Are these the prototypes for the Ents of Tolkien?

A Leshy is a woodland spirit from Slavic legends which protects animals and forests. It is a tall creature which can change its size, has hair and a beard made out of living grass and vines, and it has a tail, hooves, and horns. It’s skin is pale and its eyes are green. It is close to the gray wolf and bears. As a weapon it carries a club and its considered to be the lord of the forest. They also have no shadow.

They have loud cries and can imitate the voices of people. They are not really evil, but do sometimes kidnap wanderers and women and tickle them to death in their lair. – from http://listogre.com/strange/mystery/top-10-terrifying-mythical-creatures/

Now here is a fun Russian non-human. Except for the fact that it is unclear whether it is good or evil, it fits the description of an Ent. However, some forms of the tale have it sharing children with a truly evil spirit. Nevertheless, one gets an idea of why Tolkien might have chosen this creature to be the prototype of the Ent, with some editing as to their identity. The Leshy is described as a basically neutral spirit and one can see that somewhat in Tolkien’s description of the Ent. At first the Ents are not truly involved. They are simple tree shepherds whose role it is to watch over the trees under their care. This is akin to the Leshy. And, the Ents certainly do take Pippin and Merry, a bit like the Leshy took unwary travellers. But, they never did what the Leshy would sometimes do. Nevertheless, there is an edge to the Ents. Merry and Pippin are not quite fully sure for a while whether they will be well received or whether they are in trouble. In that sense, the Ents share with the Leshy that more neutral stance found in folklore.

But, ultimately, Tolkien made sure that his Ents were truly on the side of good. He has them awake out of a pacifist non-involvement to decide on war. And, that is a good attitude to have. I am convinced that both the Ents and the Hobbits have the right attitude. We ought to be surprised at being forced to go to war, rather than being ready to go to war. Now understand me well. As a veteran, I am not against having an Armed Forces. But, I have problems with those who are all too “war-ready.” Killing other people should always be a last resort, a last necessity and not the first option that is thought about when a crisis comes up. Having said that, when both the Ents and the Hobbits thought that it was finally necessary to engage in violent action, they did what they had to do, yet without ever losing their capacity for mercy. Both the Ents and the Hobbits let enemies go without killing them; there is not a bit of revenge in either of them. Revenge is wrong. Post-war policies that are based on revenge dishonor God, every bit as much as they would have dishonored the Ents and the Hobbits. It is interesting to note that Gandalf sighs about their letting Saruman go and does not really rebuke them but rather shakes his head, understanding that mercy is better than sacrifice.

I would that in every conflict situation it would be better to have the USA have to be woken up out of a pacifist non-involvement. That is certainly significantly better than invading a country based on false information. Yes, it means that sometimes innocents will die before we respond, but at least they will be innocents on our side rather than innocents somewhere else whom we have killed. For those who constantly try to charge that none of our innocents should ever be killed, I say that you are living in an impossible world. The only way that you can ensure that none of our innocents are killed is to begin killing others before it is obvious whether they are any danger to us or not. Notice that recently Milosevic was found innocent, but too late. We bombed Serbia, unfairly and illegally in the 1990s because we reacted too soon. What do we say now to those who were bombed in Serbia (not in Bosnian Serbia, a completely different area), who it turns out were under an innocent government? What do we say of Orthodox believers and the Serbian Patriarch who were maligned as supporters of evil, but who turn out to have been telling the truth when they said their country and their leaders were not involved? What do we say as USA warmongering Christians who killed our fellow Christians under false pretenses?

Tolkien experienced World War I. His experience led to a good balance. He was not a pacifist, but neither was he a warmonger. His Lord of the Rings is not a celebration of heroic warlike heroes. Rather, his Lord of the Rings is a recognition of the reluctant heroes, the normally pacifist people who only reluctantly get involved. The Hobbits, those pacifistic, food-loving, party-loving beings are the heroes. The Ents are not far behind. It is not about being warlike. It is about doing only what is necessary and no more.