Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer !

[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.

[Nerwen]

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”.

"Clearly" to you, but to me nothing in the examples you cite suggests the quotes are being used for emphasis in the way the theory requires there either. It's just an assumption you're making.

The only reference to the older practice of using quotes in place of italics I can find refers to their use in "separating" a word from the rest of the sentence, as I just did and am about to do again with the word "separating". Could you have been thinking of this?

[Zigûr]

For some reason I always get this inexplicable feeling of dread whenever I see this thread's title in bold on the main page.

Is it possible that Tom's just Tom?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

For some reason I always get this inexplicable feeling of dread whenever I see this thread's title in bold on the main page.

Is it possible that Tom's just Tom?

This thread gives you a feeling of dread? Why, because it never stops? Plain to see you weren't around for the Great Lalaith Debate, Zig.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Great Lalaith Debate?

[Nerwen]

The debate on whether Maedhros killed Lalaith.

You would have thought that would be a very short debate, but somehow, mainly because the OP was Lalaith's No 1 fan, it went on for a very long time and also branched out into such important side questions as, "Would Lalaith have married Beleg?", "Would Lalaith have killed Glaurung?", "Would Lalaith have defeated Morgoth?" not to mention (you'll like this, Balfrog) "Was Lalaith Goldberry?"

[Mithalwen]

I am still claiming first dibs on the popcorn concession if the Lalaith fanatic ever crosses swords with the bod who was over-invested in Arwen. However I would concede that Arwen would almost certainly take Lalaith in a fight but things might be a bit more equal between their champions...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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.

*Sighs*

If Tolkien had written in an allegorical sense, and had, as Ms. Seth makes the incomprehensible leap, used Tom as a stage prop to represent the audience, then why did Tolkien not ever refer to him as such? An allegory is a literary conveyance by the author to draw the reader to an inference. Tolkien never does. He does not refer to such a staged conveyance in his letters, and the reader is not drawn to make such an assumption; ergo, Ms. Seth's hypothesis fails.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

For the reader, he was meant to be unsolvable.

Hence, he is not an allegory, because the very definition of "allegory" requires a manipulation by the author so that the reader may draw a conclusion. If, as you admit directly, Tom is "unsolvable" to the reader, then he is not allegorical.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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.

If Tom is enigmatic, and, as you stated, unsolvable, he is not allegorical. Because, by any measure of the definition, an allegory requires the author to manipulate the reader. Again, Tolkien conveys this as succinctly as an Oxonian professor and philologist can, "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 is allowed to make any number of assertions about Bombadil and yet come no closer to solving the enigma. We, as readers, are left to a multiplicity of guesses but no conclusions, and if I may paraphrase Baron Orczy's poem:

They seek him here,
They seek him there -
The readers seek him everywhere.
Is he o'er the stream
Or is he under hill,
That damned elusive Bombadil.

P.S. I don't believe Tolkien ever gave much consideration for his private letters one day being published. It certainly was not a concern of his while he lived. In any case, whatever inconsistencies you manage to pick through (and you are certainly digging for needles in a needle stack) should certainly not reflect Tolkien's final view on anything, since he made no effort to edit his personal letters for consistency, let alone publication. Who edits a letter after posting it? Therefore, to jump through hoops to conclude finality from Tolkien's letters, particularly when you parse and piece a pile of gobbledy-gook from one letter to another spaced years apart, is a failed exercise in divination.

[Balfrog]

William Cloud Hicklin

Balfrogs definitely have fwings! Isn't it flaming obvious?


Nerwen

I'll try and take a look at the famed debate. Who knows - It might be more amusing than this one!

As to your later post :

And the purpose of the separator?

To make distinctive, to highlight, to provide emphasis, perhaps?

Yes, you are quite right – it is clear to me, given my English grammar school education. However I would be happy to understand how you might think Tolkien grammatically used (what the English term) inverted commas!



Morthoron

I think you are getting a bit off-track. We were discussing Ms. Seth's thesis and her theory.

In no instance, to my knowledge, did she use the words: “Tom was unsolvable to the reader”.

It was I that used them. And I'm not sure she would agree with me.

Despite that – I am happy to stick to my assertion – though I emphasize they do not reflect in any way on Ms. Seth's position. Yes, with a 150 million plus readers having been left wondering, Tom was to all intents and purposes - unsolvable. From what I can gather, it took the 1964 Mroczkowski letter for Ms. Seth to unravel it. Though now I believe she has further undisclosed information that adds weightily to her hypothesis.

In terms of Tolkien's thoughts on 'allegory', unfortunately, I think you have totally misconstrued or misunderstood what Tolkien wrote. Here is the entire sentence of debate again:

“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.”

FotR, Foreword to the second edition

In no instance does Tolkien state that an 'allegory' has to be solvable by the reader. As far as as I am concerned an 'allegory' - can range from the impossible to solve, to the practically overt. It is entirely dependent on the writer, and on how much he/she wants to disclose. Indeed an allegory can be included for no purpose other than self-amusing the author. Perhaps only a select few might be in the know.

In the case of Tom, the author is most definitely dominant. After all readers have been wondering and arguing over him for over 60 years. If you can prove Tom is a case of 'applicability' – I would be prepared to reconsider. Somehow I doubt it given that dozens of theories have been put forward – and are all unsatisfactory (until Ms. Seth's popped up ).

" ... then why did Tolkien not ever refer to him as such?"

Well – maybe you've missed the point Ms. Seth made about Tom being not just allegory but also a puzzle. Maybe the author was reluctant to give away the answer to the puzzle? Who knows? But I could certainly be sympathetic with such a stance.

Well what's the upshot of this? Very succinctly: this means practically the entire argument of your last post is without merit.


As for the case of “incomprehensible leap” – I am surprised you a still spewing this line. The theory is simple, elegant and totally comprehensible on your part – at least from what I have seen of your previous posts. If I am mistaken, then please take another read of Ms. Seth's entire essay and take some time to ponder on it. If things still don't make sense, and I cannot help – perhaps it will be worthwhile firing off an E-mail to her?

As to the accuracy and veracity of the content of Tolkien's letters, what you said might be true. Nevertheless there is so much information in them that their use in understanding his works has been undeniably beneficial to us. Simply put - I am against selectively neglecting information without a solid reason.

If we ignore TB “he is then an allegory” in Letter #153, well we might as well ignore that there must be some enigmas and that “Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)” in Letter #144.

Or taking it further – go ahead and ignore any number of other statements we don't like. Now where would that leave us???? On a slippery slope perhaps??? To be honest, I really don't see Tolkien's letters littered with inaccuracies or contradictions. Indeed I see very few. The “symbolism” versus “no symbolism” one is a rarity.

It would be nice if you would point out a few examples where you have noted suchlike contradictions. Particularly in Letter #153 where he stated TB is “an allegory”.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Despite that – I am happy to stick to my assertion – though I emphasize they do not reflect in any way on Ms. Seth's position. Yes, with a 150 million plus readers having been left wondering, Tom was to all intents and purposes - unsolvable. From what I can gather, it took the 1964 Mroczkowski letter for Ms. Seth to unravel it. Though now I believe she has further undisclosed information that adds weightily to her hypothesis.

Where exactly does this "undisclosed information" come from? What font of knowledge does Seth have access that is unavailable to any other scholar...or casual reader making assumptions from their living room couch? How enigmatic of you...and her.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

In terms of Tolkien's thoughts on 'allegory', unfortunately, I think you have totally misconstrued or misunderstood what Tolkien wrote. Here is the entire sentence of debate again:

“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.”

FotR, Foreword to the second edition

In no instance does Tolkien state that an 'allegory' has to be solvable by the reader. As far as as I am concerned an 'allegory' - can range from the impossible to solve, to the practically overt. It is entirely dependent on the writer, and on how much he/she wants to disclose. Indeed an allegory can be included for no purpose other than self-amusing the author. Perhaps only a select few might be in the know.

No, I have not misconstrued anything; rather, you haven't a clue what an "allegory" is.
More on that shortly.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

" ... then why did Tolkien not ever refer to him as such?"

Well – maybe you've missed the point Ms. Seth made about Tom being not just allegory but also a puzzle. Maybe the author was reluctant to give away the answer to the puzzle? Who knows? But I could certainly be sympathetic with such a stance.

Well what's the upshot of this? Very succinctly: this means practically the entire argument of your last post is without merit.

And yet you assert Ms. Seth is correct on assumptions and conjecture, while you, yourself, devolve into "maybes" and "who knows". Laughable.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Or taking it further – go ahead and ignore any number of other statements we don't like. Now where would that leave us???? On a slippery slope perhaps??? To be honest, I really don't see Tolkien's letters littered with inaccuracies or contradictions. Indeed I see very few. The “symbolism” versus “no symbolism” one is a rarity.

You are aware that in every doctoral thesis on the subject, "allegory" is not "symbolism". They are not the same and even the most cursory review of the subject (almost, but not as cursory as your light sprinkling on the matter) will show you they are not the same, and cannot be the same, due to the direct intention of the author. You do not comprehend what Tolkien meant when he said “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.” He understood the definitions and the difference between "allegory" and "applicability". Again, he uses "symbolism" which is not "allegory". Here is a definition one can simply cut and paste from the internet:

"Although an allegory uses symbols, it is different from symbolism. An allegory is a complete narrative which involves characters, and events that stand for an abstract idea or an event. A symbol, on the other hand, is an object that stands for another object giving it a particular meaning."

Let that sink in. It is the simplest definition with the smallest words I could find for you. Now, relate that to Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings is not a Christian allegory, like Lewis's Narnia, but there is Christian symbology subsumed in the story. The symbology is part of the story, but the author does not assert his domination to force the reader into a particular point of view (which is why atheists and agnostics read and enjoy the story without feeling 'preached to').

In the same way, Bombadil is symbolic, not allegorical. He is a personification or "exemplar" of something Tolkien wished to include, but Tom is not an allegory that leads the reader to a specific point of view. Here is another description of "allegory":

"Allegory is a story or poem which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. Abstract ideas and concepts, political or historical situations are represented through the characters, events and the setting of the story. Although the story in an allegory appears to be simple, it always has a more serious, deeper meaning; the characters and the events of the story may also stand for something larger than what they literally stand for. Therefore, the story and characters are multidimensional."

Bombadil may be a symbol, "representative" of the fading Oxfordshire of Tolkien's youth, but the plot and events of the story does not lead one to make that assumption.


Allegory is a narrative.

Symbolism is a literary device.


There is no direct evidence in any of Tolkien's voluminous writings or in his letters that Bombadil is the audience and "the play's the thing" (if I may use Hamlet for applicability's sake). None. Neither a hint nor whisper.


Allegory is a story or poem which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Symbolism is the method of representing things by symbols, or of imbuing things with a symbolic meaning or character.


Based on Tolkien's letters, he has imbued Bombadil with symbolism (and only mentions the fact long after publication, because it is in no way evident to the reader or scholar, thus maintaining an "enigma"), but he certainly did not in any way craft some allegorical parable around Bombadil; hence, he preferred not to use the word "allegory" in regards to the character, except in the sense that allegories use symbols, but symbols can be and are independent of narrative allegory. And Bombadil does not evoke a moral, political or any tangible allegorical trope. If anything he is benign and apolitical, as uninterested in aiding good as he is disinterested in destroying evil like the Old Man Willow.

I will not be posting further on the issue.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen

I'll try and take a look at the famed debate. Who knows - It might be more amusing than this one!

As to your later post :

And the purpose of the separator?

To make distinctive, to highlight, to provide emphasis, perhaps?

Yes, you are quite right – it is clear to me, given my English grammar school education. However I would be happy to understand how you might think Tolkien grammatically used (what the English term) inverted commas!

To indicate that the term "allegory" was doubtful, and should be taken with a grain of salt. This seems to me quite possible.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Unfortunately I only have time to respond to your first and last comments – but in due course I will reply to the rest.

Yes, I sense some frustration, impatience and doubt on your part – but please look back and try to realize that Ms. Seth has already brought much to the table. I provided you with the “fatherless' example, but there are certainly others - such as her explanation of what “a vow of poverty” is. To me that makes far more sense than what Halfir (on the Plaza) or Michael Martinez have proposed. Moreover there are neglected parts of the text such as “open doors” and the significance of the two standing stones Frodo passed between and the resulting time lapse – that nobody else seems to have put some coherent understanding to.

In our communication (and I'm pretty sure she would repeat the same to you if you E-mailed her), Ms. Seth has relayed that the upcoming promised revelations will not be a repeat of the infamous Teleporno incident. I have extracted an agenda from her but unfortunately not a time-table:

(a) Finish up the last essay of four on Goldberry (again there are some interesting matters here, never before discussed, which mesh into a theory at least as plausibile as any others I have seen – hopefully you have viewed these threads).

(b) Provide a five part set of essays on the significance of the colors of Tom & Goldberry – again approaching the subject from a different angle than anyone else. Out of this a highly significant matter which has been missed by all researchers will be exposed.

(c) Provide an essay that exposes the significance of the hill/standing stone encountered on the journey across the Downs as well as the cause of the phospheresence in the barrow.

(d) Provide an essay on the importance of the 'west' to the Bombadil chapters.

(e) Provide a two part essay that discusses the 'new information' I have alluded to on 'allegorical' Tom and further a discussion of other symbolism buried in the Bombadillian chapters.

I really do hope that you change your mind and continue to interact - because I have found the discourse quite stimulating. In any case, I hope you keep looking in – as I will try to keep the thread alive to report on the promised essays – and that which I feel is noteworthy within them.


Nerwen

“To indicate that the term "allegory" was doubtful, and should be taken with a grain of salt. This seems to me quite possible.”

Except that this doesn't always grammatically make sense. Take for example:

'romance' has grown out of 'allegory'.
Letter #71

If we take your proposed route, things don't jive if what's in single quotes is taken with “a grain of salt”!

I fully understand if you doubt my own English grammar education – but perhaps another English Professor's work might persuade you. Take a look at Author of the 20th Century by the well renowned Tolkien scholar and philologist – Tom Shippey. There are many examples within that text that similarly employ single quotes around a singular word where again the purpose appears to be to grammatically highlight or make the word distinct through separation. For instance on pg. 103:

The word that describes the structure is 'interlace'.
Nevertheless the diagram may illustrate the nature of the narrative threads and their 'interlacing'.

Again, the sentences above have no coherency if we adopt a “grain of salt” interpretation.