Down the Hobbit Hole

Why hobbits? Why do they exist in Middle-earth and why are our protagonists hobbits?

    In “Creative Anachronisms,” Shippey draws a parallel between hobbits and rabbits. Rabbits do not naturally live in the British Isles and were only introduced in the thirteenth century, so there does not exist an Old English word for them, yet Tolkien chose to include them in his world. In fact, rabbits are one of the relatively few animals explicitly mentioned in LotR. In letter 316 to R.W. Burchfield, Tolkien even defined hobbit as a “hole-dweller,” much like rabbits with their famous rabbit holes, and as Shippey points out, Bilbo is often described as a rabbit in The Hobbit. The reason for this is that, like rabbits, hobbits are distinctly English but also distinctly not Old English: they like “fried fish and chips” (book 4 chapter 4, p. 333), smoke pipe-weed (despite tobacco only arriving in Europe in the 16th century), and settle their disputes using contracts written in modern financial language rather than violence (Shippey, “The Ring as ‘Equalizer’”). Essentially, the hobbits exist somewhat as a stand-in for a modern English spirit that lets modern readers relate to them and discover Middle-earth through them, as opposed to the more historically correct Men.

    This approach can be further refined by considering the contradictory nature of what it means to be English: small-town unadventurous folk who love singing and eating vs. heroic global conquerors with their epic legends. The first, embodied by the hobbits, has its historical roots in the Anglo-Saxons whereas the second, similar to the Gondorians with their Númenórean ancestors, are more comparable to the Normans that conquered them. Not much is known about the origins of the hobbits before crossing the Brandywine, like the Anglo-Saxons and their migration over the English Channel, whereas the Men and Elves have very rich histories. Although Tolkien was more interested in telling stories of the latter, the story would be incomplete without the former.

    In class, we discussed how each of the four core hobbits of LotR (plus Bilbo) is characterized by a different aspect of service and consequently heroism, but I am intrigued by the less heroic, yet equally devoted, servants, Gollum and Wormtongue. Gollum devoted hundreds of years to the Ring, and when he lost it, he scoured the ends of Middle-earth (including Mordor) to find it and get it back. Depending on whether you view the Ring as its own autonomous entity imposing its evil will on others or just something that magnifies the evil that already exists in others, Gollum is either the single most disciplined or the single least disciplined character in the story (given Shippey's discussion of the word). It is this dedication to the Ring that makes him unintentionally destroy it. If you define heroism by the outcome rather than the intention, then this is one of the most heroic acts in LotR. Ironically, this is very similar to the dilemma that came up in our discussion on whether Frodo failed his mission or not, and if you instead define heroism by the intention, then Frodo is not particularly heroic either since he chose to keep the Ring. I only mention this because it happens a second time—with Wormtongue—and as we know, Tolkien loves his comparable pairs of characters. Wormtongue dutifully does Saruman’s bidding, sabotaging the Rohirrim and subjugating the Shire, until he reaches a breaking point and kills his master. Again, if he had been any less devoted in his service, such as by standing up for himself or defecting after the fall of Isengard, Saruman would have survived since Frodo was willing to spare his life. As far as I can tell, Tolkien does not give a conclusive answer to the question: is service only heroic when the one you are serving is good? 

    However, these two instances speak to an important aspect of Frodo’s story: his lack of agency in practice. The narrative seems to undermine or completely disregard the choices he makes, such as keeping the Ring a secret from the rest of the hobbits, embarking on his quest alone (leaving the Shire, Rivendell, and Emyn Muil), keeping the Ring at Mount Doom, sparing Saruman’s life, etc.. I find this aspect particularly interesting because it distinguishes him from his three companions—each of which gets to decide their own fate—yet makes him much more realistic. When reading letter 5 to G.B. Smith, I couldn’t help but correlate Frodo’s fate with that of many modern soldiers, drafted into a foreign war and stripped of his agency, only to return home to a barely recognizable country, injured and sick. Again, Tolkien is able to incorporate both the modern and the ancient with Frodo’s tragic ending and the fairytale endings of the other hobbits. This is similar to how the realistic evil of the scouring of the Shire serves to balance out the fairytale evil of Sauron’s Mordor. I also want to mention that the core hobbits mature during their quest, but all of them, except Sam, seem to eventually “outgrow” hobbit society and evolve into something that isn’t quite hobbit but isn’t quite Man, either—three-quarter-lings, if I may. Sam, formerly just a gardener, heals the Shire and becomes its mayor—because remember, the hands of a king mayor are the hands of a healer—whereas Merry and Pippin eventually move to Gondor, and Bilbo and Frodo seemingly transcend the mortal world altogether by sailing west for Valinor.

The of Richecourt in 1918 (Library of Congress) for reference, since the scouring of the Shire is missing from the movies.

    I think that part of the reason why the Ring-bearer had to be a hobbit is encapsulated by their distaste for seafaring (except for those weirdo Brandybucks). The uncontrollable and unpredictable nature of the sea represents both possibility and peril: it is the route to discovery, but also to overreach. For example, the Númenóreans attempt to transcend death by sailing to Valinor, but the sea ends up destroying them. This hubris is distinctly missing in the hobbits who do not seem to have many aspirations through which they can be corrupted. Hobbits, who barely wish to leave home, definitely do not dream of conquering distant lands. Boromir was so easily corrupted by the Ring because of his desire to save Gondor and become king, whereas the Ring had no effect on Tom Bombadil who is already perfectly content with his life as it is, and Sam was even able to give it up after carrying it for two days because he only wants to serve Frodo. I think this tells us something about how Tolkien views morality: the defeat of great evil does not come from greater power, but from the refusal of it; and such refusal is most likely to be found among those who never sought greatness to begin with.

-ME