Nerwen – possibly that was the case.
Anyway - let's face it will be an uphill struggle to change mindsets in relation to 'Tolkien and allegory'. However I must say that I sympathize with Priya Seth - for as she states in the preface to Part II, we all may have been misled:
“The many self-mentions of Tolkien’s aversion to allegory have been a linchpin in our comprehension of Tolkien’s thought process to creationist writing. Yet for Bombadil researchers – it has in effect – drowned out two direct and indisputable remarks linking allegory to Tom. It is categorically the main reason why these two remarks in*Letter #153*get so little scholastic attention.”
Another interesting point on allegory that she makes is that:
“Tom is the only character in*The Lord of the Rings*ever referred to as an ‘allegory’ within any of the Professor’s correspondences. For that matter such an observation extends beyond*The Lord of the Rings*to also include*The Hobbit*and Silmarillion tales. On top of this, Tom is the only fictional being whom Tolkien stated never properly fitted into his sub-created world. He was the one individual he actively thought about tinkering with to bring into line with all the others.”*
That actually is quite remarkable.
I note that the Tolkien strongly implied on several occasions that the tale didn't contain conscious allegory. Yet nevertheless he was quite happy to bring in the poem of
Fastitocalon into Middle-earth lore in the 1962
Adventures of Tom Bombadil. It is supposed to have been attributed to Sam Gamgee with its ultimate source unknown but from earlier times.
With the character Fastitocalon allegorized as Satan (maybe effectively Morgoth) per
Letter #255 – without a shadow of doubt, his myth touched upon allegorical ideas.