Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
The Hobbit - First vs. Second Edition (Modern Editions) Reading
A while back I picked up the facsimile of the first edition of The Hobbit. As some of you know, there are differences between the 1937 first edition and the 1951 revision. Largely these differences are chalked up to generally minor changes to bring the story in line with The Lord of the Rings as much as possible and specifically changes to the Riddles in the Dark chapter which sets the provenance, or at least the importance, of the one ring.
In our slow read of The Lord of the Rings I remember arguing at times with @clash_bowley and others (who I'll admit know more about Tolkien's works than I) that Tolkien was less clear on some of the facts of Middle Earth (and specifically on the nature of Gandalf) in his early works than in the later ones. Reading the 1937 edition of The Hobbit reinforces that opinion for me, though I admit it is just an opinion based on my interpretation of the text. IOW, I am seeing evidence for a theory I already had. If you read the text with a different theory, you might not see the same evidence or give it the same weight as I have. Even so, it's a fascinating discussion regardless of who is "right."
Anyway, I am going to drop my notes here on the textual differences for those who are interested and want to comment. I assume that certainly Clash, @Apocryphal and @Michael_S_Miller will want to see this.
Comments
Chapter 1: An Unexpected Party
On the Size of Hobbits
In the description of hobbits, their size is given as "...small people, smaller than dwarves (and they have no beards) but very much larger than lilliputians. Their is little or no magic about them..."
In the revised version they are "...“little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded Dwarves. Hobbits have no beards. There is little or no magic about them ..."
Presumably Tolkien realized that referencing the height of one fantasy race to another provided very little information and so included humans. Also "lilliputians" is a fourth-wall-breaking reference to Gulliver's Travels. Though Tolkien doesn't mind breaking the fourth wall elsewhere, this one was quite a stand out.
On the Alleged Dalliance between the Tooks and Other Races
The unrevised edition says "It had always been said that long ago one or other of the Tooks had married into a fairy family (the less friendly said a goblin family); certainly there..."
The revised version says "“It was often said (in other families) that long ago one of the Took ancestors must have taken a fairy wife. That was, of course, absurd, but certainly there..."
The thought of hobbits and goblins marrying is not in keeping with The Lord of the Rings at all, and it is one of the first signs, to my thinking, of how different (or at least less defined) Tolkien's view of Middle Earth was in 1937.
On Gandalf
There will be lots to say on this point as the story progresses, but in our first description of him in the 1937 edition we are told that Bilbo perceived him as "a little old man." This is later revised to "an old man with a staff." But in any case, Gandalf in both versions of the story is consistently referred to as a man. I have argued a number of times with my friends -- who I admit are more deeply seeped in Tolkien lore than I -- about when exactly Tolkien decided that Gandalf was neither human nor elf but rather a lesser, divine being. I have (probably ignorantly) contended that in the 1937 Hobbit, Gandalf is an enigmatic old man who can cast spells, period. I don't think Tolkien had conceived much about his background, or the council of wizards and their colors, or anything of that sort. In fact, Gandalf isn't "the Grey" here -- he wears a blue hat, a grey cloak, a silver scarf, and black boots. His eyebrow hair sticks "out further than the brim of his shady hat" and at first he has a "stick" (walking stick?) rather than a staff (though it is referred to as his "magic staff" by the end of the night of the unexpected party).
All that being said, I seem to recall that @clash_bowley can point to a letter pre-dating 1937 that discusses Gandalf's angelic origin?
As for his magic ... see the next chapter.
On Hobbit Adventures
The unrevised edition tells us that Gandalf is responsible for young hobbits "going off into the Blue for mad adventures, anything from climbing trees to stowing away aboard the ships that sail to the Other Side." This is quite a revealing little point. It's later revised to "“going off into the Blue for mad adventures? Anything from climbing trees to visiting elves—or sailing in ships, sailing to other shores!” It perhaps tells us that early on Tolkien was less clear on who could 'pass into the West' and certainly points to how we would eventually wind up the The Return of the King.
Miscellaneous
A minor point here, but in the 1937 edition when Bilbo unexpectedly shrieks, Gandalf refers to him as an "excitable little man." This is revised to "excitable little fellow."
In the unrevised version, Smaug is reported to have gotten fat from "devouring so many of the maidens of the valley" rather than "“so many of the dwarves and men of Dale."
Gandalf inserts more proper names in the revised version. Thror and Thrain are not named in the unrevised version, but simply referred to as Thorin's father and grandfather. Also not named in the unrevised version is the name of the goblin (Azog) that killed Thror in the mines of Moria.
There are of course other very minor changes. For instance, Gandalf tells Bilbo to bring out the chicken and tomatoes in the unrevised edition vs. the chicken and pickles in the revised edition. But I'll skip over these inconsequential changes.
Chapter 2: Roast Mutton
The Lands (and Dates) Between The Shire and Rivendell
In the unrevised version there are some key differences in the description of the lands between where the hobbits lived and Rivendell. Here are the comparative passages:
1937 unrevised: "Things wen ton like this for quite a long while. there was a good deal of wide respectable country to pass through, inhabited by decent respectable folk, men or hobbits or elves or what not, with good roads, an inn or two, and every now then a dwarf, or a tinker or a farmer ambling by on business. But after a time they came to places where people spoke strangely, and sang songs Bilbo had never heard before. Inns were rare and not good, the roads were worse, and there were hills in the distance rising higher and higher. There were castles on some of the hills, and many looked as if they had not been built for any good purpose. Also, the weather which had often been as good as May can be, even in tales and legends, took a nasty turn."
Revised: "At first they had passed through hobbit-lands, a wide respectable country inhabited by decent folk, with good roads, an inn or two, and now and then a dwarf or a farmer ambling by on business. Then they came to lands where people spoke strangely, and sang songs Bilbo had never heard before. Now they had gone on far into the Lone-lands, where there were no people left, no inns, and the roads grew steadily worse. Not far ahead were dreary hills, rising higher and higher, dark with trees. On some of them were old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people. Everything seemed gloomy, for the weather that day had taken a nasty turn. Mostly it had been as good as May can be, can be, even in merry tales, but now it was cold and wet. In the Lone-lands they had been obliged to camp when they could, but at least it had been dry."
Tolkien's revision depopulates this area to bring it in line with the journey the hobbits take with Aragon that includes the awesome and spooky encounter at Weathertop. Notably, in the unrevised edition, elves are included in the races that live in the area closer to The Shire (the words "The Shire" are never used in The Hobbit, by the way). Later we see that where there were once inns, albeit poor ones (unrevised), there are now no longer inns (revised) and the party is forced to camp earlier in their adventure. In the unrevised version it is clearly noted that they camp "for the first time" on the night of the trolls. (This change stating when they first camped wasn't actually made until later revisions, as it is still in the audiobooks narrated by Rob Ingles in 1991 but not in the text I have that was published in 2001. In the earlier revisions there is an odd discrepancy between them camping earlier and camping 'for the first time' on the night of the trolls.) He also clarifies that the castles have an evil look, and were probably built by wicked people whereas in the unrevised version they simply appear as if they had not been built for any good purpose. (One can put different emphasis on the word "good" in the earlier edition which changes them from looking pointless to evil.)
Also, Tolkien seems to mess with the dates just slightly. In the unrevised version Bilbo remarks that "it is June the first tomorrow." Tolkien revised it to "it will soon be June." This removes a pinpoint on the calendar that would have marked the exact date of the evening on which they encountered the trolls. I assume this was done for a purpose, but I haven't investigated it.
Later in the same chapter, the unrevised version tells us that "these parts are none too well known, and are too near the mountains. Policemen never come so far, and the map-makers have not reached this country yet. They have seldom even heard of the king round here..." The revised version changes this passage to "These parts are none too well known, and are too near the mountains. Travellers seldom come this way now. The old maps are no use: things have changed for the worse and the road is unguarded. They have seldom even heard of the king round here..."
So the land goes from unmapped to having out-of-date maps. I have also often wondered about the reference to "the king" here. I presume they mean the steward of Gondor??
Gandalf
We get more insight into the differences between Gandalf of The Hobbit and Gandalf of The Lord of the Rings in this chapter. When they first miss him the text (of both editions) reads: "So far he had come all the way with them, never saying if he was in the adventure or merely keeping them company for a while. He had eaten most, talked most, and laughed most. But now he simply was not there at all!" Either he is in an uncharacteristically good mood or he soured between this time and the time of The Lord of the Rings. That would make sense as the world takes a turn for the worse between the two novels. As for magic...
We see him doing a lot more trivial magic in The Hobbit than we do in Lord of the Rings. When they find the troll hole, for instance, he tries "various incantations" to open it before Bilbo remembers he has the key. Afterward "they" (presumably Gandalf, but it isn't stated as such) "put a great many spells" on the chests they bury to conceal them. As for the blades they took, Gandalf says "if we can read the runes on them" we will know more about them, whereas in the revised version he says "when we can read the runes." Changing "if" to "when" is a very small difference, to be sure, but an interesting one.
PS, yes, I know he tries a lot of opening spells at the gates of Moria. I'll keep an eye on the references to his magic (and the magic of others) as I go along. Note that in the first chapter Tolkien points out that there isn't much magic possessed by Hobbits. He is, of course, referring to the magic that other races have. We know that men, elves, and dwarves all have some form of magical abilities. The making of the rings, the palantir, the toys sold in Dale, the preservation of Lorien and the waking up of trees, etc. It begs the question of what magic even means in Middle Earth. Especially when you have the mental battles mentioned in The Lord of the Rings between Sauron and others (Galadriel, Gandalf, Aragon, and Saruman). My point being that magic isn't just D&D spell casting. It's also crafting/enchanting and natural/genetic and 'psionic' and use of magic items ... it has many different forms.
On Dragons
While I'm thinking about it, can we point to the attitude about the existence of dragons in The Hobbit? First of all, it seems to be dragons: plural not singular. Here are a few quotes from the first chapter. They seem to indicate a general experience with dragons and understanding of their ways. And Gandalf even remarks that Hobbits (wrongfully, it is implied) think of them as legendary. I seem to remember as they talk about going through Mirkwood there is also a note about it being dangerous to travel around the north because of dragons. Anyway, it's pretty clear that Smaug is (possibly/probably) not unique in his species.
Also, what the hell are the "wild Were-worms in the Last Desert!?" I want to hear those stories!!
Later in the Tolkien mythos we get the sense that Smaug was the last or one of the last dragons. They are fairly scarce even in The Silmarillion. Am I recalling that correctly?
There's nothing here that would preclude the idea of dwarves remembering that there were a bunch of dragons once - hundreds of years ago - and only one or a few now. But I feel like there is a general tone/sense that some are still around.
Interesting! I flagged this edition to get for myself. I'll set some time aside to read your notes later this week!
I never read the original Hobbit. In fact I read the Hobbit long after I read the LotR. All of this is news to me! As for the bit about Gandalf's angelic origin, I am sure that was from Tolkien's collected letters, but can't remember precisely. I will dig! These are all fascinating! And having read Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle Earth, I know many of the ideas he had about Middle earth changed in the writing of the LotR, and in very interesting ways.
AS for dragons, they still bred on the Withered Heath as far as I know. Smaug was the mightiest of dragons left, not the last.
Following on from my post on Tolkien's Treasures here's the bit about the original version of The Hobbit which is relevant:
(The chapter on The Hobbit includes some splendid illustrations by JRRT for the book, only some of which I had seen before).
The wider mythic context had been on his mind for many years before 1937 - for example there is a 1915 picture he made of the two trees of Valinor - he was 23 at the time, was about to join the army, and would not marry Edith until the following year. But specifically as regards the 1937 version of The Hobbit, it seems to me altogether likely that there will be numerous divergences from the world of LotR and The Silmarillion.
Thanks for that @RichardAbbott. I do think my primary questions about this edition revolve around what Tolkien had decided (and more importantly what he hadn't) about his world in 1937. But this is also a key difference -- the audience for which The Hobbit was originally written. I do feel like most fans prefer the tone of one or the other. Those who LOVE The Hobbit are rarely happy with The Lord of the Rings. Those who love the tone of the latter often think The Hobbit is "fun" (in an almost dismissive way).
That's probably a dumb generalization. I don't know if it's true - it's just my gut feeling from talking to people who have read or failed to read both.
Chapter 3: A Short Rest
Arrival at Rivendell
This chapter tracks pretty closely between the new and old editions; there are only a few differences of note. The first is the time of the party's arrival at Rivendell. In 1937 the dwarves arrive at the ford in the afternoon. In the revised version they arrive in the morning. The difference is really the feel in how long it takes them to get from the ford to Elrond's house. Since that part is kind of missing in The Lord of the Rings (Frodo is blacked out), the comparison is irrelevant. For some reason I like the idea of arriving in the afternoon: elves and twilight go together. But either way, it is getting dark by the time they reach Elrond's crib.
Do Elves Smell?
In both editions, Bilbo thinks upon nearing the last Homely House "Hmmm! It smells like elves!" This begs several questions. What do elves smell like? Where does the smell come from - the kind of foods they eat, the wood they burn, their perfume? And, how does Bilbo know what elves smell like!?
Elrond and Co.
The elves at Rivendell in The Hobbit are really quite silly. They feel more superficial and carefree than the sober Lord of the Rings elves. Also, Elrond is called an "elf-friend" not an elf. He is, of course, half-elf, as is explained in the text, or rather he has both elves and "heroes of the North" for ancestors. Phrases like "as fair in face as an elf-lord" seem to really set him apart from the elves. He is also "as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard" and "as venerable as a king of dwarves." I don't remember how this is handled in Lord of the Rings, but I feel like his elf side is played up more. Certainly, in the movies, he just seems like an elf. In The Hobbit, like Gandalf, Elrond is a bit of a legendary figure without much explanation, leaving the reader to imagine or assume all kinds of things.
The oddest difference between editions in this chapter is the following passage (Elrond speaking):
"These are not troll-make. They are old swords, very old swords of the elves that are now called Gnomes. They were made in Gondolin for the Golbin-wars."
The sentence about gnomes is left out of the revised Hobbit. I believe this has been explained by some as a reference to the Noldor, one of the tribes of elves. In any case, Tolkien seems to like to divide his elves into families or tribes that are geographically and to some degree ideologically different. Even in The Hobbit, wood elves and Rivendell elves feel quite different.
One last note about Elrond, he knows all kinds of runes and moon letters and history and all ... but he doesn't know what Durin's Day is?
"'Then what is Durin's Day?' asked Elrond.
'The first day of the dwarves' New Year,' said Thorin."
And just to rub it in, in the 1937 edition, Thorin says "as everyone knows." In the revised edition he is kinder, saying "as all should know." I guess Elrond just doesn't study dwarven lore.
Sidebar: Troll-make?
I meant to make a note in the last chapter about how different trolls of The Hobbit are from those of Lord of the Rings. The thought of Lord of the Rings trolls forging swords, even bad ones, seems really far-fetched. As we learn from Aragorn, LotR "Trolls do not build." I suspect they also don't forge. But in The Hobbit, trolls seem like big, gross, and slightly dumber humans. (Also, something people miss a lot in Lord of the Rings is that trolls have elephant-like feet, no separated toes. And I seem to recall they have black tongues - or red tongues in black faces.* Anyway, they are more monstrous and alien in The Lord of the Rings, and we find out that they were made "in mockery of the Ents, as Orcs were of Elves.")
Where and When the Thrush Knocks
Is the 1937 edition, the moon letters say to "stand by the grey stone where the thrush knocks..." The revised edition says to "stand by the grey stone when the thrush knocks." The change from "where" to "when" is a minor difference, but an interesting one. The thrush isn't actually needed for either the where or when, as the letters indicate that "the setting sun with the last light of Durin's Day will sine upon the key-hole." So the thrush is really just a harbinger. An omen. (And of course he has another key role to play!)
Yeah, he changed the name of the 'Gnomes' to the 'Noldor' after passing through a phase of being 'Ñoldor'. There have always been several different branches of elves, as you said, but their names change over time.
Here's a nice nod to some of the things about The Hobbit that have gotten lost in modern mixes of the fantasy genre or simply forgotten by Tolkien-heads.
https://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-forgotten-hobbit.html
Chapter IV: Over Hill and Under Hill
The Mines of Moria
When I first read The Hobbit (I believe it was in the summer between 4th and 5th grade for me) I don't know if I ever noted the references to Moria, not knowing that the mines would figure so prominently in The Fellowship of the Ring. One small textual change in the revised edition is to refer to the "battle of the Mines of Moria" rather than "the sack of the Mines of Moria" (unrevised). Is this significant? A sack seems to indicate the goblins met very little resistance whereas a battle means the dwarves gave it a good go, but I don't think it means much. In any case, "Moria" is named seven times in The Hobbit and looms heavily as the singular greatest point of contention between goblins and dwarves. We learn in the next chapter that "“in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them [the goblins" and it makes me think about the possibilities of treachery.
On Giants
"They could hear the giants guffawing and shouting all over the mountainsides. 'This won’t do at all!' said Thorin. 'If we don’t get blown off, or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football.'"
This passage bothered me in my early reads of The Hobbit for two reasons. One, the reference to a football (similar to the earlier reference to golf, trains, etc.) bothered me in its breaking of the genre-wall. Second, I didn't like giants in the story because they didn't seem to fit. I'll say that one thing (one of the very few things) I really do like about Peter Jackson's re-telling of The Hobbit in film is the way he captured these storm giants. But as a reader I either want to see more of them (and how they fit into the world) or none of them. Or at least that's how I once felt. Now I like them. And later, when Gandalf talks about finding a more or less good giant to block up the goblin's new front gate, I dig the idea that giants might be part of this unrevised Middle Earth.
On Dreams
A few years ago when we did a slow read of The Lord of the Rings, I paid more attention to how often hobbits had dreams that seemed to mean something. Frodo was particularly likely to dream something symbolic, and now I'm finding it in The Hobbit. It strikes me that this is an under-explored ability of halflings in RPGs, a certain prescience. Perhaps that is why they often get initiative bonuses? If so, that seems like a rather boring reduction of the idea of clairvoyant dreams. In any case, we see in this chapter that Bilbo dreams of a crack opening and the floor giving way (as it is really happening).
Chapter V: Riddles in the Dark
Here we go. This is THE chapter that is most talked about when comparing the 1937 edition to the 1951 revised edition. I'm going to reiterate some of the points made by others, with the general thesis that small changes in this chapter make a massive difference in the overall work and character of Bilbo. Also, trying to read it fresh is really hard after so many years of reading the revised version and getting brain-washed by things like Gandalf calling Bilbo's earlier story "ridiculous." If you really look at this fresh, it literally makes more sense than the retelling. Though, again, having internalized the retelling it's hard for me to get to that perspective.
What is different?
Gollum
For one thing Gollum is radically different. First of all he puts up the ring as the prize in the riddling contest. So clearly he is willing to lose it in a way that he definitely is not in the retelling (and as informed by the LotR trilogy). Second, he worries a lot about cheating and doing the honorable thing in the contest. He apologizes profusely to Bilbo when he can't find his ring in order to give it to Bilbo as a prize for winning the contest. He also refers to HIMSELF as my precious, not the ring! Finally, there is no evidence (and some counter-evidence) that Gollum was once something like a hobbit that lived outside the mountain.
Let's ground some of this in the text, starting with the physical nature and origin of Gollum.
"Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was. He was Gollum -- as dark as darkness, except for two big round pale eyes." And later, "Asking them [riddles], and sometimes guessing them, had been the only game he had ever played with other funny creatures sitting in their holes in the long, long ago, before the goblins came, and he was cut off from his friends far under under [sic] the mountains."
I personally get the sense that Gollum is a creature who originates from under the mountain. I know that's not in any way conclusive, and that last sentence can be read more than one way. Was Gollum, living under the mountain, cut off from his friends living in holes also under the mountains? Or were those holes outside the mountain? It's still true in the unrevised edition that his grandmother taught him to suck eggs, by the way.
Regardless, we do get the sense that Gollum has lived a very long time. Note that in the revision Gollum gains the adjectives "slimy" and "thin" of face: "“Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature. I don’t know where he came from, nor who or what he was. He was Gollum—as dark as darkness, except for two big round pale eyes in his thin face.”
The second point I'm making is that Gollum is clearly not overly attached to the ring. (Of course, a lot of this argument is undone if you literally think of yourself reading the 1937 edition as reading the version Bilbo recorded in his original Red Book. IOW, the 1937 edition is later re-cast as a clever lie told by Bilbo to obfuscate "the truth." But I am not taking that into account as it is literal revisionism.)
The terms of the riddling game were "If precious asks, and it doesn't answer, we eats it, my preciousss. If it asks us, and we doesn't answer, we gives it a present, gollum!"
Not that he refers to himself as precious. And Tolkien tells us that he does "And when he said gollum he made a horrible swallowing noise in his throat. That is how he got his name, though he always called himself 'my precious.'"
Interesting, huh? Not that Gollum calls himself 'my precious,' but rather that he isn't calling the ring my precious! Tolkien was very clever in his re-write to make that shift. Also, let's stop for a moment and think. How did Gollum get his name in the revised version? Who gave him that name. He was Smeagol before. And apparently he didn't make the throat noise back then. So when he fled under the mountain and became a solitary creature ... did the goblins give him the name? It's not clear that they knew about him specifically, only that something dangerous dwelt down by the lake. And by the time Bilbo arrives on scene, his name is already Gollum. ... I get the sense in the unrevised version that Gollum was the nickname given to him by those aforementioned hole-friends.
The fact that he refers to, and offers up, the ring as a prize to be one, and refers to himself, not the ring, as 'my precious' means that while he prizes his old present, it isn't an all-consuming coveting of it.
And he is truly willing to give it up. He may think he is going to win, though there is no indication that Gollum thinks of himself as an unparalleled master at riddles. We do know that "one thing Gollum had learned long long ago was never, never, to cheat at the riddle-game, which is a sacred one and of immense antiquity." So when he loses, Gollum says "Must we give it the thing, my preciouss? Yess, we must! We must fetch it, preciouss, and give it the present we promised." He goes off to fetch it, realizes he has lost it. "We haven't the present we promised, and we haven't even got it for ourselveses. [...] Gollum came back and made a tremendous spluttering and whispering and croaking; and in the end Bilbo gathered that Gollum had had a ring -- a wonderful, beautiful ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages and ages before in old days when such rings were less uncommon." He even tells Bilbo the rings powers, that "if you slipped the ring on your finger, you were invisible; only in the sunlight could you be seen, and then only by your shadow, and that was a faint and shaky sort of shadow."
"I don't know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo's pardon. He kept on saying: 'We are ssory; we didn't mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only pressent, if it won the competition." In the end, Bilbo extracts the promise of being shown the way out as a consolation prize (even though he has already guessed, if Gollum has not, that the ring in his pocket is the Gollum's prize).
Finally, there is no "we hates it forever" speech from Gollum. Gollum basically shows Bilbo to a tunnel and Bilbo hangs out listening to Gollum's slapping feet retreat before Bilbo continues on to the "back door."
So what else is different? Well, Bilbo is less of a victim, isn't he?
Bilbo
In this story, Bilbo is the one who kind of cheats at the riddling game by going "off-form" with his pocket-riddle, and Gollum reciprocates by securing three guesses and technically making four. But more to the point, Bilbo literally takes a "Finding's keeping!" attitude about the ring and doesn't tell Gollum that he has already found the prize, so that he can get the prize of being shown the exit. Not all that shady, I'll grant you, but still interesting to note.
What isn't different is that fate is still involved in this meeting. Fate is something talked about a lot -- or if not a lot, at meaningful points -- in The Hobbit. Bilbo scores not one but two points in the riddle game by accident. A fish literally jumps out of the water and lands on his feet to give him one answer, and he says "time" by accident to get another point. Finally, perhaps a third appearance of fate, is him speaking out loud "what have I got in my pockets?" and it being taken for a riddle rather than a point of conversation.
After winning the riddle game by chance (or was it!? eyebrow-waggle) Bilbo manages to slip on the ring at just the right time.
"Whether it was by accident or presence of mind, I don't know. Accident, I think, because the hobbit was not used yet to his new treasure. Anyway he slipped the ring on his left hand--and the goblins stopped short." [Revised]
Note that the ring is not the active agent in 1937 as it is in 1951.
"Whether it was an accident, or a last trick of the ring before it took a new master, it was not on his finger. With yells of delight the goblins rushed upon him. A pang of fear and loss, like an echo of Gollum’s misery, smote Bilbo, and forgetting even to draw his sword he struck his hands into his pockets. And there was the ring still, in his left pocket, and it slipped on his finger. The goblins stopped short."
In short. Gollum is different, Bilbo is different, and the ring itself is different. They engage on different terms and certainly part on different terms. At the end of the Riddles chapter in the 1937 edition, Gollum has lost his prize, he does not know Bilbo has it, and he feels some guilt over unintentionally cheating at the game. Bilbo lucks his way through, happening to do the right thing at the right time as either a kind of comic hero or as one chosen by fate to win the day. The ring, is just a ring. One among a number of rings, without a will or agenda of its own.
And, frankly, that's huge. It changes the story a lot, for good or ill. Certainly Tolkien's revisions are used to make something quite beautiful and profound in the long run. And I love that. Gollum's story is in many ways the central one of the whole trilogy. On the other hand, we have to wonder if The Hobbit, taken by itself, is a better story without the revisions. My opinion on that may change from day to day, but right now it makes more sense to me in its unrevised form and no longer weighs quite as heavily over the whole narrative as it does in the revised version. There is less pathos in the 1937 story. It's more light-hearted and maybe more kid-friendly as a result. But it also loses something. It may take me a while to resolve my feelings about this one.
Chapter VI: Out of the Frying-Pan Into the Fire
Just a few things to say about this one, as there is only one major change between versions.
He Still Lies (Sort of)
When Bilbo tells his story to the dwarves it is accurate except that he doesn't tell them about finding the ring. He does tell them about the present that Gollum was unable to find, and so he traded his missing prize for being guided to the exit.
Wargs and Eagles
The fact that some creatures are intelligent and have a true language in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings has always fascinated me. In this chapter we learn of "the dreadful language of the Wargs." and that Gandalf understood it. We also hear the eagles speak, and it seems everyone can understand them, including Bilbo.
Finally, can I say that goblins do NOT sing enough in Lord of the Rings. I miss their singing a lot. You can't do better than Down, Down to Goblin Town and Fifteen Birds in Five Fir Trees. Killer stuff.
Do I have a point here? Yeah. The Hobbit is a more magical world. I can't quite see the Gandalf of the Lord of the Rings using flaming pine cones. Not that he wouldn't have used magic to attack the Wargs, but it would have been grander. And the sheer amount of magical creatures in The Hobbit is far greater than in the Lord of the Rings -- where all the fantasy stuff seems more concentrated in the humanoid races. In 1937 we have giants and trolls, talking animals, animals that serve dinner (next chapter), a gollum that isn't just a warped hobbit (I mean, he could be, but that's never implied in The Hobbit), etc. It's all a bit more sober in The Lord of the Rings. That's cool too, don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of both; I'm just appreciating the differences here.
By the way, I still don't have The Annotated Hobbit. Someone pointed out to me that all of this work has already been done. I kind of figured it had, but I'm having fun doing it on my own. I will probably pick up the Annotated version and have a look after I finish. Right now, I don't want to be tainted by what is written there.
Well, I am greatly enjoying your diggings!
First, let me say how much I'm enjoying these notes of yours
Secondly, about song...
It's a good point. I'm sure that, from the late perspective of LotR, his goblins would have sung a probably slightly distorted version of the Elvish pattern of rhyming couplets in 8-syllable lines (itself, I argue, based on Celtic patterns he had studied in the 1930s). Certainly the ring poem itself, though written in the Black Speech characters, uses this form.
But from all that you have said, this level of consistency and integration was not in the 1937 Hobbit, and the songs you mention are more akin to hobbit doggerel (eg the ode to hot bath water) than anything high-minded. I guess we have another difference which one wold lean on for retcon purposes, which is that the orcs and goblins we meet in the Hobbit are northern ones, based around the Misty Mountains, and forming enclaves which seem to be largely self-governing, whereas the LotR ones are either Saruman's Uruk-Hai or else groups solidly under the direct control of Sauron in Mordor. Maybe the northern goblins simply have a lot more fun than the Mordor-orcs?
Great stuff, @Ray_Otus . I'm enjoying this as well.
Thanks all. And that's a cool and fun bit of analysis @RichardAbbott.
Chapter VII: Queer Lodgings
For the next couple of chapters there isn't much to say about the differences between the 1937 and 1951 editions, because there aren't any of significance. However, I'm still going to make a few observations of my own based on the perspective reading the unrevised version gives me or just because I feel like it.
Beorn's Knowledge of Things
I noted that in the opening chapter, Thorin's ancestors were not named in the unrevised edition, but were in the later version. Here there names appear for the first time, coming from the mouth of Beorn: “I am not over fond of dwarves; but if it is true you are Thorin (son of Thrain, son of Thror, I believe)." It is interesting that he knows Thorin's lineage but has never heard of Gandalf!
“'I am Gandalf,' said the wizard.
'Never heard of him,' growled the man."
Though he has heard of Gandalf's "cousin" Radagast. I assume Gandalf uses that apellation in a colloquial way and doesn't mean it literally. Though it's worth thinking about. There are three (at least) possibilities: 1) Gandalf and Radagast really are related by blood, 2) Gandalf and Radagast are related by their profession as wizard, and/or 3) they are related in their natures as demi-gods per knowledge that comes later in the Middle Earth writings. I always took it to mean #2, but it could be any or all of the three.
In any case, we see what Beorn knows, or rather cares to know. He is interested in things related to mountains as a general biome and his mountains specifically. Everything else is fairly trivial. It is somewhat funny when Gandalf tells him of killing the Great Goblin and Beorn's response is “It is some good being a wizard, then.”
Beorn's Origin
Gandalf relates two theories about Beorn:
“Some say that he is a bear descended from the great and ancient bears of the mountains that lived there before the giants came. Others say that he is a man descended from the first men who lived before Smaug or the other dragons came into this part of the world, and before the goblins came into the hills out of the North. I cannot say, though I fancy the last is the true tale. He is not the sort of person to ask questions of. [...] I once saw him sitting all alone on the top of the Carrock at night watching the moon sinking towards the Misty Mountains, and I heard him growl in the tongue of bears: ‘The day will come when they will perish and I shall go back!’ That is why I believe he once came from the mountains himself.”
Note that the [...] above is a separation of a paragraph break and a few sentences. It strikes me as a bit contradictory that Gandalf heard what he heard and prefers the second theory. But there's nothing to say that this old stock of men didn't also come from the Misty Mountains.
Smoke Rings
One thing I mentioned only in passing above is the mention of tomatoes in the first chapter that was later revised to pickles. It was mentioned that the Annotated Hobbit describes this change as stemming (pun intended) from the fact that tomatoes are a new world plant. But so is tobacco, true? The "long leaf" is not associated with hobbits particularly in The Hobbit, but rather a universal vice shared by Gandalf, the dwarves, and Bilbo. Pipes are a thing that is turned to when one has a quiet moment in which to enjoy it, of course, not something that is continuously attached to one's face. In any case, Gandalf gets distracted in Beorn's hall by its suitability for smoke tricks and ...
“Indeed for a long time they could get nothing more out of him, he was so busy sending smoke rings dodging round the pillars of the hall, changing them into all sorts of different shapes and colours, and setting them at last chasing one another out of the hole in the roof. They must have looked very queer from outside, popping out into the air one after another, green, blue, red, silver-grey, yellow, white; big ones, little ones; little ones dodging through big ones and joining into figure-eights, and going off like a flock of birds into the distance.”
This is another one of those things in The Hobbit that makes Gandalf feel a bit more casually magical. In the Lord of the Rings he would moodily observe that practicing magic this close to Isengard would bring the attention of Saruman. Or if that is overstating things, at least he doesn't involve himself in this kind of casual magic in LotR does he?
Dreams
Here we have another instance of prescient dreaming. (There are several more coming near the end of the Mirkwood chapters.)
“...he [Bilbo] dreamed a dream of hundreds of black bears dancing slow heavy dances round and round in the moonlight in the courtyard.”
This is before Gandalf tells them that the place is guarded by bears, but after he hears some odd noises coming from outside.
Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, and The Necromancer
“... in the North you would be right among the slopes of the Grey Mountains, and they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description. Before you could get round it in the South, you would get into the land of the Necromancer; and even you, Bilbo, won’t need me to tell you tales of that black sorcerer."
The relationship and distinctions (if any) between goblins and orcs in Lord of the Rings has always largely been a loosely defined thing. Here we get a rare-ish impression that Tolkien isn't using the words interchangeably but rather thinks of them as three races. (Not sure how often hobgoblins are mentioned outside of The Hobbit, if they ever are.)
As for the Necromancer, well, you won't need me to tell you tales of that black sorcerer!
Of course those of us who read the LotR know that this reference is later clarified as pointing to an early rising of Sauron, before settling in Mordor. I believe that's right, though is there some speculation that it is the Witch King of Angmar? Anyway, I don't know how much Tolkien knew about the Necromancer when he wrote The Hobbit and it has always seemed a strange name for Sauron, whose only dabbling with actual undead seems to be the Nazgul. (Assuming the Barrow Wights are not his creation.) This stands as one of the most evocative references in The Hobbit. I can vividly recall wanting to know more about this black sorcerer!
Chapter VIII: Flies and Spiders
Mirkwood is one of those instances where Tolkien absolutely shines as a describer of places. This forest stands as vivid in my mind as Moria, Lorien, and Mordor. This line, about the "patch of midnight that had never been cleared away" is as ingrained in my hindbrain as any King James Bible verse:
“... he noticed a place of dense black shadow ahead of him, black even for that forest, like a patch of midnight that had never been cleared away.”
Similarly, the spiders stand apart as one of the most realized villainous creatures in the Tolkien Mythos. Clearly Tolkien was inspired by his own thoughts here as well, as he went on to create Shelob and Ungoliant. Knowing that Tolkien drew a lot of inspiration from his linguistic and mythological studies, I always wondered if the spiders were sourced from the tales of a particular culture or just from some personal dread of encountering them in his cupboards.
The way we get to eavesdrop on the spiders is just ... marvelous. I love it so much. It reminds me of the chapter in Return of the King where we get to hear the orcs talking amongst themselves. And I have to wonder something about Bilbo's ability to understand their speech. In The Hobbit, especially in the unrevised version, I tend to take Tolkien literally, assuming that the spiders were speaking some form of "common" (as we would say in D&D) with a thick spidery accent that it takes Bilbo's ear a while to get used to. But later knowledge of the ring and its powers makes you wonder if this isn't the ring itself at work, translating. In any case, here is the passage:
“... he watched a group of them for some time, and then in the silence and stillness of the wood he realised that these loathsome creatures were speaking one to another. Their voices were a sort of thin creaking and hissing, but he could make out many of the words that they said.”
Sting
Of course we can't overlook what is the most transformational moment for Bilbo in the whole book:
“The spider lay dead beside him, and his sword-blade was stained black. Somehow the killing of the giant spider, all alone by himself in the dark without the help of the wizard or the dwarves or of anyone else, made a great difference to Mr. Baggins. He felt a different person, and much fiercer and bolder in spite of an empty stomach, as he wiped his sword on the grass and put it back into its sheath.
“I will give you a name,” he said to it, “and I shall call you Sting.”
Dreams Again
Here we find that Bombur has been dreaming about the feasting elves in his magically-induced slumber. Bilbo does the same, as does (we presume) Thorin when they enter the enchanted circles of the elves. Just making note of this as dreams in Tolkien aren't something I hear talked about a lot but which are clearly important.
Types of Elves
Finally, in this rather rich chapter, we get this:
“The feasting people were Wood-elves, of course. These are not wicked folk. If they have a fault it is distrust of strangers. Though their magic was strong, even in those days they were wary. They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise. For most of them (together with their scattered relations in the hills and mountains) were descended from the ancient tribes that never went to Faerie in the West. There the Light-elves and the Deep-elves (or Gnomes) and the Sea-elves went and lived for ages, and grew fairer and wiser and more learned, and invented their magic and their cunning craft in the making of beautiful and marvellous things, before some came back into the Wide World. In the Wide World the Wood-elves lingered in the twilight of our Sun and Moon, but loved best the stars; and they wandered in the great forests that grew tall in lands that are now lost.”
Note that the only difference in this passage between the 1937 and 1951 editions is the removal of the parenthetical "or Gnomes."
I don't recall the elf clans or types being divided by these common names in other works. The oddities here remind me how little I have internalized the distinctions among the elves in general, and especially the family lines from The Silmarillion (which I have only read twice). In Lord of the Rings we have the wood elves (Legolas and his kin), the high elves (represented by Elrond's group), and the elves of the Grey Havens (led by Cirdan the Shipwright). The elves of Lothlorien are high elves as well, I believe, perhaps mixed with wood elves. And I would draw a correlation between the sea-elves of the hobbit and Cirdan's folk, which I believe are also referred to as "grey elves?"
But sticking with our narrowed vision of examining The Hobbit from the perspective of 1937, without any of the other works, this gives us no less than five types of elves: wood, high, light, deep, and sea. Possibly the last three being simply divisions of "high" elves who had been to "Faerie." In any case, the division here is really between nature and culture. One group of elves bonds with the primal ways of the forest, the other dips its nose into "higher" learning. It's even reflected in their abodes, as the wood-elves live in caves carved out by water where Elrond's folk live in "the last homely house," a constructed structure nestled in a ravine. Note that in both cases though, elf dwellings seem to be in places where the elements come together: rock, water, and earth. For the wood elves, it's a cave in a forest with a river issuing out of the front gates. For Elrond it's a wooded ravine with a river at the bottom. Even Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings is a forest nestled between the mountains and the great river, though it more clearly reads as a pure forest rather than an absolute mixture of elements.
Elves and D&D
Oh, I forgot to try to draw some relation between the division of elves in The Hobbit (and LoTR) and the 1977 AD&D Monster Manual. There we find elves are aquatic ("also called sea-elves"), drow (also "Black Elves"), grey (the noblest, rarest, and most powerful), half, and wood. Note that half-elves, as the only mixed race in D&D, surely owes its origin to Lord of the Rings were half-elves, like Elrond, play a major role in things. I know there were other influences, such as the elves from Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword and Moorcock's Elric (even though it is never said in the early works that he is an elf).
Just to try and draw the parallels between The Hobbit and AD&D:
Aquatic - Sea
Drow - Deep
Grey - High/Light
Half - Half
Wood - Wood
The Drow/Black = Deep connection is the most spurious of the parallels. (Maybe the only spurious one.) Though now that I think of it, aquatic elves in D&D aren't just lovers of the sea, they live in it like merfolk.
These divisions do not appear in Chainmail or the three little brown books of original Dungeons & Dragons. (I'm not sure about the supplements, Greyhawk et al.). Half-elves are present in Holmes, so I assume they crept in fairly early. But the other types do not appear in Holmes Basic.
According to Wiki, "Greek and Roman accounts exist of smoking hemp seeds, and a Spanish poem c. 1276 mentions the energetic effects of lavender smoke, but tobacco was completely unfamiliar to Europeans before the discovery of the New World"
And History Extra suggests "But other types of smoking are even older. In the Bronze Age – as far back as 5,000 years ago – we know the inhalation of burned plants was used in magic, ritual and medicine in such places as India, Mesopotamia and Egypt, while some archaeologists think Stone Age shamans probably inhaled hallucinogenic opiates to commune with the gods."
So far as I can tell, all these other forms of "smoking" involved inhaling fumes generated by heating the plants involved either in a fire or on hot stones, and not in a pipe. But it does raise interesting images of Gandalf getting off on either lavender or cannabis...
The High Elves were the elves who went to live with the Valar and Maiar in the undying lands - the Vanyar (Light Elves), the Noldor (Deep Elves), and half of the Teleri. The Deep Elves - Noldor - went to the Undying lands but returned to Middle Earth as Exiles. Elrond's folk are remnants of the Exiles. The Vanyar and Teleri only came to Middle Earth with the the Valar and Maiar when they warred on the Great Enemy.
Galadriel was a Noldor Exile, but she ruled a Wood Elf people.
The Gray Elves were the remnants of Melian and Thingol's people. Thingol (Elwe Singollo) was a Teleri leader who went to the undying lands with a few other leaders, and returned to lead his entire people there. He got lost when he met Melian the Maia, and they fell in love and stayed in Middle earth. They gathered a few Wood Elves and some large number of Teleri who stayed to look for Thingol, and spoke Sindarin. Celeborn was a Gray Elf co-ruler with Galadriel of a Wood Elf people, and Thanduril (Legolas' father) was also a Gray Elf. Most Gray Elves were concentrated in the Gray Havens in the LotR - their leader Cirdan was himself a Gray Elf.
The Sea Elves were the Teleri, who were also High Elves. Half of them stayed behind on Middle Earth, becoming Gray Elves. The rest sailed to the undying lands and lived on the shores, sailing in their ships all over the great sea. A small number of Noldor under Finwe took the ships of the Teleri by armed combat, and sailed them to Middle earth where they burned them. Most of the Noldor were forced to travel across Helcaraxe, the grinding ice, where many were lost. The Teleri in the undying lands most often visited their friends in Numenor, and taught them much of their knowledge of ships.
The Light Elves (Vanyar) came back to Middle Earth with the armies of the Valar, and returned to the undying lands after the war with Morgoth Bauglir, the Great Enemy, caring nothing for Middle Earth.
So:
All Noldor are High Elves, and are also Deep Elves
All Vanyar are High Elves, and are also Light Elves
Some Teleri are High Elves, and some are Gray Elves, but all are Sea Elves by the time of the LotR.
Hope that helps!
This makes me think of D&D's division of Orc, Goblin, and Hobgoblin as separate species/peoples. Gygax apparently worked in his Tolkienisms from the Hobbit, not the LotR! I have always thought D&D to be horrible at emulating the LotR or Silmarillion, whereas it works a treat for the Hobbit! All makes sense!
LOL. Clear as mud. Seriously, it's very clear, but I had no idea the answer was so convoluted! Congrats on knowing all of that!
Exactly!
As I recall, Wood Elves never came west of the mountans. Grey Elves (Sindarin) cross the mountains, but never crossed the sea. Light elves crossed the sea to the land of the two trees.
Of those, the Vanyar (high elves) lived on the surface and ended up staying in the west.
The Noldor (deep elves) made their elaborate homes in caves. They returned to Middle Earth in exile. Despite their name, they are still 'Light Elves' because they saw the light of the two trees.
Teleri - Sea Elves - as Clash noted some were light elves who crossed over, while others didn't cross and remained Grey elves.
So there are several distinctions:
Dark Elves (wood elves, like Legolas' people) never crossed the mountains.
Grey Elves came half way - they crossed the mountains, but stayed in Beleriand.
Light Elves crossed the sea.
High Elves loved the light and lived above ground, staying in the west.
Deep Elves loved the deep places, but were corrupted by the Silmarils and ultimately came back from the west.
Sea Elves lived on the sea shores of both sides of the sea.
Not all these groups are mutually exclusive.
To complicate matters, many of these also represent lineages - the Noldor, Teleri, and the Vanyar, in particular, are all the followers or descendents of a particular person. I'm not sure if that's also true for Grey Elves but its not true for Wood Elves.
This stuff is all covered in the appendices to the Lord of the Rings, I think.