Letter From Tolkien

25 To the editor of the 'Observer'
[On 16 January 1938, the Observer published a letter, signed 'Habit', asking whether hobbits
might have been suggested to Tolkien by Julian Huxley's account of 'the "little furry men" seen in Africa
by natives and .... at least one scientist'. The letter-writer also mentioned that a friend had 'said she
remembered an old fairy tale called "The Hobbit" in a collection read about 1904', in which the creature
of that name 'was definitely frightening'. The writer asked if Tolkien would 'tell us some more about the
name and inception of the intriguing hero of his book. .... It would save so many research students so very
much trouble in the generations to come. And, by the way, is the hobbit's stealing of the dragon's cup
based on the cup-stealing episode in Beowulf? I hope so, since one of the book's charms appears to be its
Spenserian harmonising of the brilliant threads of so many branches of epic, mythology, and Victorian
fairy literature.' Tolkien's reply, though it was not intended for publication (see the conclusion of no. 26),
was printed in the Observer on 20 February 1938.]
Sir, I need no persuasion: I am as susceptible as a dragon to flattery, and

would gladly show off my diamond waistcoat, and even discuss its sources, since
the Habit (more inquisitive than the Hobbit) has not only professed to admire it,
but has also asked where I got it from. But would not that be rather unfair to the
research students? To save them trouble is to rob them of any excuse for existing.
However, with regard to the Habit's principal question there is no danger: I
do not remember anything about the name and inception of the hero. I could guess,
of course, but the guesses would have no more authority than those of future
researchers, and I leave the game to them.
I was born in Africa, and have read several books on African exploration. I
have, since about 1896, read even more books of fairy-tales of the genuine kind.
Both the facts produced by the Habit would appear, therefore, to be significant.
But are they? I have no waking recollection of furry pigmies (in book or
moonlight); nor of any Hobbit bogey in print by 1904. I suspect that the two
*
hobbits are accidental homophones, and am content that they are not (it would
seem) synonyms. And I protest that my hobbit did not live in Africa, and was not
furry, except about the feet. Nor indeed was he like a rabbit. He was a prosperous,
well-fed young bachelor of independent means. Calling him a 'nassty little rabbit'
was a piece of vulgar trollery, just as 'descendant of rats' was a piece of dwarfish
malice deliberate insults to his size and feet, which he deeply resented. His feet,
if conveniently clad and shod by nature, were as elegant as his long, clever fingers.
As for the rest of the tale it is, as the Habit suggests, derived from
(previously digested) epic, mythology, and fairy-story not, however, Victorian in
authorship, as a rule to which George Macdonald is the chief exception. Beowulf is
among my most valued sources; though it was not consciously present to the mind
in the process of writing, in which the episode of the theft arose naturally (and
almost inevitably) from the circumstances. It is difficult to think of any other way
of conducting the story at that point. I fancy the author of Beowulf would say
much the same.
My tale is not consciously based on any other book save one, and that is
unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is
made. I had not thought of the future researchers; and as there is only one
manuscript there seems at the moment small chance of this reference proving
useful.
But these questions are mere preliminaries. Now that I have been made to
see Mr. Baggins's adventures as the subject of future enquiry I realise that a lot of
work will be needed. There is the question of nomenclature. The dwarf-names, and
the wizard's, are from the Elder Edda. The hobbit- names from Obvious Sources
proper to their kind. The full list of their wealthier families is: Baggins, Boffin,
Bolger, Bracegirdle, Brandybuck, Burrowes, Chubb, Grubb, Hornblower,
Proudfoot, Sackville, and Took. The dragon bears as name a pseudonym the
past tense of the primitive Germanic verb Smugan, to squeeze through a hole: a
low philological jest. The rest of the names are of the Ancient and Elvish World,
and have not been modernised.
And why dwarves? Grammar prescribes dwarfs; philology suggests that
dwarrows would be the historical form. The real answer is that I knew no better.
But dwarves goes well with elves; and, in any case, elf, gnome, goblin, dwarf are
only approximate translations of the Old Elvish names for beings of not quite the
same kinds and functions.

* Not quite. I should like, if possible, to learn more about the fairy-tale collection, c. 1904.
These dwarves are not quite the dwarfs of better known lore. They have
been given Scandinavian names, it is true; but that is an editorial concession. Too
many names in the tongues proper to the period might have been alarming.
Dwarvish was both complicated and cacophonous. Even early elvish philologists
avoided it, and the dwarves were obliged to use other languages, except for entirely
private conversations. The language of hobbits was remarkably like English, as one
would expect: they only lived on the borders of The Wild, and were mostly
unaware of it. Their family names remain for the most part as well known and
justly respected in this island as they were in Hobbiton and Bywater.
There is the matter of the Runes. Those used by Thorin and Co., for special
purposes, were comprised in an alphabet of thirty-two letters (full list on
application), similar to, but not identical, with the runes of Anglo-Saxon
inscriptions. There is doubtless an historical connection between the two. The
Feanorian alphabet, generally used at that time, was of Elvish origin. It appears in
the curse inscribed on the pot of gold in the picture of Smaug's lair, but had
otherwise been transcribed (a facsimile of the original letter left on the mantelpiece
can be supplied).
*
And what about the Riddles? There is work to be done here on the sources
and analogues. I should not be at all surprised to learn that both the hobbit and
Gollum will find their claim to have invented any of them disallowed.
Finally, I present the future researcher with a little problem. The tale halted
in the telling for about a year at two separate points: where are they? But probably
that would have been discovered anyway. And suddenly I remember that the hobbit
thought 'Old fool', when the dragon succumbed to blandishment. I fear that the
Habit's comment (and yours) will already be the same. But you must admit that the
temptation was strong. Yours, etc.,
J. R. R. Tolkien.

Letter From Tolkien

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter From Tolkien

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter From Tolkien

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 To the editor of the 'Observer'

Sir, I need no persuasion: I am as susceptible as a dragon to flattery, and

You might also like