Visible souls....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

But perhaps he is like Arda itself in that he is not affected by the temporal magic of the Ring. He, like the Earth itself, has great resistance to magic worked by individuals, even a great Maia like Sauron.

Does this mean that Tom is quite literally a part of the very fabric of Arda? If so it might tie in with my old ideas of him as relating to a figure such as The Green Man or the Horned God. But now my ideas have been turned all upside down since I read Osanwe-kenta, and I feel there must be something in the fact that The One Ring does not have any effect upon him.

If he is a Hroa-less Fea (phrase used with compliments to davem ) then how did the Hobbits see him? Was this the nature of the magic of the Old Forest? If it did indeed enable the Hobbits to 'see' that which is not normally seen then I like that chapter even more than ever!

But it's still all hurting my head and I can't quite decide...

Originally Posted by drigel

Mabye thats truly the only way for us mortals to discern it: in the corner of your eye, a quick, minute moment in time where one reaches a certain cognizance of the environment one is part of, and the souls that he shares it with.

This brings to mind the Laws and Customs section of Morgoth's Ring - Vol. 10 (I think) of HoME. In this it talks of what happens when an Elf's Hroa eventually burns away leaving them as a houseless Fea, wandering the earth. These would be visible to other Elves, and possibly to mortals, and there is a particularly beautiful passage in there relating to this.

[littlemanpoet]

If he is a Hroa-less Fea (phrase used with compliments to davem ) then how did the Hobbits see him? Was this the nature of the magic of the Old Forest? If it did indeed enable the Hobbits to 'see' that which is not normally seen then I like that chapter even more than ever! - Lalwendë

This particular question reminds me of the medieval scholars in earnest discussion regarding how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Maybe I'm revealing my ignorance of this now famous osanwe document, but it seems to me that the best reading of any narrative written by Tolkien (or any storyteller for that matter) is to take it the way he wrote it rather than to speculate things that are not there. Hence, since the hobbits could see Tom Bombadil, he could not have been a hroa-less fea.

Does this mean that Tom is quite literally a part of the very fabric of Arda? If so it might tie in with my old ideas of him as relating to a figure such as The Green Man or the Horned God. - Lalwendë

Now, this seems much more likely to me. It's of a piece with how Tolkien wrote Tom and Goldberry, don't you think? I like your "old ideas" just fine.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

This particular question reminds me of the medieval scholars in earnest discussion regarding how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

I wonder how relevant this aside may be. That discussion, as I understand it, related to whether Angels had any physical presence, & if so, how much. Clearly, if they were purely spiritual beings, with no physical nature (in Tolkienesque terms if they were purely 'fea' without a 'hroa'), then an infinite number of them could dance on the head of any physical object - even a pin head. If they had a physical presence then there would be a limit on the number who could occupy such a space.

This may be relevant to the discussion of what happens to Elves if/when their fea does burn away their hroa. Would they have any presence in the physical world? If they were visible at all in that state then we would be dealing with literally visible souls. How many hroa-less Elves could dance on the head of a pin?

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Does this mean that Tom is quite literally a part of the very fabric of Arda? If so it might tie in with my old ideas of him as relating to a figure such as The Green Man or the Horned God. - Lalwendë

I wonder, in the light of what we know about both the Moon & the Sun having 'indwelling' spirits - Tillion & Arien - whether Tom is the 'indwelling' spirit of Arda. Of course, we are told that Tilion' & Arien's role is to steer those 'vessels', but is there more to it. I remember reading that when Blake looked at the sun he 'saw' a choir of Angels singing 'Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty!'. Did Tolkien have something similar in mind with Tilion & Arien? And if so, would that explain Tom? Is he the spirit that 'steers' the world. Of course, if Tom had always been then for most of his existence he wouldn't have had anything to steer as Arda was flat & fixed in place. But if there is more to the roles od Tilion & Arien, if they have another role, being the 'spirits' of moon & sun, then its possible that Tom played the same part in relation to Arda. He would be equivalent to the 'planetary Angel' of Qabalistic tradition.

Which would make him the 'visible soul' of Arda I suppose, his words would be the words of Arda itself. He has seen the first stars, he has existed as long as Arda has existed because he is Arda. This would at least explain the problem of both him & Treebeard being referred to as 'eldest'. Treebeard is the oldest living being in Middle earth, Tom is Middle earth. The Ring has no effect on him as it is, materially, made up of the matter of Arda, of the body of Tom himself.....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

He has seen the first stars, he has existed as long as Arda has existed because he is Arda. This would at least explain the problem of both him & Treebeard being referred to as 'eldest'. Treebeard is the oldest living being in Middle earth, Tom is Middle earth. The Ring has no effect on him as it is, materially, made up of the matter of Arda, of the body of Tom himself.....

So Tom could be a 'guardian spirit' of Arda itself, sent to live in the land and guide it? This brings to mind the traditions of 'elements'. In modern astrology we think in terms of fire, earth, air and water. Though I have heard of slightly differing groupings of elements comprising of earth, air, water and wood (though I can't think right now what this system relates to). If Tolkien was working with traditional elements, then there could be some interesting correspondences here. Tom could be earth, Treebeard could represent wood, and Goldberry could represent water. All three of these could indeed be considered as guardian spirits in some way, unaffected by matters of Hroa and Fea.

I like this idea as it isn't so far from my older ideas, and it is reconcilable with the ideas in the Osanwe-kenta too.

[littlemanpoet]

If Tom is Middle Earth, why does he have such narrow borders?

[Aiwendil]

Lyta_Underhill wrote:

Things that would seem metaphorical in this universe are valid concerns and show themselves in concrete ways that would not occur in the primary world. Thus, the light is an aspect of Frodo's soul, externalized in the secondary world, whereas it would not be visible in the primary world and we would rather think him crazy, as we can't see his motivation.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and I think it is largely correct. But allow me to play the contrarian. My questions is this: supposing that LotR were exactly the same except that the instances of the visible appearance of light around Frodo were excised. Would this Frodo no longer be a "visible soul" type character? If all it means to say that a character is a visible soul is that in a few instances some external sign of that character's soul becomes apparent - that is, if by removing a few lines from the book, we change a visible soul into an ordinary character - then it seems to me that the concept is a rather superficial one. Is there not some deeper way in which the characterization in LotR fits a visible soul model, of which the light around Frodo is only a symptom?

littlemanpoet: Your definition is good, but it brings to mind another question. Is there a difference between the notion of characters as visible souls and the idea of external characterization as opposed to internal (which has been discussed in a few other threads)? Or to put it another way - is there a difference between the nature of the characters and the techniques of portrayal of the characters?

On the surface, it seems that there is. One can imagine an author inventing a character and then portraying him or her via the internal method, wherein the characters thoughts are directly told. Or one can imagine an author taking the very same character and instead using the external method of characterization, where the character's thoughts are not directly told, but his or her actions imply certain things about the psyche. And in view of this, it seems that it's not really so accurate to speak of characters being "visible souls" - rather the notion of the visible soul refers only to the techniques used to portray that character to the audience.

But I think there's a complication; it's not clear that there really is a significant difference between the nature and the portrayal of a character. For of course, the character is not "real". I don't mean this metaphysically, but rather in the obvious sense - there are facts about Beethoven that are not contained anywhere in his biography, but there are no facts about Frodo that are not contained in the texts written by Tolkien. Frodo, or any character, is defined by the things written about him. So in a sense, his nature is synonymous with his portrayal - or, if not synonymous, at least closely related. Looking at it this way, one could perhaps say that the idea method of external characterization, in itself a technique of portrayal, has the effect that the nature of a character so portrayed is that of a "visible soul".

I have a feeling I'm babbling, and as I really don't know what to make of these questions myself, I'll desist. But I think they are interesting questions and worthy of some consideration.

Lalwende wrote:

Does this mean that Tom is quite literally a part of the very fabric of Arda?

This is the view I've always taken. It has always seemed to me that Tom is the most supremely natural character in the legendarium, in opposition to the artifice or craft represented by Feanor, Aule, Saruman, etc. It's an idea I kept harping on in the Book I Chapter 7 discussion.

Davem wrote:

I wonder, in the light of what we know about both the Moon & the Sun having 'indwelling' spirits - Tillion & Arien - whether Tom is the 'indwelling' spirit of Arda.

An interesting idea, but I think there are more differences than similarities between the roles of Arien and Tilion and of Tom. The moon and the sun were physically made by the Valar, and Arien and Tilion were needed for the specific tasks of steering those vessels. Arda itself (though designed by the Valar in their song) was brought into being before the Valar entered it. It's not at all clear what 'steering' function Arda might need, and in any case, Tom doesn't seem particularly interested in performing such a cosmic task. And littlemanpoet makes an excellent point:

If Tom is Middle Earth, why does he have such narrow borders?

[Lyta_Underhill]

If Tom is Middle Earth, why does he have such narrow borders?

Perhaps it is because, at least in my mind, Tom is not equated in scope but merely in nature to Arda. Just as a patch of earth can be known as earth, it both is and is not Earth, if you take my meaning. Perhaps he is so close to the stuff of Arda itself that he can be said to be indistinguishable in some characteristics. He is a "moss-gatherer," and thus is covered in the essence of Arda or is sinking into it, becoming "tree-ish" as the Ents might say, and thus he does not wander but has put down roots.

Would this Frodo no longer be a "visible soul" type character? If all it means to say that a character is a visible soul is that in a few instances some external sign of that character's soul becomes apparent - that is, if by removing a few lines from the book, we change a visible soul into an ordinary character - then it seems to me that the concept is a rather superficial one. Is there not some deeper way in which the characterization in LotR fits a visible soul model, of which the light around Frodo is only a symptom?

Indeed, Aiwendil, this is only an illustration, and I do not mean it to contain all of the variances of characterization. The light of Frodo is merely one aspect of this. lmp is on a good road to cataloging other aspects whereby this externalization is shown, but that also raises another question. Is this externalization merely symbolism made concrete? Is this not in the nature of myth itself? Perhaps this whole "visible soul" business is simply an aspect and "symptom" of a myth-based story, and that would explain the fact that Middle Earth is indeed a living character and shows these outward characteristics as much as any other moving character in the story. I think there was a thread long ago about weather in Middle Earth and how it reacted to the goings-on in Middle Earth in this external way, as if its very nature was symbolic of the political upheavals of the more humanoid residents of Middle Earth.

How many hroa-less Elves could dance on the head of a pin?

Trust davem to actually make what seems like an absurd point of theology sound so relevant!

Cheers!
Lyta