Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer !

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

I'm surprised and to be honest a little perturbed as to why you unable to acknowledge Tolkien's statement that Tom is an 'allegory'. I am even more surprised that you are unable to entertain that Tom was an exception – and to Ms Seth's inference - fell outside the general use of no allegory.

Either Tolkien said/implied these things or he didn't. But because he did, we have to live with them.

We can try pushing Tom as 'allegory' under the carpet (as so many scholars have done). Or we can try to come up with some rational explanation as to what he meant or why he said it.

Ms Seth has asked the reader to look at the issue dispassionately and objectively. Many of us think we know Tolkien well, but the bottom line is – we really don't. And so, a logical person would say - okay let's entertain the possibility and see where it leads.

I am so glad you brought up 'Occam's Razor' because guess what – we find more than any other theory out there, with Ms Seth's - a lot of things automatically fall into place. These include:

(a) Remarks in the novel about Tom or his own very words.
(b) Tolkien's own somewhat enigmatic remarks about Tom in his letters.
(c) The 'tricks' Tom plays in front of the hobbits
(d) The issue of 'eldest' between Treebeard and Tom.

Shippey, Jensen, Hargrove, Ranger from the North, etc. are only able to partially explain these many matters. Ms Seth is able to explain them all within the confines of her theory. That is the big difference.

That is why her simple and straightforward theory, which fits the known facts is so alluring. In short it aligns perfectly with Occam's principle. For very importantly and once again – a lot of what fits is what Ms Seth terms as 'automatic' and in itself elegant. Per Part IV of her essay, repeating what she said:


…. an ideal audience member is always automatically:

(1)*“First”*and*“last”*to actually see the ‘play’
(2) A*“natural pacifist”
(3)*“Eldest in Time”*– Time being counted from when the performance officially begins (curtains open)
(4)*“watching”*and*“observing”
(5)*“unconcerned with ‘doing’ anything with the knowledge”*gained from the ‘play’
(6) One that*“desires knowledge of other things”
(7)*“Not important to the narrative”
(8) One that*“hardly interferes”
(9) One who has*“renounced control”
(10) One who has unknowingly*“taken a vow of poverty”*(non-ownership of anything inside the theater)
(11) A being that is*“other”*(to those on stage)
(12) There to take*“delight”*in the performance
(13) One that can never be an*“owner”*of anything on the stage
(14) One who understands*“the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control”*is not for them to decide
(15) Aware that*“night will come”*when the ‘play’ is over.

I really think you should have another read, and ponder on it with an 'open-mind'.

As to Christopher Tolkien's lack of disclosure – I cannot answer you. One would have to ask him personally. If you read Priya Seth's thesis carefully – she provides a perfectly acceptable answer for me. It appears that Tolkien has hidden things in TLotR for researchers to discover. This is undoubtedly true. I suggest you read the quote from Clyde Kilby and chew on it:

“…*if I would hold it confidential, he would “put more under my hat” than he had ever told anyone.”

– Tolkien and The Silmarillion, Clyde Kilby, Summer with Tolkien*

Note my underlined emphasis on “anyone” (which would include CT). According to Ms. Seth, the statement was made many years after TLotR was published.

I have no reason to believe Kilby was a liar.
Have you?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

I'm surprised and to be honest a little perturbed as to why you unable to acknowledge Tolkien's statement that Tom is an 'allegory'. I am even more surprised that you are unable to entertain that Tom was an exception – and to Ms Seth's inference - fell outside the general use of no allegory.

Oh, gosh, I have perturbed you. Whatever shall I do?

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Either Tolkien said/implied these things or he didn't. But because he did, we have to live with them.

We can try pushing Tom as 'allegory' under the carpet (as so many scholars have done). Or we can try to come up with some rational explanation as to what he meant or why he said it.

Ms Seth has asked the reader to look at the issue dispassionately and objectively. Many of us think we know Tolkien well, but the bottom line is – we really don't. And so, a logical person would say - okay let's entertain the possibility and see where it leads.

Simply put, it is not an allegory because Tolkien defined "allegory" with the caveat: " I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." This is the crux of the entire conversation and why Ms. Priya's theory falls like a deck of cards in a wind storm.

The refusal of Tolkien to define him directly and with any specificity, and the multiplicity of definitions by every commentator who has ever considered Bombadil, leads me to believe it is not an allegory. If one is to strictly read the story (whether that reader is a Professor of Literature or a high school student) and then is asked to define Bombadil, how many would choose to believe he is an allegory? An allegory of...what? There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book.

This is not like Plato's Allegory of the Cave or even C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles in which one can draw a direct line or parallel to what is being implied. The reader has the "freedom", as Tolkien put it, to infer just about anything regarding Bombadil. Hence, adroit readers at all reading levels will insist he is a Maia, he is Eru, He is Adam, he is Tolkien himself, etc. Tolkien does not in any way force the reader to allegorize Bombadil. He neither imputes nor infers a status on Bombadil. He simply "is". Even the other characters in the book, whether it is one of the Hobbits or lore masters like Gandalf and Elrond, cannot define him with any assurance, and offer only bemused guesses as to what Bombadil is.

For Ms. Priya (and you in your sycophantic insistence on precluding all else from your lap-dogged adherence to her theory) to conclude that Bombadil is an allegory based on selected quotes from Tolkien after the fact, precludes all other quotes that contradict the assumption. "The play" that Priya provides is just another theory in the long line of theories that lacks authorial authority to surmise it is the correct assumption. Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma" which, in itself, would preclude an allegory, because allegorizations require an imputed goal, an artifice, to draw the reader to a conclusion the author wishes the reader to make. That is not the case with Bombadil.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen

I like the way you used the phrase: 'fiction within a fiction'.

Nevertheless its' all fiction and its all the work of Tolkien – however we gloss his application of allegory!

I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same".

Her link to Fastitocalon, for me, projects a good practical example of what Tolkien possibly meant by calling Tom a “particular embodying” of allegory.

How so?

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

I'm surprised and to be honest a little perturbed as to why you unable to acknowledge Tolkien's statement that Tom is an 'allegory'. I am even more surprised that you are unable to entertain that Tom was an exception – and to Ms Seth's inference - fell outside the general use of no allegory.

Either Tolkien said/implied these things or he didn't. But because he did, we have to live with them.

We can try pushing Tom as 'allegory' under the carpet (as so many scholars have done). Or we can try to come up with some rational explanation as to what he meant or why he said it.

That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he also states that Tom is not an allegory.

“I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying …”.
Letter #144

Really, what are we to make of this?

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Fortunately the 'perturbation' lasted about the time I took to write the sentence.

I agree with the following partially:

"There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book."

There is more evidence to come in future posts, and I request your patience.

Clearly – you are far from convinced. I suspect that Ms. Seth knew the problems she was going to face
- hence the large amount of effort she has devoted to discussing the matter. It's persuasive to me and I'm interested in the subject - so quite happy to spend some time on it. I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that or even make mention for that matter – because it really doesn't add anything to the debate. I certainly don't believe Tom is a case of 'applicability' – specifically because Tolkien said he was 'allegory'. He certainly didn't state the reverse.

Yes, you are quite right that Ms. Seth's theory is one in a long line – but I feel we are finally homing in on the truth. It seems you chose not to comment on the 'circumstantial evidence'. On its own – isn't it a good fit?



Nerwen

"I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same"."

I don't understand you're blanket 'no'. It isn't really helpful without some explanation.

"How so?"

This was explained by Ms. Seth quite reasonably (I think). Both the 'turtle-fish' and 'Bombadil' are 'creatures'. Yes maybe fictional ones, but nevertheless within the mythology they exist. If one can represent a concept allegorically (the turtle-fish as embodiment of the 'Devil') there is no reason why Bombadil can't represent a different embodied allegorical concept.


"That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he*alsostates that Tom is*not*an allegory."

Ms. Seth also addressed that within her essay (you might want to take another look). She viewed the statement:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory ...”
Letter #153

as a kind of humbling apology – again quite reasonably in my opinion. In any case – if we were to intepret this statement as directly contradicting the: “he is then an 'allegory' ” statement – then it's just as damning. In other words - we can't really trust anything Tolkien said about allegory.

Indeed:

"Really, what*are*we to make of this?"

In my opinion, Shippey called Tolkien out on this (most diplomatically of course) in Author of the 20th Century. It's worth having a read and digesting what exactly was said about the professor and allegory.



Nerwen, Morthoron & All Others

I really think it's time for the community to actively doubt Tolkien on the matter of allegory and indeed bring the edifice built on 'a pack of cards' tumbling down – namely finally remove the sand-foundation built around a premise of no allegory in the story.

The professor was human just like the rest of us. Yes subject to emotions, in possession of weaknesses and vices, and sometimes not altogether truthful.

Here is another example of a contradiction. In that very same letter where he said there was 'no conscious allegory' guess what - he also said (with an emphasis on 'no') there was:

“There is no 'symbolism' … in my story.
Letter # 203

Oh really Professor Tolkien – then why do you state:

For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Letter #142

Really Professor – which one is it?

Nerwen, Morthoron or anyone else – can you give me an explanation?

Sorry – I simply don't believe everything Tolkien wrote was entirely truthful. And I certainly have good reason to doubt him.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen

"I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same"."

I don't understand you're blanket 'no'. It isn't really helpful without some explanation.

"How so?"

This was explained by Ms. Seth quite reasonably (I think). Both the 'turtle-fish' and 'Bombadil' are 'creatures'. Yes maybe fictional ones, but nevertheless within the mythology they exist. If one can represent a concept allegorically (the turtle-fish as embodiment of the 'Devil') there is no reason why Bombadil can't represent a different embodied allegorical concept.

Balfrog, I've already given you my reasoning on this, but here it is again:

Originally Posted by Me

He's talking about how he borrowed the monster from Anglo-Saxon lore, where it apparently has that meaning. But, unless I am much mistaken, the poem "Fastitocalon" in "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" describes a creature of Hobbit folklore- not one supposed to really exist in Middle-earth. That is, it's a fiction within a fiction. Now, in context "Fastitocalon" could in fact be allegorical without having any bearing on whether "The Lord of the Rings" or any actual characters therein are. In saying his story is not allegorical Tolkien does not logically rule out some Middle-earth cultures having the practice of creating allegorical works, since these would exist on a different level of (un)reality.

I will break this down further. I'm actually making two points here:
1. Tolkien was explaining that the monster is borrowed from Anglo-Saxon folklore, and that it was an allegory *in its orginal context*.

2. Even if he did intend the Hobbits to have a similar tradition of ascribing symbolic meaning to various animals, that doesn't imply any of the actual characters in the book are "allegories". As I said, we are talking about fiction within fiction.

Now, last time you just sort of waved your hand and said, "Nope, nope, it's all the same". I am still not sure whether you have understood my point and rejected it, or just haven't grasped it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

"That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he*alsostates that Tom is*not*an allegory."

Ms. Seth also addressed that within her essay (you might want to take another look). She viewed the statement:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory ...”
Letter #153

as a kind of humbling apology – again quite reasonably in my opinion.

Well, here's the passage:

Originally Posted by Priya Seth

All the same Tom’s secret role was most definitely allegorical, both consciously and intentionally. Just a few months later, Tolkien just about confessed to hidden allegory outright:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory … but ‘allegory’ is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: …”,
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 153 (Tolkien’s emphasis)

and even more forcefully:

“… he is then an ‘allegory’ …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 153 (Tolkien’s emphasis)

One might view a remarkable admission, somewhat camouflaged and couched as a half-hearted apology, as a touch humiliating. Because Tolkien had in a way betrayed one of his own strong convictions. He clearly wasn’t entirely happy about Tom representing an abstract idea:

“I mean, I do not really write like that: …”,
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #144

but it circumvented an equally abstract craving: the ‘lack of an audience’. Unfortunately allegory was the most conveniently available method to exhibit a very unusual function, and in the end – Tolkien capitulated.

Look, is this really "addressing" the problem? Seems to me it's just begging the question.

Also, to what does the phrase "Tolkien's emphasis" refer? His putting "allegory" in quotation marks? That is certainly not a standard way of showing emphasis- in fact, in that context, it should be an example of what are known as "scare quotes" . Like if I say, "I was served 'Chinese' food", I'm saying "It wasn't real Chinese food".

Originally Posted by Balfrog

In any case – if we were to intepret this statement as directly contradicting the: “he is then an 'allegory' ” statement – then it's just as damning. In other words - we can't really trust anything Tolkien said about allegory.

No, I wouldn't say it's "just" as damning. Tolkien, with his scare quotes, seems to me to be making a distinction between a true allegory and an 'allegory', i.e. something that looks like or has some features of an allegory without actually qualifying as one.

What the state of being a not-quite-allegory consists of is murky indeed. Nonetheless, to me it implies something far short of the elaborate construction of Priya Seth's theory.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen, Morthoron & All Others

I really think it's time for the community to actively doubt Tolkien on the matter of allegory and indeed bring the edifice built on 'a pack of cards' tumbling down – namely finally remove the sand-foundation built around a premise of no allegory in the story.

The professor was human just like the rest of us. Yes subject to emotions, in possession of weaknesses and vices, and sometimes not altogether truthful.

Here is another example of a contradiction. In that very same letter where he said there was 'no conscious allegory' guess what - he also said (with an emphasis on 'no') there was:

“There is no 'symbolism' … in my story.
Letter # 203

Oh really Professor Tolkien – then why do you state:

For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Letter #142

Really Professor – which one is it?

Nerwen, Morthoron or anyone else – can you give me an explanation?

Well, there's your scare quotes again...

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Sorry – I simply don't believe everything Tolkien wrote was entirely truthful. And I certainly have good reason to doubt him.

I certainly believe Tolkien contradicted himself at times, and sometimes forgot what he had written. But you are reversing the burden of proof here. It is not up to us to show that Tolkien didn't use "conscious allegory" in his work, it's up to you/Priya to show that he did.

[Morthoron]

Oh, the horror! And to think, I used to like Bombadil.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

I agree with the following partially:

"There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book."

There is more evidence to come in future posts, and I request your patience.

If you "partially" agree (is that like being half-dead?), what possible new "evidence" could you possibly supply that everyone here already hasn't gone over with a fine-toothed hairy hobbit toes comb? What, is there a secret file marked "TB" in the Marquette Papers? Did a wadded up paper fall out of a book in the Bodleian Library that has the scrawl of an anguished Tolkien admitting, "I DID IT! I MADE AN ALLEGORY! GARN!"

I am too tired to do anything but belabor the points I've already reiterated:

-- Tolkien made the statement, " I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

-- The reader has the "freedom", as Tolkien put it, to infer just about anything regarding Bombadil.

-- To conclude that Bombadil is an allegory based on selected quotes from Tolkien after the fact, precludes all other quotes that contradict the assumption.

-- Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma" which, in itself, would preclude an allegory, because allegorizations require an imputed goal, an artifice, to draw the reader to a conclusion the author wishes the reader to make.

[Balfrog]

Nerwen

In response to:

I am still not sure whether you have understood my point and rejected it, or just haven't grasped it in the first place.

I did get your point. But I believe it is only of minor significance – thus the mildest of rejections on my part. Sam as a co-author of the Red Book employed allegory in his poem. And this was I believe just a way of connecting Tolkien's mythology to ours. There is nothing to suggest that other authors of the Red Book could not employ allegory. In other words allegory was as alive and well in Tolkien's mythical age as it is today.

The take-away from Ms. Seth's essay on this issue – I think was to give the reader a ready-made example of embodied allegory. Moreover one in the tale. In which case Bombadil as embodied allegory himself, might be more acceptable to a skeptical reader and not an outlier.

Also, to what does the phrase "Tolkien's emphasis" refer? His putting "allegory" in quotation marks? That is certainly not a standard way of showing emphasis- in fact, in that context, it should be an example of what are known as "scare quotes" . Like if I say, "I was served 'Chinese' food", I'm saying "It wasn't*real*Chinese food".*

Maybe in today's day and age it might be less usual to use quotes to provide emphasis – but I wonder if it is as true in Tolkien's time. In those days word processor's were unavailable. Letters were mostly written or typed. The use of italics to convey emphasis was perhaps a tad more difficult using such means.

From The Letters of JRRT – I have pulled out a several usages of the word allegory that are in quotes.

Though it is not an 'allegory'. - Letter #34
For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory' - Letter #71
But in spite of this, do not let Rayner suspect 'Allegory'. - Letter #109
There is no 'allegory', moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all. - Letter #181
The Hobbits are no more an 'allegory' than are (say) the pygmies of the African forest. - Letter #181
But it is true. An enquirer (among many) asked what the L.R. was all about, and whether it was an 'allegory'. - Letter #205
It is not really or properly an 'allegory' so much as 'mythical' - Letter #241

Clearly Tolkien is trying to highlight/bring attention to/emphasize the quoted words. That appears to be his style and is actually consistent with what I was taught being brought up in England in the 60's and 70's.

Ms. Seth has not told us whether the emphasis is mild or strong – indeed can we really know?
I am quite all right with her succinct: “Tolkien's emphasis”.

What the state of being a not-quite-allegory consists of is murky indeed.

Yes indeed what exactly is a “murky” “not-quite-allegory”? If you could provide me what you think the Professor's intentions were as regards Bombadil – then I would be happy to consider them.

I certainly believe Tolkien contradicted himself at times, and sometimes forgot what he had written.

Maybe, but once again the above appears to be an excuse for the Professor – when indeed there may be no need for one. In itself such a judgement instantly dismisses the need for further scholarship.

As I said before the default position in trying to establish interpretations is to firstly believe the words at face-value. From there context may be taken into consideration to establish 'truth'.

But you are reversing the burden of proof here. It is not up to us to show that Tolkien didn't use "conscious allegory" in his work, it's up to you/Priya to show that he did.

Ms. Seth right up-front said her position is a theory. She therefore has declined to proclaim the essay as absolute proof. But what she has implied is that all the pieces of the puzzle snap together to make her theory very strong.

This is rather like an unsolved murder case whereupon the death of a suspect – a confession is found. Despite numerous denials during all the years in which the suspect was alive, a written note is finally found that admits to the dreadful deed. Upon a re-hash of the old evidence and some new stuff that has come to light after death - the case detective realizes that everything now fits.

What should he do, ask to re-open the case or not?
Morally of course he should.
And what do you think the Judge and Jury's verdict will be with this written confession along with a trail of evidence that leads to a motive and directly points to the likely murderer?

All Detective Seth has done – is pull out Tolkien's straightforward 'hidden' confession which was made under no pressure while alive. The 'confession' which came to light after Tolkien's death is of course at odds with many public statements made while alive. Upon looking at all the evidence – Detective Seth has arrived at a coherent and simple theory, along with a motive, which seemingly matches the facts very well.

I'm afraid, If I were to judge Tolkien – I would find him guilty as charged.
Others may not do so and try to come up with alibi's.
I think that's a shame – but I am still respectful of such a view.

But one thing I want to convey – is that not at all the facts are in yet. Though to me, Ms. Seth has already provided information that is beyond reasonable doubt, some matters have been missed. Undoubtedly there is more evidence to come.

In the mean-time, I am happy to continue discussing the theory on its own merits.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

In response to:

If you "partially" agree (is that like being half-dead?)

Quite rightly I only gave partial agreement with your assessment that:

"There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book."*

(my underlining)

Please take another more careful read of Ms. Seth's essay – which has been our discussion focus all along. Certainly TLotR text impresses “last” and “first” with Tom. Also documented is “night will come”. These are all aspects of Tom's allegorical role as representing the 'audience' and signifying the end of the 'show' if he is removed. Many other's have noted Tom behaves like a bystander or watcher – only interfering when called upon. Which again would be typical of an audience member and his relationship to the cast.

So the evidence is scant within the text – but nevertheless within the confines of Ms. Seth's theory, it is there. From what I have digested, Ms. Seth has also realized the text is not rich with clues. The Letters provide far more information. I believe that is why she has alluded to Bombadil being Tolkien's personal joke. For the reader, he was meant to be unsolvable.


I also do not concur with:

Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma"

I only recall one occasion.


Nor do I concur with:

… an "enigma" … would preclude an allegory ...

Available dictionary definitions of an 'enigma' provide no such assertion. One typical definition is that an enigma can simply be a 'puzzle' or 'riddle'. Dictionaries do not categorically exclude the answer to the 'puzzle' or 'riddle' being allegorical based.


Additionally I do not agree with:

To conclude that Bombadil is an allegory based on selected quotes from Tolkien after the fact, precludes all other quotes that contradict the assumption.

I can only remember one definitive quote that Tolkien made denying the presence of allegory entirely in the tale. Most of his statements that touch on this subject are geared more towards a dislike of it – thus intrinsically allowing some use.


As for the:

fine-toothed hairy hobbit toes comb

I liked the way you put that. but I can only say – not fine enough. Things have been missed – and one is jaw-dropping. At least that's what I experienced. I do not think that there is any case for 'applicability' versus 'allegory' upon exposure.


By now – I had hoped you would have realized that Ms. Seth has already provided some interesting new insights – beyond what has ever been previously discussed. For example - out of the 100 million plus people who have read TLotR – how many have interpreted “fatherless” the way she has? How many have thought that Tolkien might have employed an archaism?

Or, as another example, how many articles are there in publications or out there on the Web which interprets Tom's “vow of poverty” in the way Ms. Seth has linked it to the Catholic Church?
Respected scholars – such as the late Halfir on the Plaza and Michael Martinez have completely different viewpoints. Who is right then? In comparing them, Ms. Seth's article makes more sense to me.
Take another look in the link below – hopefully your cynicism of potential 'new information' will start to evaporate.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...15/10/22/test/


The problem, I see, is that the 'ostrich' and the 'head in the sand' syndrome appears to be kicking in. By now – I would at the very least have expected you to say something like:

'Yes 'I understand how a lot of the evidence per Ms. Seth's theory fits. I can perfectly understand that – but I'm stuck on the principle of Tolkien and his dislike of 'allegory'. That's too big a hurdle for me.'

Unfortunately – the concessions have been meagre to non-existent. I don't blame Ms. Seth for not wanting to get involved in this debate as I have requested her to. Fortunately there is likely a lot more to come on Bombadil – but from what I can gather, several articles are to be released on Goldberry first.