The Age of the Ring (Lord of the Rings) Forum
Tolkien only Section => Books - LOTR & The Hobbit => Topic started by: Taurendil on December 04, 2005, 12:45:50 AM
-
It seems to me that nothing is said of the origin of the hobbits. What do you think of it? They are neither the creation of Eru, nor of the Ainur, like the Dwarves. What is their doom and destiny?
-
they are born of man
a "man" race. It is said that they were born to Middle Earth about the same time as Men were
-
you can find more details here (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/h/hobbits.html)
Lessa
-
It seems hobbits got into the stories just because everything started with them. As far as I remember when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit he didn't know or plan what was going to happen next, i.e. the LotR and the Silm. That's why a question of origin of hobbits in the story is undecided.
they are born of man
a "man" race. It is said that they were born to Middle Earth about the same time as Men were
Where is it said? ???
-
I don't think it states that anywhere. As far as I'm aware the first mention of them is in III 1050. When the Harfoots croeesed the Misty Mountains and subsequently settled in Eriador. The origin of the Hobbits is unknown but they are presumed to stem from men.
-
I assumed my definition from this paragraph amongst others.... (wish I could remember it all right now)
The prologue in FOTR
It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only the Elves still preserve 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.
-
found it!
Letter 131, where Tolkien is outlining to Milton Walden of Collins publishers the outline of the Lord of the Rings in order to secure the printing of it, and to decide how to split up the book.
He writes, In the middle of this Age (being the Third Age) the Hobbits appear. Their origin is unknown (even to themselves)
as a footnote to this sentence he writes:
The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves) – hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth. They are made small (little more than half human stature, but dwindling as the years pass) partly to exhibit the pettiness of man, plain unimaginative parochial man – though not with either the smallness or the savageness of Swift, and mostly to show up, in creatures of very small physical power, the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men 'at a pinch'.
-
I would think therefore their doom and destiny is much like mans.. yet on a smaller more "insignificant" scale. They would not ordinarily leave Middle Earth upon death.. and I think that really, in the main, their destiny is to be left undisturbed and undiscovered! if they could help it ;)
-
Judging by your quote it seems that Eru made hobbits, just like he made men much earlier.
We should bear in mind though that hobbits came into the stories 'accidentally', since everything began with them.
-
So do you think that hobbits evolved from men - a certain branch of men getting gradually smaller and smaller in stature etc.
Or do you think that Eru distinctly made them as a seperate entity to men (but at the same time, similar in certain respects)?
-
I think it was the second one.. they werent an branch of man... an evolution, or divolution if you like.. because they had quite distinctively different traits, not just physical ones....
MIND you their love of beer and food... might mean they were evolved of potato couches ;)
-
I think it's more likely to be the same kind of relationship as there is between Homo Sapiens and Homo erectus
-
I find it quite hard to believe that hobbits are some how a branch or sub-species of men. Think of the scientific reasons - that kind of evolution would take a much greater span of time than the seven thousand years men walked Arda. Not only that, as other people have said, clearly hobbits are far too distinct to be so closely related to men, although there clearly is some connection.
-
but Tolkien himself said they are meant to be a branch of men. Maybe a different evolution of them, as Lessa said :-\
-
Hobbits weren't meant to be in the stories as I understand it. Even though everything started with them. I think Tolkien himself wasn't fully aware when he wrote The hobbit of what was he going to write then. That's why there's no information about how hobbits first appeared.
The most probable hypothesis though incredible is that Eru created them separately in the Third age. ???
-
I think it was the second one.. they werent an branch of man... an evolution, or divolution if you like.. because they had quite distinctively different traits, not just physical ones....
MIND you their love of beer and food... might mean they were evolved of potato couches ;)
But organisms don't just evolve physically - they evolve behaviourally aswell. I mean, humans and monkeys are behaviourally very different, but humans have evolved from monkeys.
And we share common ancestors with elephants, birds, crocodiles, fish etc if you go back far enough.
If you think about it in comparison to these examples, hobbits and men are very close to each other in evolutionary terms. Only a couple of genes involved, not the thousands involved in other evolutions.
The only problem that I can really see with the theory of evolution, as mith said, is the timescale involved.
-
Who (if indeed) we evolved from is opinion, not scientific fact.. But I digress, it's not really relevant..
As far as the hobbits' origins, my handbook says they were created in the First Age (doesn't say by who) and went "largely unnoticed by other races until well into the Third Age".. And as most have said, they were closely related to Men though not descended from them..
My personal belief is that their beginnings aren't really all that relevant, though it does make for interesting conversation..
I am currently looking up what is said of them in the LotR, but for now have nothing else to add.. Perhaps I'll come back later....
I couldn't really find anything new (surprise, surprise).. :-\