From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Hobbits, again
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:07:01 GMT

The thread concerning hobbits has taken many twists and turns, and
before it goes off to something totally different, I would like to
present some remarks concerning the original question I posed when
I began this line.

I originally asked if anyone had any idea whence hobbits came.  Most
people who attempted an answer said that they were some "human 
relation," however very little textural evidence was given to 
support this supposition.  The only evidence that I remember being 
presented to support this contention is the off-hand comment Gandalf 
makes to the Gondorian repairing the Rammas as Gandalf and Pippin 
proceed to Minas Tirith.  I believe that Gandalf uses the term "man"
here to avoid possible confusion and explanation of who or what
Pippin and not to give away any information that Gandalf might have
concerning the origins of hobbits.

That Gollum is a possible relation of the Stoors was also brought
up, but this does not say much.  The Stoors, as I recall, are
a branch of hobbits, and so, this statement merely says that
Gollum is a hobbit-relation, as opposed to a man-relation.  This
statement makes no allusion to the ancestors of Gollum or who
they might be.

gregbo writes in an article concerning the place of hobbits in
the Silmarillion:

"Anyway, that is not really my point.  Trivially, I can say that
hobbits don't fit into the Quenta Silmarillion because they aren't
mentioned there.  (I can say this of lots of other creatures, lands,
etc.)  I don't see what this buys us.  Hobbits are not important to
the Quenta Silmarillion because the part they play in the "history" of
Ea does not take place until the Third Age."

The fact that hobbits are not mentioned in the Silmarillion is
_exactly_ my point.  The origins of men are given; the origins
of elves are given; the origins of dwarves, orcs, trolls, dragons
are given.  Note that _even_ the origins of _ents_ are given,
although the doings of ents are mentioned _nowhere at all_ in
the Silmarillion (or at least nowhere that I can remember).  You
may say that "Hobbits are not important to the Quenta Silmar-
illion," but the same may be said of ents, and yet their origin
_is_ mentioned in the Quenta.

All this brings me back to my question "Whence do hobbits come?"
Did Tolkien know?  Did he care?  Why did he not include their
origin, as he included so many others?  I do allow some things,
notably the Beornings and Bombadil, are not explained, but these
two in particular have been discussed rather extensively, and I
do not wish to discuss them on this thread unless some connection
may be found between the omissions of the various origins.

My opinion is that they are not simply a variant of the human
line.  I believe this opinion is supported by the fact that 
hobbits are less easily influenced by the Ring than other
races.  This seems to be a very important hobbit trait and is
not shared by humans at all.  It makes hobbits much closer
to Bombadil than human, and I think it shows that they are
fundamentally a different race.  Whence they come, however,
I have no idea.

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '...it's a tale, told by an idiot,
Iowa State University | full of sound and fury,
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | signifying nothing.'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.