XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   "Zip"  enriched us with:   
   >   
   > "Joseph"  wrote...   
   >>   
   >> As every one knows (that is everyone who can read) Hobbits are a   
   >> (derivative / related to / type of) men.   
   >   
   > I suppose that is a fair point.   
      
   I was about to comment on that. Tolkien, in a footnot to a letter,   
   wrote:   
      
    [$]  "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'."   
   [Letter #131, To Milton Waldman  (probably written late in 1951)]   
      
   This, however, doesn't mean that Hobbits were considered 'Men'   
   (capitalised), which is usually used for 'the Big Folk' only.   
      
   This is subtly emphasised in a note to Éowyn being 'known after in   
   the Mark as the Lady of the Shield-arm[*]'   
      
      [*] For her shield-arm was broken by the mace of the Witch-   
       king; but he was brought to nothing, and thus the words of   
       Glorfindel long before to King Eärnur were fulfilled, that   
       the Witch-king would not fall by the hand of man. For it   
       is said in the songs of the Mark that in this deed Éowyn   
       had the aid of Théoden's esquire, and that he also was not   
       a Man but a Halfling out of a far country, though Éomer   
       gave him honour in the Mark and the name of Holdwine.   
         [This Holdwine was none other than Meriadoc the   
       Magnificent who was Master of Buckland.]   
   [LotR App. A,II 'The House of Eorl']   
      
   I usually note that Éowyn was a Man, but not a man, while Merry was a   
   man, but not a Man ... ;-)   
      
   With respect to the destruction of the One Ring, Gandalf and Elrond   
   (who can probably be supposed to express the opinion of their author)   
   suggest that this was meant to be achieved by a Hobbit in particular,   
   rather than any human.   
      
   All in all it would be more precise to say that the One Ring was   
   meant to be destroyed by a Hobbit. One of the characteristics of the   
   Hobbits is that they possess no skills with magic at all -- the   
   Dúnedain used spells on their swords, and the Drúedain did strange   
   things with their statues, but the Hobbits never did any magic   
   whatsoever. There were other characteristics (as can also be seen   
   above), and there were probably other reasons for choosing a Hobbit   
   (the ennoblement of the ignoble, for instance), but I think that the   
   distinction is important because the Hobbit was, IMO, chosen also   
   because of some of the characteristics that separated them from other   
   humans.   
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer   
   Valid e-mail is    
      
       The errors hardest   
           to condone   
       in other people   
           are one's own.   
    - Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)