Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

Hey y'all

I was poking around looking for an answer to this thread and stumbled across Letter 27, where Tolkien writes (alongside an answer to whether or not Hobbits ought to have pointed ears) that

There is in the text no mention of his acquiring of boots. There should be! It has dropped out somehow or other in the various revisions – the bootings occurred at Rivendell; and he was again bootless after leaving Rivendell on the way home. But since leathery soles, and well-brushed furry feet are a feature of essential hobbitness, he ought really to appear unbooted, except in special illustrations of episodes.

...what? Can anybody explain to me why it would be important to Tolkien that at Elrond's house Bilbo be given boots, and then that he presumably leave them at Elrond's again on the way home? Why??

Were they +5 Luck boots? ;)

@Androthelm - your question is an eye opener. I looked through the early draft of 'The Hobbit' edited by John Rateliff and found no mention of boots at Rivendell, neither on the way there nor back again. I then turned to Douglas Anderson's annotated Hobbit and found the quote you give also given next to the illustration of Bilbo's conversation with Smaug. I need to find a really large version of this illustration, but - I am taken aback to say - it does look as if the hobbit is indeed booted. Does this mean Bilbo Baggins wore boots when he met Gollum? I feel the world collapsing around me as previous certainties crumble.

Edit: I see that the original letter you quote is actually talking in reference to just this picture. Perhaps Tolkien drew Bilbo with boots without thinking and then intended (but never did) to add the boots in Rivendell?

It is baffling and terribly worldshaking indeed, @Chrysophylax Dives. Honestly, your accidental boot-drawing theory seems to me to hold water (like a boot?) but what really surprises me is the eagerness which Tolkien appears to have for Bilbo booted in the quote above. Maybe he was worried about his feet getting sore while walking up and up and up the Misty Mountains, or hiking the long path through Mirkwood? Who can say.

I think is is probably just a function of where they were walking and the terrain on which they were walking on. Much of The Shire wouldn't need footwear for the Hobbits (though some if it likely does, which is why Hobbits are described as seldom wearing shoes, and not never wearing shoes). But venturing outside into forests and caves and through mountains and marshes and all the rest, there's only so much their leathery soles can take before it is more effective to just slap on a boot. The quote references that Bilbo should be "unbooted, except in special illustrations of episodes." which I read as Bilbo would be venturing on bootless except in specific circumstances where he needs boots - so to ensure he has these boots when he needs them (and therefore for the consistency of the story) he needs a place where he receives said boots. Then leaving them at Elrond's house represents the phase of his journey wear his boot requirement was done - ie, he is homeward bound, away from the dangers that require boots.

I believe Mr. Tolkien did give him boots, even though the text was not in The Hobbit. That or Bilbo's feet had grown thick, black, hair, according to this photo I took of the illustration that is in my copy of the 50th Anniversary edition of The Hobbit. *grin*

Suddenly without any warning he trotted splash into water! Ugh! it
was icy cold. That pulled him up sharp and short.

I do not think he had his boots on when he met Gollum. Would he have felt the icy cold water through his boots, maybe?

@drifa you've cracked it. Clearly Bilbo was originally meant to have stolen the boots from the Elvenking's halls -- but Tolkien didn't want to make the story too dark and gritty, so he just gave him boots in Rivendell.