The purpose of this essay is to examine love, intimacy and desire among hobbits: issues that are, in different ways, related to the question of hobbit sexuality. But to narrow this inquiry to 'sex' alone quickly leads to a dead end: There are no explicit references to sexual acts, ethics or erotic desire among hobbits in The Lord of the Rings (abbr. LOTR), The Hobbit, or the drafts and notes published in several volumes of The History of Middle-Earth (abbr. HoME). Within the framework of Tolkien's texts, sexual matters can't be discussed without equal attention to marriage customs and friendships, the constitution of families, and the various concepts of love and intimacy: All of the above will be addressed in this essay, with regards to both male/female and male/male relationships. Most prominent in Tolkien's hobbit-centric narratives, LOTR and The Hobbit, is the portrayal of five male (unmarried) hobbits and their relationships. At least one of these – the intense bond that forms between Frodo and Sam during the ring-quest – raises questions about possible homoerotic implications. In later chapters of this essay, I am going to discuss this particularly controversial issue as well. It is not my intention to make a case for a single, irrefutable interpretation of Frodo and Sam's relationship, but I am going to argue that a 'queer' reading is as valid as the alternative (and more wide-spread) interpretation of their bond as an intense but 'platonic' friendship.

Since sex is a particularly loaded topic, several clarifications seem essential to me. First of all, a clear definition of 'sexuality' is required (see Chapter 2). Secondly, I'll aim for equal clarity when it comes to the parameters of interpreting Tolkien's texts: The purpose of this essay is not to present an ultimate explanation of hobbit sexuality. By establishing a clear theoretical framework for my reading, I acknowledge the possibility of other approaches and hope to encourage readers to draw their own conclusions from the presented materials, from the ambiguities and contradictory elements in Tolkien's writings about hobbits. As a consequence, this essay will feature various digressions of a more theoretical nature that readers may well prefer to skip.

In this introductory chapter, I'll specifically address Tolkien's non-literary comments on sex in Middle-earth and sexuality in general, and the question to what extent these commentaries can be pertinent and productive for textual analysis. My aim here is to disable an ultimately circular argument: If we take as given that Tolkien personally believed in a single (hetero-)sexual standard and furthermore that his literary works merely exemplify this standard in a linear and unequivocal fashion, then all textual evidence that questions this one coherent meaning must also be explained aside. The initial assumption, in other words, dictates not only the focus but also the results of interpretation. The reasoning that Tyellas presents in her essay Warm Beds Are Good: Sex and Libido in Tolkien's Writing  (http://www.ansereg.com/warm_beds_are_good.htm; abbr. WBAG) is at least in part shaped by such a circularity: Her conclusion in particular that Frodo and Sam's relationship must be understood as non-sexual (WBAG 5f.) relies entirely on the assertion that Tolkien conceptualized it this way, rather than resulting from a discussion of the textual evidence (or the relevance of Tolkien's commentary). Before I return to this specific issue at the end of this chapter, I find it necessary to discuss the diverse assumptions and generalizations involved in this argument.

Tyellas quotes both Tolkien's letters (especially Letter 43 [1]) and his elaborations on marriage customs among elves in Laws and Customs of the Eldar (published in HoME vol. 10: Morgoth's Ring, abbr. LACE) to arrive at some general statements which she applies to "the 17 books of Tolkien's published work". Her list begins with: "Sex belongs in marriage – good sex takes place in marriage, bad sex happens outside of marriage or breaks the rules that govern marriage" (WBAG 3). While this may correctly summaries Tolkien's personal convictions and ethical standards, can they truly offer the one and only key to analyzing the sexual behavior patterns, codes and ethics of the diverse cultures that populate Middle-earth in Tolkien's literary texts?

To begin with, there are no equally detailed statements about the sexual or romantic customs of other races. Also, when we look at Tolkien's literary works, it's not always easy to identify 'sex' or erotic attraction, let alone determine the meanings attached to the protagonists' sexuality. LACE is indeed the only text in which Tolkien explicitly and systematically addresses erotic desire and physical intimacy, within the context of marriage and procreation among elves. I'll therefore start out by taking a closer look at the relevance of LACE for the question of hobbit sexuality.

Marriage customs among elves and hobbits

The most obvious parallel between the marriage customs of elves and hobbits is the principle of monogamy (which Tolkien applies to all cultures of Middle-earth[2]). However, certain differences are easily apparent:

- Whereas a second marriage (after the death of a spouse) is an extremely rare and problematic event among elves (cf. LACE), widowed hobbits occasionally marry again (cf. Letter 214, p. 293).
- Unmarried life, by contrast, is rare among hobbits: "Bilbo and Frodo Baggins were as bachelors very exceptional," Tolkien writes in the Prologue of LOTR. In LACE, he allows for 'strange fates' that may keep elves from marrying and his writings indeed provide more than a few examples (Legolas, Finrod, several sons of Fëanor among others[3]), which makes an unmarried status seem less of an exception than it is among hobbits.
- While Tolkien notes that most elves married early in their adulthood, the family-trees in LOTR Appendix C show that this is not the rule among hobbits: It seems to be most common for male hobbits to procreate in their early forties, 8-10 years after their official 'coming of age' at 33.[4]
- Where the wedding customs themselves are concerned, Tolkien explains that mutual consent (given without formal ceremony or witnesses) establishes a legitimate marriage among elves. Neither The Hobbit nor LOTR present us with an actual hobbit wedding, but there are clear indications that their customs involve greater formality.[5] When Sam tells Frodo of his decision to marry Rose Cotton, mutual agreement obviously doesn't suffice to establish a socially acknowledged, legitimate bond, and the actual wedding – while not described in any detail – takes place a while later. Sam's statement also implies that only the male partner can propose a formal courtship or marriage,[6] a restriction absent from elvish customs that tend more towards equality between the sexes.

Given these differences (I'll return to the topic of marriage customs in the Shire in Chapter 2), it can't be assumed that all the norms and customs outlined in LACE apply to hobbits as well, including their sexual ethics or their understanding of love and physical intimacy. Still, there remains the matter of Tolkien's personal ethics which doubtless shaped his portrayal of Middle-earth's cultures and the various love bonds and marriages. Several crucial issues are connected with this: First of all, to what an extent can an author's (documented or inferred) intention determine the meaning of a literary text?

The author and the text: some preliminaries

Recent literary theory has achieved a critical re-appraisal of the author's role in the process that shapes meaning within literature, emphasizing that poetic language and literary narrative invariably create and sustain different layers of meaning that allow divergent, even conflicting, yet equally valid readings. Within this paradigm, the author's conscious intentions are only one factor in the complex constitution of meaning.[7] Another force involved in the process is the culture from and for which an author produces his or her texts: There is always a dialogue between authors and their cultural environment which inscribes its specific modes of perception and representation, its ethical values, social norms etc. Equally, every text responds to other texts by reiterating, appropriating and modifying genre concepts, narrative patterns, and themes etc. and draws on this textual universe to establish its own meanings (and this is particularly true of Tolkien's works). The result is a complex – multivocal, possibly heterogeneous – conglomerate of meanings, which can't be realigned to a simple unequivocal 'message.' This approach does not in any way imply that interpretation becomes arbitrary, a matter of the critic's personal preferences; it merely broadens the context within which an individual work is situated and which literary critics take into consideration.

In this context, it's also important to note that an author's intentions do not amount to a changeless set of coordinates enabling us to chart the meaning of his or her texts. In Tolkien's case, the drafts published in HoME provide ample evidence that his plans for LOTR, his approach to the plot and characters changed quite dramatically over time. In his commentary, we find various statements that do not lend themselves to a coherent interpretation of his literary works, or even directly contradict each other.[8] Tolkien's intentions can only be known to us through his writings, but what exactly do we choose as focus and framework when we look for them? How certain can we be that the sexual ethics he laid down in a private letter to his son articulate the single standard to which Tolkien adhered all his life, and on which he based the entirety of his literary writings? As Tyellas points out herself, Tolkien's attitude towards marriage and sex grew more conservative in his later years and prompted him to retroactively 'censor' some of his own texts (WBAG 2). Is the author's ultimate word on the matter, then, his most recent statement? How do we approach his literary works if they happen to express positions that Tolkien no longer approved of, after they had been published?

It is not my intention to simply dispense with the author's own system of meaning by placing my considerations within the theoretical framework I've briefly sketched above. However, it's important to realize that 'Tolkien's intention' is always already a result of selection and interpretation, not a knowable fact or a set of instruments that gives access to the 'intended meaning' of his literary texts. Secondly, I hope to demonstrate that Tolkien's portrayal of intense personal relationships, of love, romance, eroticism and marriage within different cultures is in itself too complex to be contained within a single coherent interpretation, even when the author's stated convictions are taken into account.

Crucial to this complexity is Tolkien's endeavor to present a new 'mythology', or a mythical history. From the medieval sources, the various myths, sagas and motifs incorporated into The Silmarillion (abbr. SIL) and LOTR to his use of archaic language, Tolkien sought to lend historical depth and otherness to his portrayal of Middle-earth as a mythical past.[9] He labored for decades to meticulously describe the histories and customs of cultures that differ in profound ways from British/Western societies of the Twentieth Century (and he drew on various sources from other periods and cultures to do so).[10] While the elves may to a large extent embody his personal ideals, and certain types of behavior (like rape) are universally condemned, not all the social customs and types of relationships that we encounter within his works can be aligned to a single standard. Among dwarves, for instance, married life is not the rule: Due to the shortage of females among them, less than a third of their kind marry, and Tolkien writes of the males that "many also do not desire marriage, being engrossed in their crafts" (LOTR Appendix A.III). Clearly, Tolkien conceived of a multitude of cultures shaped by the characteristics of the given race, their environment, chosen professions and pursuits. Can we then ascertain that he nonetheless intended for us to read a single sexual ethic into such diversity? How visible is such a standard in his literary works about protagonists other than elves? Where do we find 'sex' in his writings?

Sex in Tolkien's works

The clearest evidence is provided by the facts of procreation: From the mention of descendants we can infer that sexual acts have taken place, yet this does not automatically imply that those acts were experienced as particularly fulfilling or personally meaningful, or that they were motivated by romantic attraction and passion. While genealogies abound in Tolkien's works, descriptions of – or allusions to – sexual or erotic gestures are rare even among married couples. Of Aragorn and Arwen, not a single kiss is reported in LOTR (however, in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, LOTR: Appendix A.I.v, the dying Aragorn kisses Arwen's hand). We know they had children, but what kind of erotic expression their love may have found, what sensual pleasure may have been involved in the procreative act and to what extent it defined their relationship remains a matter of speculation. Faramir and Éowyn, by contrast, kiss and embrace after the discovery of their mutual love (before they are married). Whether or not sensual pleasure is involved in these gestures remains undisclosed, although the emotional context may well suggest it.

The central romantic couple of Tolkien's Middle-earth texts, Beren and Lúthien, is never shown to be intimate beyond joining hands, kissing and embracing (however, the one kiss that is mentioned occurs when Beren is about to die, and it is not specified whether Lúthien kisses him on the mouth or the forehead, the latter being by far the most frequent form of facial kissing in LOTR). We hear that when Lúthien had slipped from his arms, Beren lay upon the ground in a swoon, as one slain at once by bliss and grief. Is there a sexual meaning to this description of their first meeting? Can there be, when their publicly sanctioned wedding takes place only after the couple's quest for the silmaril and Beren's loss of his hand? Was their love chaste until Beren had met Thingol's demands and took the hand of Lúthien before the throne of her father[11]? Or were they perhaps already married, according to the elven custom of mutual consent? Even when we resort to the standard presented in LACE – that sex both constitutes and follows marriage – it remains arguable when exactly Beren and Lúthien were legitimately married. But is the reverse conclusion, that where marriage is not an option, sex can (or must) not occur, equally cogent?

Tyellas draws this conclusion from Tolkien's following statements in LACE: "Marriage is chiefly of the body, for it is achieved by bodily union, and its first operation is the begetting of the bodies of children. (...) And the union of bodies in marriage is unique, and no other union resembles it." Here, however, the equivalence of marriage and sex is defined with immediate reference to procreation. Marriage may be the unique access to sex, or it may be the unique access to 'begetting,' i.e. producing legitimate offspring. But is there room for non-procreative sex in Middle-earth?

While this question concerns unmarried couples of any race or gender, it becomes a point of particular contention where the issue of 'homosexuality' in Middle-earth is concerned. To my knowledge, Tolkien never explicitly addressed this subject.[12] The fact that he was a devout Catholic and his professed preference for marital sex may or may not imply that he objected to homosexual behaviour within his contemporary reality. But do the Twentieth Century concepts of sexuality and their attendant moral values translate immediately to the cultures of Middle-earth? Tolkien's commentary on the mores of elves may suggest this, but the brief description of dwarven marriage customs point to the contrary. Given the diversity of cultures and gender relations, can we assume that all individuals are supposed to harbour a 'natural' heterosexual inclination, whether it was acted upon or not? Or that homosexual acts, if they did occur, were considered sinful or socially destructive? The texts are silent on this matter, and any interpretation has to rely on contextual evidence and inference. As eloquent as Tolkien's explanations are in LACE, little unequivocal evidence can be found in LOTR or The Hobbit, specifically when it comes to the hobbits' customs of love, sex and marriage.

Frodo and Sam: the crux of a unifying sexual standard

I will now take a quick jump ahead and consider a relationship that raises a lot of arguments about the range and meaning of eroticism in Tolkien: the bond between Frodo and Sam. While I'll offer a more detailed analysis in Chapter 4, I will limit myself to discussing two particularly relevant quotes here. In The Two Towers (abbr. TTT), as Sam fights Shelob in defense of Frodo, his actions are described with the following words:

No onslaught more fierce was ever seen in the savage world of beasts; where some desperate small creature armed with little teeth alone, will spring upon a tower of horn and hide that stands above its fallen mate. (TTT: The Choices of Master Samwise).

This analogy clearly serves to stress the empowering force of natural instinct. Yet in this context, Sam and Frodo's relationship is also compared to that of sexual partners (mates) in the animal world. It can of course be argued that Tolkien chose this comparison to emphasize the instinctual quality of Sam's protective impulse, yet he could easily have used a less ambiguous metaphor that bears no sexual implications whatsoever, for instance by likening Sam to an animal defending its offspring.[13]

The second quote comes from the Epilogue to LOTR as it appears in HoME vol. 9: Sauron Defeated. Sam's daughter Elanor has just heard the tale of Galadriel and Celeborn's (temporary) separation and Celeborn's words to Aragorn: 'Kinsman, farewell! May your doom be other than mine, and your treasure remain with you to the end.' (The Return of the King [abbr. ROTK]: Many Partings; the reference here is to Arwen and the hope that Aragorn will not be separated from his wife). To this Elanor responds:

'I did not understand at first what Celeborn meant when he said goodbye to the king,' she said. 'But I think I do now. He knew that Lady Arwen would stay, but that Galadriel would leave him. I think it was very sad for him. And for you, dear Sam-dad. (...) For your treasure went too. I am glad Frodo of the Ring saw me, but I wish I could remember seeing him.' (HoME 9: The Epilogue, p. 125).

By picking up on the key word 'treasure' Elanor's response likens Sam and Frodo's relationship to that of at least one, if not two, married couples. Not only that, Celeborn's comment and feelings become understandable for Elanor through her father's feelings for Frodo.

Certainly, the two passages I've quoted here do not identify Frodo and Sam as sexual partners or a married couple, yet their relationship is illustrated by drawing on that very frame of reference. This observation raises many interesting questions. If Tolkien's intention was to reserve sexual intimacy for married couples across all Middle-earth cultures, by what logic can it be argued that this facet is absent when the bond between two males is framed in terms of marriage? The Epilogue segment in question establishes no such exclusion, nor does it contain any qualifications or markers by which the reader is prompted to limit the comparison to a non-sexual meaning. Sam does not, as might be expected, correct his daughter's comments as a childish misunderstanding. Neither does he explain to Elanor that he is in fact married to Rose Cotton, or that the two relationships are of a different nature. He does not contest or modify the comparison at all; instead he tells Elanor that his sadness has lessened and confides that he hopes to see Frodo again, thereby implicitly validating his daughter's insights.

Is this then the one instance in all of Tolkien's works where the 'marriage equals sex/sex equals marriage' tenet does not apply? And if so, why not? The most obvious answer to this would be that two males are unable to procreate, and that therefore neither marriage nor (legitimate marital) sex are available to them. But this conclusion cannot be drawn from any of Tolkien's writings. While LACE defines the 'begetting of children' as the 'first operation' of marriage, there is no assertion that sexual relations are prohibited when a spouse proves to be sterile, or that continuing sexual relations when procreation is for any reason impossible or unwanted are considered illegitimate or immoral. Tolkien merely states that the erotic desire of Elves naturally dwindles once they have had children. There is, within Tolkien's works, no theory that exclusively identifies sexual desire with the impulse or purpose to procreate. As a consequence, the possibility of desire between non-procreating partners can't be ruled out even within the context of elven culture, whose sexual customs Tolkien made explicit.

We are left with the fact that Frodo and Sam's bond is likened both to a marriage and to the animal partnership that exists for mating purposes. >From the textual evidence so far discussed, two contradictory readings can be derived. We can interpret Tolkien's personal ethics of marital sex as an implicit exclusion of homosexual behavior.[14] If sex can only legitimately occur within a heterosexual marriage, then Tolkien may have intended to exclude all sexual implications from the quoted analogies. But we can also infer that by drawing these comparisons Tolkien meant to imply that sex between Frodo and Sam was legitimate because it occurred within a bond that met the given standards of marriage. The marriage = sex equation allows for both interpretations.

To argue that a unifying ethic defines the sexual mores of all cultures, in all extant Middle-earth texts, and to conclude at the same time that sexual intimacy between Sam and Frodo can be firmly ruled out – as Tyellas does – is in itself contradictory. I will discuss Sam and Frodo's relationship in detail later, but I believe the quoted passages already demonstrate that the literary potential of creating multiple meanings (which then lend themselves to divergent interpretations) cannot be reduced to one single meaning defined by the author's intentions, even when the author's personal views on a given subject are known.

A final word on the materials I'll consider here. In the following, I will focus on LOTR and, to a lesser extent, The Hobbit as the central or primary sources. These books constitute the body of work that introduced hobbit culture to the majority of readers and, at the time of publication, were considered meaningful without recourse to additional texts. However, I will also discuss quotes from the relevant secondary sources – such as Tolkien's Epilogue to LOTR, earlier drafts, notes, and extra-literary comments – to throw additional light on some textual complexities. While these secondary texts certainly add meaning to the originally published works, it will also become apparent that consulting them doesn't necessarily simplify the issues at hand. In fact, meanings are sometimes multiplied, and contradictions emerge. Then again, the aim of this essay is not to defuse complexity but to study and appreciate it as a genuine quality of Tolkien's literary works.

____________________________