Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer !

[Marwhini]

Has no one read Tom Shippey's account of Tom Bombadil in The Road to Middle-earth?

His account is one that I thought of in the 1980s when I was studying the works Joseph Campbell (briefly with Joseph Campbell):

That Tom Bombadil is a Spirit of Ëa that is a manifestation of Middle-earth wishing to know itself (as is Goldberry, but she is only a local manifestation of this sort: That of the Withywhindle's daughter).

Spirits of the sort that Tom Shippey attributes to Tom Bombadil occur in nearly every mythology on Earth, no less those of European, Germanic, and Nordic Myths (although it has been a long while since I went that far back into Northern European Mythology).

But this accounts for why the Ruling Ring does not affect him, as it would any Ainur (ruling out Tom, or Goldberry, being a Maiar or Valar), as he is not exactly the sort that seeks power over things, but instead only to know himself (and thus Arda/Middle-earth). This accounts for his ability to "name" things, and have those names stick to them, and have the "Naming" affect the thing so named, rather than the thing named having any effect over Tom. Basically, the Ruling Ring would not affect Tom unless Tom named it as affecting Tom. But since Tom only names What Is, and thew Ruling Ring has no effect on Tom, Tom can't name the ring as affecting him....

I wish that I could remember the name of the types of Spirits and/or Archetypes that Tom represents from Campbell's The Masks of God, vol 1: Primitive Mythology. But it has been over five years since I last read it, and not having a digital version of it, I can't as easily search the physical copy as I would a digital... But I know that the Archetype in question is detailed in that volume...

And.... This explanation fits with what we see of Tom Bombadil in Tolkien's other works dealing with him as well (and depending upon the Metaphysical and Ontological assumptions that are given for a consistent and unified Physics within Middle-earth/Arda/Ëa, that can fit these as well).

MB

[Balfrog]

Faramir Jones

Unfortunately when the The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was published in 1962, there was a mix-up in the order of the poems. In the preface when Tolkien discusses No. 12 (as partially ascribed to Sam Gamgee) he really means 'Fastitocalon'.

The scholar John Rateliff discusses the publishing error in his blog:

http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2014/10...-bombadil.html

Hope that helps.



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!

In re-reading Priya Seth's essay– she is obviously very aware of the sensitive nature of linking allegory to Tom. She appears to have purposely split the subject up into the various sections presumably not to overwhelm the reader. Clearly she has discussed the matter in some depth; and on top she has searched for a possible reason why Tolkien wasn't forthright.

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



Marwhini

I must say I am not familiar with Joseph Campbell's work – though I intend to look into it. Thanks for the pointer.

However I am aware of Shippey's comments on Tom both in his 'Author....' and 'Road....' books. The Gaia or Spirit of Arda/Ea theories have some shortcomings. One obvious one is that such propositions don't really explain how Tom made the Ring disappear. Nor do they really explain why he confines himself to such a small part of Middle-earth – leaving the rest of the planet alone.

Tom appears to have a strong connection with nature – but in a way not so. He appears to me, to be more of a watcher or bystander. Someone aloof yet interested in nature, evolution and history. But not someone who has any significant influence upon these things. In other words - not the way I would expect a spirit of Arda to be or act.

Priya Seth's new theory accounts for a letter that has only relatively recently come to light and that pre-existing theories (and new ones since) need to satisfactorily address – yet don't. The letter to Mroczkowski in 1964 discusses Tom using an analogy of 'a play'.

If Tolkien viewed it that way, she has asked herself – well if that's the case:

Is there a stage?
And then is there a theater?
And if so, is there an auditorium to the theater?
And if so what was outside?
Who are the players on the stage?
What was the stage meant to represent?
What was the theater meant to represent?
Why does Tolkien state that there were different planes of reality touching each other simultaneously? Why was this concept so important to him – as he admits?
And why did the chinks in the scenery show a world outside contained off-stage characters of a dramatic production?
Did Tom really belong on stage or was he a discordant entity?
Where did he really belong – on-stage or off it?
What could he have represented if he truly belonged off it?

With her new theory – she has been able to explain the above and answer some of the most difficult questions to many of the puzzling remarks in Tolkien's letters.

Unfortunately the logic she has employed has led to the conclusion Tolkien employed allegory.
A concept which is abhorrent to many.

[Morthoron]

Balfrog, I think you and your alter-ego, Dan Brown code-deciphering authoress should just take Tolkien at his word when he says:

"I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about."

And in that regard, use the advice Tolkien gave to an over-eager correspondent:

"As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being far too serious."

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Balfrog, I think you and your alter-ego, Dan Brown code-deciphering authoress should just take Tolkien at his word when he says:

"I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about."

And in that regard, use the advice Tolkien gave to an over-eager correspondent:

"As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being far too serious."

I tend to think in this case it is over thinking Bombadil as well.

And... As for the ring disappearing???

Really?

Would no one in Middle-earth be capable of simple slight-of-hand?

And that isn't the only explanation for the person who literally commands the Ontological Identification (What things Are) of Middle-earth.

I still think Shippey's explanation fits the best.

It even applies when dealing with why he is confined to such a small area (Goldberry is the primarily answer).

Shippey skirts around the issue of Archetypes here as well, as what he is describing of Tom Bombadil is an Archetype (First Man, The Namer, . . . ).

As for Tolkien using Allegory. Tolkien addressed that in several places, indicating that there is a difference between Allegory and Significance.

Letter 203:

That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability.

Or.

From Letter 215:

I do not like allegory (properly so called: most readers appear to confuse it with significance or applicability

And he deals specifically with Allegory with respect to Tom Bombadil in Letter 153, he says of Tom Bombadil.:

He is then ... a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture .

It was from this, and from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil that Tom Shippey got the idea of Bombadil as "First Man" (Do not confuse "Man" here with Human - First Man is an Archetype, or a form of Mythic Personification, and not a human being, or any other form of Child of Ilúvatar, in the terms of Middle-earth).

Tom Shippey was not well educated in Campbell's work (not wholly ignorant of it, I understand, but not deeply studied).

I am.

And when I read Shippey's account (Echoed elsewhere by other Tolkien Scholars), I immediately recalled from Campbell's The Masks of God, vol. 1: Primitive Mythology the various accounts of the First Man and other such spirits whose job it is is to simply know "What is." (The Ontology of the World).

So it is not that people are "allergic" to Allegory WRT Tolkien's works.

It is that Tolkien himself utterly rejected it as a conscious application.

And what this girl is describing in her attempts to force an allegorical explanation onto Tom Bombadil (one that Tolkien has already held-forth upon) is to claim that Tolkien consciously and intentionally wrote an Allegory, where Tolkien has utterly rejected that.

This makes Tolkien a liar, at worst, and deluded, at best.

Why would there be an INTENTIONAL allegory in Tolkien's works where he has explicitly rejected it?

MB

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Digging deep is something I enjoy. And Tom Bombadil as I have said before is a particularly interesting character. Though I am quite aware that not everyone think's the same way.

I know a lot of us who have studied Tolkien' works, correspondences, biography's etc in depth – think that we know the professor quite well. But do we really? I prefer to have an open mind on the 'Dan Brown' connection. Those that knew Tolkien best were certainly his own family and I take particular heed of their words. From Priya Seth's essay:

“I had a lot of fun times with my grandfather … We played endless word games and I asked him innumerable questions about Middle Earth…”
– J.R.R. Tolkien’s Grandson (Simon Tolkien): In my Grandfather’s Footsteps, Huffington Post, 26 April 2010

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”
– The Life and Works of J.R.R. Tolkien as experienced by a grandson (Michael Tolkien), Leicester College Lecture, October 19th 1995

Also from one that worked closely with him on his mythology; again from Priya Seth's essay:

“… 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

Tolkien was seemingly a fairly private person and was reluctant to tell too much; once more from Priya Seth's essay:

"I feel diffident, reluctant as it were to expose my world of imagination to possibly contemptuous eyes and ears.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 282

I don't think there's anything wrong pursuing an academic look at Bombadil from a puzzle standpoint. There seems to more there than anything Dan Brown could factually lay his hands on in the Da Vinci Code.




Marwhini

Tom has immense power. That is quite clear. There was no 'sleight of hand' in putting the Ring on his little finger – at least I have never heard that suggested before. Nor does there appear to have been one in warding off the rain.

You are quite right to point out that Tom could have used 'sleight of hand' in the Ring toss. But to me it doesn't make much sense to mix 'street tricks' in with other exhibitions of 'raw power'. The hypothesis of using 'a different plane of reality' to make the Ring disappear makes more sense. Particularly as Tolkien (when discussing TB in his 1964 letter to Professor Mroczkowski - as Priya Seth points out) alludes to such a solution through:

“… the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another … part of the deeply felt idea that I had …”.

I have never seen any decent discussion on what he really meant by these words – apart from Priya Seth's theory. Have you?

On the matter of Tolkien calling Tom an 'allegory' – it is there in black and white. Is it the truth or is it not?

What would an independent party (unbiased and who had no knowledge of TLotR) conclude?

On one side we have a bunch of statements that talk about the tale in general which deny allegorical content. And on the other we have a letter that specifically tells us Tom is 'allegory'. And furthermore another later that basically tells us that Tom is an exception to the rules.

Hmm … I know which way I would judge. But there again I am probably biased!

To me – there is every reason why its academically right to investigate the possibility of some sort of 'cover-up'. Of course there also exists the possibility there were just some honest moments of forgetfulness when Tolkien denied 'allegory'. I think it's a step too far to call him 'a liar' or 'deluded'. But undeniably there are conflicting statements – on what I believe is a crucial matter.

[Barrel-rider]

I don't think he was lying in denying allegory, like you said, but I also think that his works are fantasy stories with "real" figures in them. The reason I put "real" in quotation marks is because, Eru Illuvatar was to him another name for the Biblical God. If Eru Illuvatar was just another name for the Biblical God, then can't Tom be just another name for himself, or in the very least a kindred spirit?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"Balfrog" just never gives up.

I can't wait to see how Opus Dei and the Illuminati figure into this.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

Digging deep is something I enjoy. And Tom Bombadil as I have said before is a particularly interesting character. Though I am quite aware that not everyone think's the same way.

I know a lot of us who have studied Tolkien' works, correspondences, biography's etc in depth – think that we know the professor quite well. But do we really? I prefer to have an open mind on the 'Dan Brown' connection. Those that knew Tolkien best were certainly his own family and I take particular heed of their words. From Priya Seth's essay:

“I had a lot of fun times with my grandfather … We played endless word games and I asked him innumerable questions about Middle Earth…”
– J.R.R. Tolkien’s Grandson (Simon Tolkien): In my Grandfather’s Footsteps, Huffington Post, 26 April 2010

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”
– The Life and Works of J.R.R. Tolkien as experienced by a grandson (Michael Tolkien), Leicester College Lecture, October 19th 1995

Also from one that worked closely with him on his mythology; again from Priya Seth's essay:

“… 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

Tolkien was seemingly a fairly private person and was reluctant to tell too much; once more from Priya Seth's essay:

"I feel diffident, reluctant as it were to expose my world of imagination to possibly contemptuous eyes and ears.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 282

I don't think there's anything wrong pursuing an academic look at Bombadil from a puzzle standpoint. There seems to more there than anything Dan Brown could factually lay his hands on in the Da Vinci Code.




Marwhini

Tom has immense power. That is quite clear. There was no 'sleight of hand' in putting the Ring on his little finger – at least I have never heard that suggested before. Nor does there appear to have been one in warding off the rain.

You are quite right to point out that Tom could have used 'sleight of hand' in the Ring toss. But to me it doesn't make much sense to mix 'street tricks' in with other exhibitions of 'raw power'. The hypothesis of using 'a different plane of reality' to make the Ring disappear makes more sense. Particularly as Tolkien (when discussing TB in his 1964 letter to Professor Mroczkowski - as Priya Seth points out) alludes to such a solution through:

“… the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another … part of the deeply felt idea that I had …”.

I have never seen any decent discussion on what he really meant by these words – apart from Priya Seth's theory. Have you?

On the matter of Tolkien calling Tom an 'allegory' – it is there in black and white. Is it the truth or is it not?

What would an independent party (unbiased and who had no knowledge of TLotR) conclude?

On one side we have a bunch of statements that talk about the tale in general which deny allegorical content. And on the other we have a letter that specifically tells us Tom is 'allegory'. And furthermore another later that basically tells us that Tom is an exception to the rules.

Hmm … I know which way I would judge. But there again I am probably biased!

To me – there is every reason why its academically right to investigate the possibility of some sort of 'cover-up'. Of course there also exists the possibility there were just some honest moments of forgetfulness when Tolkien denied 'allegory'. I think it's a step too far to call him 'a liar' or 'deluded'. But undeniably there are conflicting statements – on what I believe is a crucial matter.

Occam's Razor would in this case incise the incredulity of Ms. Priya's postulation down to laughable bits of hocus-pocus with less prestidigtation than Bombadil's parlor trick.

The simple, elegant solutions are either, as Marwhini reiterated from Shippey and suffused with Campbell, that Tolkien intended Tom to be a representation of the "First Man", with the attendant naming capabilities and mythological motifs inherent in real-world folklore, or as I stated in more than one instance, that we take Tolkien at his word that Bombadil is an external manifestation, a character Tolkien simply wanted to add to Middle-earth because of his significance to things the writer felt important and which were not reflected in the story otherwise.

In either case, there is no jumping through hoops and contorting in all manner of tortured mental gymnastics to define Bombadil. There are ample direct references to who and what Tolkien believed Bombadil to be that do not require a Templar conspiracy or elaborate coded messages to make an informed conclusion about the character.

Tolkien's son, Christopher, has never made mention of any hidden ciphers in his father's work. Why wouldn't he, given that he compiled a mammoth 12 volume recapitulation of Middle-earth writings? Why would no one, like Shippey, who actually worked with the Tolkien Family, publish a book about such a secretive literary phenomenon that would set Tolkien's work on its ear and alter the very concepts we once thought were clear (and sell several million copies in the process)?

To make these mental leaps (and in the process, as others have inferred, calling Tolkien either a blatant liar or hopelessly deluded), one must ignore what Tolkien said about Bombadil and instead rely on quotes that do not refer to Tom directly, and in turn ignore everything Tolkien stated about allegory, applicability and significance, while fashioning an alternate universe in which Tolkien has by design sought to directly mislead everyone about his intentions.

But back to Occam's razor and simplicity of design. The assertions of Ms. Seth requires an abandonment of reason that I am unwilling to make. And in regards to your continued and incessant disemboguing of Priya Seth's daft theory, Balfrog, I can only quote Shakepeare: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you, avoid it.

[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?