for the opportunity to break the Rules - Otho & Ted Sandyman for instance.

I do think its interesting the way Tolkien wishes to deny any speculation about 'magic' as regards Hobbits. Maybe he feels that the reader may form the impression that they are supernatural creatures (HOBgoblins, HOBthrusts, HOBhounds - all supernatural creatures from folklore), so he's attempting to disabuse us of the idea, & emphasise their ordinaryness - they're 'relatives of ours'.

[Evisse the Blue]

It's interesting that reading the description of Hobbits one can see why 'they were meant' to be the heroes of this book.

1. 'A people of no importance'
First of all, little was known about them by both Elves and Men; their origins and early history are a mystery even to themselves. Even afterwards they appear in very few records. So it is very likely that the Enemy would be unaware of their existance, of their strenghts and weaknesses, and very likely to underestimate the former, once he did learn of their existance.

2. Appearances are deceiving
Although their are fat, small and appear lazy, they are nimble, swift, skilled at bow and arrow and stone-throwing, and 'curiously tough'.

3. The art of dissaapearing versus the magic of dissapearing
As it has already been brought up in this thread, by Fordim and Davem, they are distinct and meant to express opposite things. Whether this is just a well-placed irony (they already can dissapear, so they don't need a Ring to do it), or an attempt to make them more familiar to the reader, it's still debatable. But it's clear that a hobbit's art of dissapearing is closer to nature, similar to an animal's becoming one with the scenery in order to avoid predators.

4. Basic needs and pleasures
The simplicity of their thoughts and desires make them less likely to be usurped by the more sophisticated 'lust for power' that the Ring evoked.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

At the same time, the Prologue seems to acknowledge that connection that exists between the forces of good and the forces of evil – perhaps even acknowledges the co-dependence of light and dark.

Honestly, it was a really good post up there, Fordim, but it seems that you are taking it too far . I'd be happier if the whole co-dependence of light and dark may be replaced with something like 'dark absence of light', or 'evil as lack of good' maxims. On the whole, I believe Tolkien denies such co-dependence, and is rather in line with Boethius, with a dash of more active rather than passive resistence to Nothing (with capital N for the sake of its personification in Sauron

It is subject of interpretation, really. All quotes you provide us with are as good when interpreted as: Hobbits healthy customs, once perverted, may become that and that

cheers

[Firefoot]

One of my favorite things about the prologue is that it gives us insights to the "ordinary" hobbit. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin (and Bilbo) are rather "extra-ordinary" in that they go on adventures and they very much grow from what they were to who they become, and they are not the simple hobbits any more. But the prologue shows us who the average hobbits are.

How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say.

It is in the nature of hobbits to be peaceful. Frodo says later on that no hobbit has ever killed another. I have to think that this would be more than because there is a rule saying don't do it. In this world, if a person really wants to kill someone, they do it whether there is a rule or not. But hobbits don't really need the rules for living - is seems like they are just there.

[The Shirriffs] were in practice rather haywards than policemen, more concerned with the strayings of beasts than of people.

So it sounds like even the Shirriffs weren't very concerned about making people follow the rules: it wasn't necessary. I think that this tells us a couple things about hobbits. 1. They are peaceful, and do not like violence. 2. Hobbits like things that make sense - they kept the rules because they were "ancient and just", meaning that if they hadn't been just in the hobbits' eyes, they wouldn't have kept them. This would be why the hobbits have a problem with all of Sharkey's rulses - they don't make sense and they weren't necessary before. In conclusion to this, of their own free-will hobbits did what was right because that is their nature, and in doing so they followed "The Rules".

On the topic of magic, I have only one thing to add, and that is something Galadriel said: "For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearlywhat they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy." Like pipe-weed, the "magic" of disappearing is also more like an Art than anything else.

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 is my favorite line in the prologue, and in my opinion a very good summary of hobbits opinions on books in general, at least before LotR. As an afterthought, the tone of this line seems very much like that of The Hobbit, as does much of the prologue.

[Mugwump]

One of the first things I noticed about the Prologue is it contains frequent references to and information about events that occur after the events of the rest of the novel. Apparently Tolkien is happy that readers will know in advance that many of the central characters who will be going into all sorts of dangerous situations during the course of the War of the Ring will survive. Interesting and unusual for a Prologue, but I think it's effective and does not detract from the rest of the book. As Fordim Hedgethistle explains above, one of the purposes of this Prologue is to treat the fiction of the book as being historical and derived from older primary works, rather than a fictional story told by an author.

The next thing I noticed was a questionable grammatical usage, and I'm unsure, because I know that Tolkien was a master the language, whether it's just a typographical error introduced during the publication, or was done on purpose. I was taught that "farther" and "farthest" should be used (instead of "further" and "furthest") when discussing purely physical, geographical distances. Yet we read on page 7 about the three Elf-towers on Tower Hills, that the "tallest was furthest away, standing alone upon a green mound."

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

This is one of those wonderfully simple sentences that Tolkien so often writes that open up into all kinds of complexities when you pay it a bit of closer attention. How, in the name of Eru, can Hobbits keep the “laws of free will” because they are “The Rules”? This would appear to be a contradiction in terms: “free will” would appear to mean freedom, and a lack of constraint – the ability to do as one chooses; but “The Rules” (capitalised no less) would appear to be the precise opposite – one follows rules and does what they say. ... I don’t think that this really is a contradiction, but it is a very complicated kind of statement, and one that goes to the very nature of the story that is about to be told.

I think there is a much less complicated explanation for this. The text is that the Hobbits usually "kept the laws of free will because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just." I believe this is simply a matter of an idiomatic difference between British English of Tolkien's time and the English of today. Simply, laws in the text refers to the laws of the ancient kingdom. Tolkien is not saying they are the "laws of free will"; he is saying that, regarding the ancient laws of the King, the Hobbits kept them of free will, or in modern idiomatic American English, kept them of their own free will. Note that free will is not capitalized, as one would expect if Tolkien were making of it a title, "the Laws of Free Will." In other words, of free will does not modify laws but modifies the verb kept. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Tolkien is merely saying that Hobbits kept the old laws of the king not because they were legal rules, but chose to keep them because they believed they were proper and just rules to live by.

[Mnemosyne]

I'm actually really curious about this and need to look into when and where this rule sprung up.

The reason I say this is that countless, countless, countless British Victorian novels consistently use "further" for "farther." Which makes me inclined to say it's either an American rule, or one that wasn't created until after that era. In which latter case it might simply be Tolkien deliberately evoking an older feeling, or simply not being aware of the newer rule as he was steeped in older culture (of course, if he knew, I have the feeling he'd deliberately ignore it).

Consequently when I encounter "further" for "farther" in my reading I like to think of it as a construction along the lines of "I should like" for "I would like"--something that is deliberately and delightfully British.

[Formendacil]

Mnemo is perfectly right about Tolkien's attitude towards "farther" and "further"--he makes a direct reference to this in one of his Letters--let me see if I can dig up the reference in the 23 minutes before class...

Aha! Here we are:

Originally Posted by 138, A Letter to Christopher Tolkien: 4 August 1953

The galleys are proving rather a bore! There seem such an endless lot of them ; and they have put me very much out of conceit with pans of the Great Work, which seems, I must confess, in print very long-winded in parts. But the printing is very good, as it ought to be from an almost faultless copy; except that the impertinent compositors have taken it upon themselves to correct, as they suppose, my spelling and grammar: altering throughout dwarves to dwarfs; elvish to elfish; further to farther; and worst of all, elven – to elfin. I let off my irritation in a snorter to A. and U. which produced a grovel.

--emphasis Tolkien's own

Originally Posted by 148, A Letter to Katherine Farrer: 7 August 1954

I am afraid there are still a number of 'misprints' in Vol. I! Including the one on p. 166. But nasturtians is deliberate, and represents a final triumph over the high-handed printers. Jarrold's appear to have a highly educated pedant as a chief proof-reader, and they started correcting my English without reference to me: elfin for elven; farther to further; try to say for try and say and so on. I was put to the trouble of proving to him his own ignorance, as well as rebuking his impertinence.

Again, italics are from The Letters, not me.

Originally Posted by 236, A Letter to Rayner Unwin: 30 December 1961

I suppose I should be grateful that Cox and Wyman have not inflicted the change from elven to elfin and further to farther on me which Jarrolds attempted, but Jarrolds were at least dealing with a MS. that had a good many casual errors in it.

Those are all the references I found in The Letters, but none of them match my mental memory of how Tolkien put it, but as my memory is hardly infallible and these quotes suffice, it is probably sufficient to post these and note that Tolkien was well aware that the 'proper' usage would be farther, and decided he did not wish to use it.

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

The reason I say this is that countless, countless, countless British Victorian novels consistently use "further" for "farther." Which makes me inclined to say it's either an American rule, or one that wasn't created until after that era.

Bingo--I think you've got it! Using further in that sense must've been merely standard idiomatic British English of Tolkien's day, just as of free will meant of [his/her/my/our/your/their] own free will.

[Bêthberry]

All grammars leak, although not all grammarians and teachers like to admit the fact. So maybe it's the grammarians and teachers who leak?

It is really quite interesting to read what that bible of clear thinking and precise word choice has to say: Fowler's Modern English Usage. It would appear that usage has been muddled and only relatively latterly did the prognosticators declare a preference and even then they got the usage wrong, as applying a difference to which none of the practitioners of the language adhered.

Originally Posted by farther, further, Modern English Usage

The history of the two words appear to be that further is a comparative of fore and should, if it were to be held to its etymology, means more advanced, and that farther is a newer variant of further, no more connected with far thant further is, but affected in its form by the fact that further , having come to be used instead of the obsolete comparative of far (farrer), seemed to need a respelling that should assimilate it to far. This is intended as a popular but roughtly correct summary of the OED's etymological account. As to the modern use of the two forms, the OED says: 'In standard English the form farther is usually preferred where the word is intended to be the comparative of far, while further is used where the notion of far is altogether absent; there is a large intermediate class of instances in which the choice between the two forms is arbitrary.'

This seems to be too strong a statement [one often loves Fowler for his iconoclasm]: a statement of what might be a useful differentiation rather than of one actually developed or even developing. The fact is surely that hardly anyone uses the two words for different ocasions; most people prefer one or the other for all purposes, and the preference of the majority is for further. [my bolding] Perhaps the most that should be said is that farther is not common except where distance is in question, and that further has gained a virual monopoly of the sense of moreover, both alone and in the compound furthermore. The three pairs of quotations following are selected for comparison from the OED stores.

1. Comparative of far: If you can bear your load no farther,say so. --H. Martineau. It was not thought safe for the ships to proceed further in the darkness. --Macaulay.

2. No notion of far: Down he sat without farther bidding. --Dickens. I now proceed to some further instances. --De Morgan.

3. Intermediate: Punishment cannot act any farther than in as far as the idea of it is present in the mind. --Bentham. Men who pretend to believe no further than they can see. Berkeley.

On the whole, though differentiations are good in themselves, it is less likely that one will be established for farther and further than that the latter will become universal. In the verb, further has the field virtually to itself.

The first edition of Fowler was 1926; second in 1965.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mugwump

Using further in that sense must've been merely standard idiomatic British English of Tolkien's day,]

It still is - both meself & Lal say 'further' (she's Lancastrian & I'm from Yorkshire, so I reckon its in common usage across the north of England). Mind you, here in 'God's Own County', we still commonly say 'thee', 'thine' & 'thou' (though we pronounce it 'tha')!

[Evisse the Blue]

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.

Yes, but they do have a degree of innocence that separates them from other races, which makes their 'corruption', or tresspasses, if you will, more significant than a Man's or an Elf's. In their own basic way they have created a paradise in their Shire, which is unequaled by other races they are an amalgam of, so if only in that they are special.
I agree that hobbits are somwhat the 'anti-heroes', (not possessing the qualities one has come to expect in a standard hero). Tolkien plays with our mind in describing them as totally plain, and simple-minded in the beginning, so that later on in the story, he may unravel their qualities. It's like he's giving us a lesson: "Wait and see!" It's a lesson good for life, too.

EDIT: 'crossposted with you guys.

Mount Doom as the anti-pipe

Whoa! Soon you'll be saying that Tolkien anticipated the dangers of smoking!
But seriously, I for one think that all the points in common you stated here are grounds for contrasting the hobbits with the bad guys, rather than serve to show how they resembled each other. That is, there is a qualitative difference, not only a quantitative one.