Why three races of hobbits?

[Barliman Butterbur]

...Together we are stronger!

A most excellent point!

Barley

 

[Ingwë]

A most excellent point!

Barley

Thanks. This is true.

 

[Greenwood]

At the risk of being facetious: why not? He made up different elf races and man races also, the same question is applicable there as well. Three kinds of hobbits is no different. Racial diversity is real, and Tolkien's fantasy was, above all, "real."

I missed many of the posts in this thread while I was away for a few weeks. Interesting posts everyone. As to the different races of elves and men in Middle Earth, the individual races all play important, and different, roles in the history of Middle Earth. Thus there are obvious reasons for Tolkien creating them as part of the story. There seems to be no such justification for the races of hobbits. After their introduction in the opening material of LOTR, they are virtually never mentioned again. Certainly there is no indication that the three kinds of hobbits played different roles in the history of Middle Earth. I continue to view the creation of the three kinds of hobbits as another example of Tolkien filling his work with extraneous, some would say unnecessary, detail the true purpose of which was to give a feeling of a complex, real world. Something in which he succeeded doing incredibly well.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I had merely meant why have multiple races of hobbits instead of just one...

Taking up a notion from another thread: this might have been a kind of "natural selection" (and so had a genetic component of some sort) in play. After all, in the real world, the various races of man (and animals and plants, not to put too fine a point on it) evolved as a function of interaction with local geography, climate, and survival conditions over geologic time.

Barley

 

[Greenwood]

Taking up a notion from another thread: this might have been a kind of "natural selection" (and so had a genetic component of some sort) in play. After all, in the real world, the various races of man (and animals and plants, not to put too fine a point on it) evolved as a function of interaction with local geography, climate, and survival conditions over geologic time.

Barley,

Yes, but as you also said in that other thread, we should not forget that we are dealing with a wholly fictitious world here, created from the mind of one man. As I said earlier, my view is that Tolkien created all this extraneous and often unnecessary detail so as to make Middle Earth feel like a real world, where as you say there are different races of men, animals and plants that have evolved in interaction with their environment. Of course, Middle Earth is not old enough for all its diversity to be the result of real world evolutionary processes, but it is a created universe. Recently, in rereading The Silmarillion, I was struck with how much of the creation stories of Middle Earth could be reconciled as mythic versions of the actual scientific theories of the formation of the earth and the evolution of its flora and fauna. I suspect Tolkien was fairly well read in more than his own field of languages and linguistics. Undoubtedly, he was also drawing on the many creation myths he knew of.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Barley...we should not forget that we are dealing with a wholly fictitious world here, created from the mind of one man. As I said earlier, my view is that Tolkien created all this extraneous and often unnecessary detail so as to make Middle Earth feel like a real world...

Exactly. And this is precisely why I rarely delve into the sort of conjecture we've been dealing with (the genetic element, etc.). I know that it's a great deal of fun for many TTFers to play the "what-if", "why not" and "how come" games, but for me, such speculation only leads to more of the same in infinite regress (or progress, depending on your view). That's why I prefer simply to read the tales, read books by JRR & C about the tales, see the movies, and be entertained!

Barley

 

[Greenwood]

Exactly. And this is precisely why I rarely delve into the sort of conjecture we've been dealing with (the genetic element, etc.). I know that it's a great deal of fun for many TTFers to play the "what-if", "why not" and "how come" games, but for me, such speculation only leads to more of the same in infinite regress (or progress, depending on your view). That's why I prefer simply to read the tales, read books by JRR & C about the tales, see the movies, and be entertained!

Barley,

Yes, as we have discovered in the past, our interests and viewpoints overlap to a large degree.

Note, my question in this thread was about why Tolkien created more than one race of hobbits. It was not about some theoretical evolution of hobbits in a supposedly real Middle Earth. Like you I recognize that many people like to discuss such "what if" questions. My own response to many such questions is that the answer is Tolkien didn't write it that way.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...our interests and viewpoints overlap to a large degree. ...I recognize that many people like to discuss such "what if" questions. My own response to many such questions is that the answer is Tolkien didn't write it that way.

Another kindred soul!

Barley

 

[Ingwë]

Greenwood, Tolkien himself didn't mention what happened with that three races but then the quetion is why did he create this races? There are three Houses of the Edain, three races (groups) of the Elves and... three races of hobbits. As I previously mentioned, I agree with Ithryinliun about the 'relations' with the Elves, Dwarves and Men. And now I agree with you that the different kindreds of Hobbits didn't play role in the events (as Harfoots, Stoors... but as Hobbits). Then I would say that TOlkien relly wanted to tell us that when we are together we are stronger. Three in one: three races mixed in one race. Hobbits are small creatures but they are important people in the Third are.

 

[Backyard Professor]

Thank you all for your comments. Just the sort of thing I was hoping for. I had not meant my original question to stress the number three. I had merely meant why have multiple races of hobbits instead of just one. However, Ithrynluin, you make a very interesting suggestion that the three races of hobbits were meant to reflect the three kinds of free peoples of Middle Earth: dwarves, elves and men. I believe hobbits are supposed to be a small form of men, but that the three kinds might represent in some way dwarves, elves and men is indeed interesting. In his Prologue, Tolkien says:Certainly hobbits being a form of men would fit with Tolkien's broader cosmology of elves and men being the Children of Iluvatar and dwarves being a creation of Aule (then given independent life by Eru). That cosmology really doesn't leave any room for another independent creation for hobbits. Of course, none of this negates your interesting idea, Ithrynluin, of the three kinds of hobbits mirroring the three free peoples.

Ardamir,

I look forward to hearing your evidence for any hobbits having either dwarvish or elvish blood.

So far as I have seen or can tell, there doesn't appear to be any evidence in Tolkien’s writings for Hobbits having either Elvish or Dwarvish blood. Tolkien explicitly describes Hobbits as a branch of Men, and he is never subtle when interbreeding occurs elsewhere in his legendarium. Elvish blood always carries metaphysical consequences, and no such traits appear among Hobbits. Dwarves, meanwhile, are a separate created people with no recorded unions with any other race. The similarities people sense are cultural and moral, not genealogical. Hobbits are not hybrids — they are Men who chose smallness over power.

 

[Ent]

they are Men who chose smallness over power.

Astute.
Hobbits have varied branches within them just as do the Elves, the Orcs, and others. The reasons why are relatively obvious as we look at the real world, which Tolkien fully intended them to represent just as do the rest of the peoples. (Yes, even including the Orcs.)

The Hobbits are there to reveal what happens when we choose to "be content with such things as we have" - (Scriptural foundation, if anyone is interested: Hebrews 13:5, 1 Tim 6:8 and numerous others) - as opposed to clamoring for more. Now.. that doesn't mean there aren't some hobbits of 'different mindset' within them... our dear @Lobelia B. S-B represents one of those at first, in Tolkien's world... but circumstances produce a much changed nature in her in the end. (Another of Tolkien's intents with his characters. Every character he created has its distinct purposes.)

p.s. - there are also reasons why there is a COMMUNITY of people 'content with such things as they have" - the Hobbits - yet we find individual people here and there in the other races ALSO 'content with such things as they have' right where they're at. Why is that do you think? What is Tolkien trying to say to us?

To one degree, the Hobbits represent what society COULD be, if it left off lust, greed, and the never-ending hunt for more power. However, this is just one of the things they represent. (Note, they don't even really have much government, and what government they have is totally devoted to serving the people in the most menial of ways.)

So again, as we look at each 'society', what is it we see?

For example - what does Bree represent? What is Tolkien trying to say there?

As we just keep drilling, we find all that is, there. It is no wonder it all seems so 'real.' Among Fantasy and Mythology, Tolkien is well beyond the others.
Somewhere there's a thread about what's out there "like Tolkien" to be read. In a word, there is nothing "like Tolkien." Oh there are worlds, and very interesting reads. But there is nothing "like"* Tolkien.

*Like - Definition:
--- 1. having THE SAME characteristics or qualities of.
--- 2. in the SAME WAY as.

There are some "similar." There are none "like."

 

[Elthir]

As Alcuin already pointed to, when I hear three in this context, I think of the English and the famous three tribes: Angles, Saxons, and Jutes - noting (as Alcuin does too), that the Primary World gets more complicated when one starts digging deeper here (the migrations of the Frisians for instance).

Tolkien tosses this fun nugget into Appendix B: "The Stoors come over the Redhorn pass and move to the Angle, or to Dunland." And we have the "Horse-names" of the two founders of the Shire, echoing Hengest and Horsa.

[Tom Shippey once described the Shire as a calque upon England, including a mapping of the origin of the people, its three original tribes, its two legendary founders. . . and well, other stuff]

That said, I'm not saying this is the answer to the thread's question, nor am I saying Shippey would say so; rather, in my fractured mind I think it's part of an answer, leaving plenty of other ingredients to help flavour this very tasty soup.

hmm soup must be hungry

 

[Vardarianna]

Hmm... Why three races of Hobbits? See who wins two out of three?
Sorry... I'm just being silly... I'll go now... 🤪

 

[Backyard Professor]

That said, I'm not saying this is the answer to the thread's question, nor am I saying Shippey would say so; rather, in my fractured mind I think it's part of an answer, leaving plenty of other ingredients to help flavour this very tasty soup.

Yes, I rather enjoyed that as well, good observation........ this soup is quite delicious, but then Tolkien's meals whether soup, meat n taters, or lembas "waybread" is usually appetizing and delightful!

 

[Backyard Professor]

Astute.
Hobbits have varied branches within them just as do the Elves, the Orcs, and others. The reasons why are relatively obvious as we look at the real world, which Tolkien fully intended them to represent just as do the rest of the peoples. (Yes, even including the Orcs.)

The Hobbits are there to reveal what happens when we choose to "be content with such things as we have" - (Scriptural foundation, if anyone is interested: Hebrews 13:5, 1 Tim 6:8 and numerous others) - as opposed to clamoring for more. Now.. that doesn't mean there aren't some hobbits of 'different mindset' within them... our dear @Lobelia B. S-B represents one of those at first, in Tolkien's world... but circumstances produce a much changed nature in her in the end. (Another of Tolkien's intents with his characters. Every character he created has its distinct purposes.)

p.s. - there are also reasons why there is a COMMUNITY of people 'content with such things as they have" - the Hobbits - yet we find individual people here and there in the other races ALSO 'content with such things as they have' right where they're at. Why is that do you think? What is Tolkien trying to say to us?

To one degree, the Hobbits represent what society COULD be, if it left off lust, greed, and the never-ending hunt for more power. However, this is just one of the things they represent. (Note, they don't even really have much government, and what government they have is totally devoted to serving the people in the most menial of ways.)

So again, as we look at each 'society', what is it we see?

For example - what does Bree represent? What is Tolkien trying to say there?

As we just keep drilling, we find all that is, there. It is no wonder it all seems so 'real.' Among Fantasy and Mythology, Tolkien is well beyond the others.
Somewhere there's a thread about what's out there "like Tolkien" to be read. In a word, there is nothing "like Tolkien." Oh there are worlds, and very interesting reads. But there is nothing "like"* Tolkien.

*Like - Definition:
--- 1. having THE SAME characteristics or qualities of.
--- 2. in the SAME WAY as.

There are some "similar." There are none "like."

Well said—and I think you’ve put your finger on something essential when you frame Hobbits as a community shaped by contentment rather than as moral unicorns without variation.

What strikes me is that Tolkien doesn’t present this contentment as an abstract virtue, but as something that only really works when it’s shared. The Shire functions because most people agree—tacitly—to stop short of domination, accumulation, and abstraction. That’s why its “government” can remain almost invisible: it exists only to preserve ordinary life, not to steer it toward some grand design.

This also helps explain why we find individuals in other peoples—an Elf here, a Man there—who exhibit the same contentment, yet don’t form societies around it. Contentment can survive in isolation as a personal virtue, but it seems to require a culture to endure without being crushed by the will-to-power of the wider world.

Bree, to me, is a fascinating contrast point: it’s a borderland of half-contentment. Comfortable, practical, hospitable—but already threaded with trade, rumor, and outside pressures. It’s stable, but not protected. A place where contentment exists, but no longer defines the whole.

Which may be part of what Tolkien is quietly saying to us: smallness and sufficiency can be chosen—but only deliberately, and only together. Once the surrounding world presses too hard, they must either be defended… or they fade.

And yes—I agree completely. There are many fine secondary worlds, but none that operate in quite the same way. Tolkien didn’t just build a world; he built one that behaves like a moral ecology. That’s why it feels less invented than encountered.