Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer !

[Nerwen]

What, this is still going?

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen

To be fair – the author did specifically request the reader hold of on criticism until the article was finished (see end of Intro in Part I). Yes the article is very long. Having been broken into four sections – I can understand why the the author might have wanted some restraint given the amount of new stuff to digest. In this instance, I think it's only natural that the author would want to be given an honest trial.

Of course, but the fact remains that you- not the author- started this thread in order to ask for our "thoughts" on the then-incomplete article. But that is beside the point now, except that I'd say that the rest of the article is anyway much as I might have expected from the first part.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

Yes lol - “not another bloody elf” or in this case not 'another bloody anagram' ! Sounds just like Tolkien!

I certainly sympathize with the OTT thing on the anagrams. The only one I felt was 'good' was the “wag” one related to the cut-out. Nevertheless – in trying to be balanced – hiding stuff in literature is pretty difficult – and if Tolkien did so (as Priya Seth contends), then I can see there being at least one anagram in the novel. It's interesting that the most of the anagrams had some sort of signaturization involved – which does help credence a little bit!

In my mind there is definitely something suspicious about the 'Balrog cut-out'. The author seems to strongly suggest that Tolkien thought a lot more about his monster than many give him credit for. As for Tolkien's monogram – her point is well taken – if some of it's a puzzle then perhaps the rest of it is too!

I was kind of surprised that you didn't think that the allegory revelations and all that ensued from them was 'intriguing' enough. After all, there is an awful lot of stuff in Parts I, II & III that is 'new' – even without considering the anagram angle in Part IV.

The trouble with these "anagrams": if you're a fantasy author, you don't need to construct your anagrams out of pre-existing words and names- why, then, the tortuous grammar of "Warn Bilbo and Frodo I be a Maia – Mr Ronald T"?

Originally Posted by Balfrog

To be fair to Jallanite – I did take a step back and reconsider whether this theory was not up to par with others. I've posted something very similar on the 'Plaza' but in my opinion – it is.

One of the points I want to make is that after pondering the legitimacy of Priya Seth's article – I have come to the conclusion that it is pretty well grounded. In comparing it to two of the most well known theories about Tom Bombadil – I think that it actually has a better foundation than those. The one's that I am thinking of are:

(I) Gene Hargrove's - Who is Tom Bombadil?
(II) Steuard Jensen's - What is Tom Bombadil?

Hargrove's theory revolves around Tom being a Vala – namely Aule. Yet he freely admits all “the evidence is circumstantial”. For there is nothing in Tolkien's writings that explicitly links Tom to be a Vala let alone Aule.

Similarly Jensen admits that Tolkien does not ever define a class of beings as explicitly Nature Spirits.
He quite honestly points out that any evidence pre-Lotr is shaky, including Tolkien's mention of “Sprites” in the Lost Tales and the “spirit of the … Oxford and Berkshire countryside” per Letter #19.

In contrast Priya Seth's theory of Tom being an allegory of the 'Audience/Orchestra' of a mentally conceived play, to me, is more solid because of:

(a) Letter# 153, which was written after FotR and where Tolkien explicitly states that Tom “is an allegory”
(b) Tolkien stressing 'allegory' in Letter # 153 through the use of quotation marks.

W can argue what type of allegory (and whether Tolkien left it vague deliberately) later because I can sympathize with Priya that Tolkien was reluctant to play his full hand. I certainly don't want to argue with the man from his grave. But if he himself said that Tom was an 'allegory' then that should be good enough to be able to construct a theory around.

Moreover Priya's theory is further enhanced because of usage of quotes from the 1964 Mroczkowski letter. We should not forget that there are at least a couple of letters involving Tom that both Hargrove's and Jensen's theories have not been updated for.

Given all of the above, I do not really see how anyone can reasonably argue that Priya Seth's theory is not valid, and doesn't deserve to stand alongside others.

Meaning those two only? Isn't this basically what the Wikipedia lot call an "other stuff exists" argument?

[Balfrog]

Nerwen



What, this is still going?

Yep – Bombadil is interesting for sure! But part of the issue is my abysmal delays in responding or posting 'evidence'. Unfortunately I have only been able to spare odd moments once in a while.


Of course, but the fact remains that you- not the author- started this thread in order to ask for our "thoughts" on the then-incomplete article. But that is beside the point now, except that I'd say that the rest of the article is anyway much as I might have expected from the first part.


Agreed. I had hoped that some courtesy would have been extended as the author requested.


The trouble with these "anagrams": if you're a fantasy author, you don't need to construct your anagrams out of pre-existing words and names- why, then, the tortuous grammar of "Warn Bilbo and Frodo I be a Maia – Mr Ronald T"?

Good point and question. I don't know the answer for sure – but perhaps its something individual to his psyche. I can only re-iterate two quotes that stand out in Priya's essay from Tolkien's grandchildren that are:

He played endless word games with me and did the Telegraph cross.

He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.


I must say that 'the anagram' doesn't seem too 'tortuous' to me.


Meaning those two only? Isn't this basically what the Wikipedia lot call an "other stuff exists" argument?

Not sure what you are getting at here???? Yes, for sure different theories on Bombadil abound. In terms of what Priya Seth has produced, its definitely 'other stuff'. Because I can't find anything like it elsewhere.




Anyway getting back to Tolkien and lateral thinking: an interesting piece of information I dug out that highlights that Tolkien's could imagine his world allegorically - is the very early sketch of a Viking Ship:




This idea appears to have been rejected, but in light of this - the world imagined as a theater in a which a play is conducted doesn't really seem that far-fetched!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What, this is still going?

Yes, and I believe the anagram for "What, this is still going?" can be translated into Sindarin with a translation back into Westron as "Wash, rinse, repeat."

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Yes, and I believe the anagram for "What, this is still going?" can be translated into Sindarin with a translation back into Westron as "Wash, rinse, repeat."

And it's all so unnecessary. Here is the clear answer to the Bombadil conundrum.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

And it's all so unnecessary. Here is the clear answer to the Bombadil conundrum.

hahahahah *high five* - no, Inziladun, he wasn't the Witchking, he ate the Witchking. It's foretold in the Second Prophesy of Ungoliant, when Galadriel's daughter, Celebrian is proved to be an Orc. After Ungoliant vomits up the Silmaril and Sauron's eye is restored (by Unsight). Thence Ezellohar will spring for forth Morgoth, who shall vomit up the poison Ungoliant left behind.

--serious--

I've joined this late, but have been reading. It's an oldie but a goodie. Some say, even Bombadil was Eru (I've never bought that theory). Maia seems most likely. An immunity to the Ring seems to mean of greater Stature than Sauron, hence comments at the Counsel "he wouldn't understand the need".

Three words:

Immunity
Enigma
Nonchalance

And Deus Ex Machina. Why? Just an idea, Frodo's dream of Valinor near to Tom, who is Eldest.....And I'll suffix "yet in Middle Earth". Seemed to have been around when the Kelvar and Olvar were fashioned. The first acorn and raindrop thing.

Interesting article, in the opening post.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Not sure what you are getting at here???? Yes, for sure different theories on Bombadil abound. In terms of what Priya Seth has produced, its definitely 'other stuff'. Because I can't find anything like it elsewhere.

My apologies if I wasn't clear. What I was meant is that at #32 you are, seemingly, trying to deflect criticism of Priya Seth's theory by pointing out that other, unrelated theories have flaws.

[Balfrog]

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.

[Faramir Jones]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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.

I think you made a mistake here with Fastitocalon, Balfrog. Sam is nowhere mentioned in connection with that poem; but he is in relation to Perry-the-Winkle and Cat. According to Tolkien in his role as 'editor':

No. 8 [Perry-the-Winkle] is marked SG, and the ascription may be accepted. No. 12 [Cat] is also marked SG, though at most Sam can only have touched up an older piece of the comic bestiary lore of which Hobbits appear to have been fond.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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.

But it's not Tolkien's allegory:

Originally Posted by JRRT

The poem on Fastitocalon is not like Cat and Oliphaunt my own invention entirely but a reduced and rewritten form, to suit hobbit fancy, of an item in old 'bestiaries'. I think it was remarkable that you perceived the Greekness of the name through its corruptions. This I took in fact from a fragment of an Anglo-Saxon bestiary that has survived, thinking that it sounded comic and absurd enough to serve as a hobbit alteration of something more learned and elvish

(...)


The notion of the treacherous island that is really a monster seems to derive from the East: the marine turtles enlarged by myth-making fancy; and I left it at that. But in Europe the monster becomes mixed up with whales, and already in the Anglo-Saxon? version he is given whale characteristics, such as feeding by trawling with an open mouth. In moralized bestiaries he is, of course, an allegory of the Devil, and is so used by Milton.

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.

Hope I'm making sense here!