Bombadil

[Chrysophylax Dives]

The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. (Karl Marx)

How can we have a plaza without a Bombadil thread? Let's start where others left off. Here is a post from our @Troelsfo on the old plaza, from 31 December 2014, one of the last posts ever made on the thread 'Peeling the Onion'.

As I see it, there has been three viable positions on the nature of Tom (and implicitly of Goldberry):

1. Tom is a deliberate enigma, not supposed to be understood.
(a) One variant of this position (variant a) would hold that it is possible that Tolkien did have a specific nature in mind, but it is rather pointless to attempt discover this, and it doesn't add anything meaningful to our understanding of Tolkien's work to attempt it.
(b) Another variant of this position would hold that Tolkien never did settle on a native Middle-earth nature for Tom, and such speculation is therefore meaningless foolishness. Instead we should focus attention on the role that Tom plays within the story.

2. Tom is an Ainu of some description (not necessarily a Maia, since there is some evidence indicating that Valar and Maiar are not the only orders of Ainur found in Eä).

3. Tom is a nature spirit of some sort.

Such was state of the art plaza wisdom 9 years ago. I do not assume that Troels still holds to this. As with my SWG post on Shippey, I am delving into the past, which must be seen for what it was if it is to provide a foundation for building anything new. Everyone changes their mind - or if they do not, something is wrong.

Confronting this wisdom of 2014 today, I have two fundamental criticisms. These are not so much directed at what Troels says as what I discern as the presuppositions of old plaza Lore nearly a decade ago, which inform what he says. (And let me underline, it is not as if nine years ago I had better answers. Criticism is just the mode of proper scholarly advance - it is what we actually do when we comment on a Lore post.)

1. "the nature of Tom (and implicitly of Goldberry)" - Goldberry is Goldberry and not implicit to anything or anybody. Editing 'Peeling the Onion' I observed that halfir insists that of the pair it is only Bombadil who sings, which is a simple error contradicted by the text - but nobody pointed out this error in a comment.

2. HoMe 6 had not penetrated into the minds of this community. HoMe 6, 'Return of the Shadow', gives the early drafts of the story to Rivendell and is quoted and discussed a fair amount in 'Peeling the Onion' - but with no notion whatsoever of what it really is and how it must be read.

What HoMe 6 shows is that prior to 1940 the new Hobbit story was not the story of the War of the Rings but something initially much more like (in size and character) the original story of Bilbo Baggins. It also demonstrates that the Bombadil section was composed rapidly and with very few revisions (relatively speaking), indicating that Tolkien knew exactly what he wanted to do when he first sat down to write this part of the story - in contrast to all the rest of the story to Rivendell, which was revised again and again and again.

History is often a solution to metaphysical riddles. Bombadil is an enigma primarily because he was composed for a story that changed around him, thereby indirectly changing him with it. One can start with Tolkien in the 1950s and ask all these 'secondary world' questions about nature spirits and Maia and all that, but without first establishing the meaning of the basic chronology of composition the result will be barren and sterile.

[Saranna]

Instead of going back to check 'Peeling the Onion,' I found this post by @Chrysophylax Dives took me away from Bombadil to another example of a character whose position is hard to define within the subcreated world. If you know Joy Chant's 'Red Moon and Black Mountain' (1970, Allen and Unwin) you will know it as one of the better of the post-Tolkienian tales published in a flood of reaction by authors and desire for profit by publishers. Much of the tale shows the influence of Tolkien, and the question of the identity of The Borderer, which arises from the moment the character appears, is a notable one. 'Oh he's a sort of Bombadil' was my immediate reaction, and no doubt that was true for many readers, although the resemblance is not 100% by any means. But in this case the author explains the mystery; The Borderer's mother was Starborn, but his father was not, and so he is devoid of the Star Magic that his cousins wield, as after all in 1970 we couldn't have a magical, mystical descent carried through a female. I am sure you may all find this a rambling journey to nowhere, but this matter of characters carrying a bloodline that establishes them as between 'ordinary' and 'high' does seem to persist in Fantasy fiction. perhaps it goes deeper than that in lived reality too, people get inordinately excited if they find they can 'trace their ancestry back' to William the Conqueror or suchlike. For Tolkien the inheritance and persistence of the 'High' genetic links from Maia and Elf 'down' to humanity seems one of the greatest drives characterising the Long Defeat. Yet he loved and dwelt upon at length these two characters, Bombadil and Goldberry, who stand quite outside that theme, as does the River Woman. Is their function to abide, to always be there, while every other kind of being fades away? If so, I wish I could find them!

[Priya]

Hello Chrysophylax Dives

Despite what most folk have come to believe, Bombadil is fully explainable.
As the only named TLotR character worthy of C.S. Lewis’s praise - he was singled out as the pinnacle of Tolkien’s inventive skill:

“In two virtues I think it excels: sheer sub-creation—Bombadil, Barrow Wights, Elves, Ents—as if from inexhaustible resources, and construction ...” - October 1949.

But despite the passage of 80 years, all of Tolkien’s readers have failed to understand this complex character primarily for two reasons:

(a) Vital clues have been missed,
(b) A failure to employ lateral thinking.

halfir, of course, knew there were many layers to this being - all credit to him; but much was overlooked. I am only going to touch on one aspect of Bombadil’s multifaceted persona in this post - but I think/hope that some of the readers of this thread will start to reconsider and concede the ‘enigma’ might just have a solution!


Dates important to Christianity

Tolkien pointed out in Nomenclature of TLotR that December 25th (Xmas Day) and March 25th (Lady Day) were symbolically included to be of significance in the story; a kind of foreshadowing of the ‘great news’ to come:

“But December 25 (setting out) and March 25 (accomplishment of the quest) were intentionally chosen by me.”

But what has been missed is another important one, namely Michaelmas Day - September 29th - the date in our world where Christians revere God’s mighty archangel: Michael.

September 29th 3018 was the day Bombadil appeared at the Barrow and cast the demon from his home. With imagery of a saintly aureole at its entrance - Tolkien enciphered Bombadil with a St. Michael*/Satan/heaven parallel:

“... there was Tom's head (hat, feather, and all) framed against the light of the sun rising red behind him.”

We must note, that he too acted like a Christian saint when Frodo called his name for aid. And it was no accident that Tolkien chose this date. Nor the date of Gandalf’s departure from Middle-earth exactly 3 years later on September 29th 3021. This particular day was meant not to be forgotten - and would be one which would be celebrated in Christianity down through the ages as ‘The Feast of St. Michael and All Angels’.

‘St. Michael and All Angels Church’, Lambourn
South side of the church sketched by J.R.R. Tolkien in August 1912

Gandalf was an ‘angelic’ being, and the meeting of the two greatest persons remaining in Middle-earth after fulfillment of the quest was another date to be hallowed by Catholics in our history.

The date of November 1st 3019, the first full day** meeting/discussion between Gandalf and Bombadil was another ‘foreshadowing’, and a day to be venerated in our history as ‘All Saints Day’.

Both Gandalf & Bombadil were implicated to be the same kind of being with the modern day proverb of: A rolling stone gathers no moss’; i.e. - having both being analogously likened to ‘stones’:

“I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil: such a talk as I have not had in all my time. He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling.”

The evidence is too substantial. The odds are minuscule that the embedded dates are co-incidence. The symbolism is too strong:

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

Both Bombadil** and Gandalf were ‘angelic’ beings (of the Ainur) for the mythology - that is my conclusion!



* No, No, No - not the Archangel himself; rather the source of many legends and apocrypha in our world about him.

** Following the pattern set by the hobbits - for a late arrival by Gandalf the day before ought to have been occupied with freshening-up, food and courtesy banter.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Michaelmas Day - September 29th - the date in our world where Christians revere God’s mighty archangel: Michael.

September 29th 3018 was the day Bombadil appeared at the Barrow and cast the demon from his home. With imagery of a saintly aureole at its entrance - Tolkien enciphered Bombadil with a St. Michael/Satan/heaven parallel:

“... there was Tom's head (hat, feather, and all) framed against the light of the sun rising red behind him.”

We must note, that he too acted like a Christian saint when Frodo called his name for aid.

Priya, thank you very much. As always, your posts are original and make for a fascinating read. I am very interested in the parallel that you draw between Christian saints and characters in the story whose name is called upon for aid. Later in the story other names seem to be called upon so (e.g. Gandalf in Edoras calls the name of Galadriel when confronting Wormtongue, or Sam calling on Elbereth in Cirith Ungol). But Bombadil actually appears when his name is called, which Galadriel does but only once (when Sam and Frodo speak her name), and obviously Elbereth does not. How do you explain the differences? What is distinctive to Bombadil here?

Your conclusion that Bombadil and Gandalf were both "‘angelic’ beings (of the Ainur)" may be right. But it seems to me only in retrospect, as in this is how Tolkien came to see Bombadil after he had already written the Bombadil chapters. As noted on my OP, these chapters were written before the new Hobbit story was incorporated into the wider world of the legendarium, before Gandalf was ever conceived as an angelic being.

But the thing that I have real difficulty with is the identification of Bombadil with Saint Michael. Possibly, as a dragon by choice of user name, I am biased here, for the image above is hard for me to look at without a shudder of fear and revulsion in the face of a reminder of the violence meeted out to our kind in days gone by from the hands of so-called 'saints' - Saint George being another of these dragon-slaying reprobates.

Putting my own biases aside, it sill seems hard to picture Bombadil as a dragon-killer. He does banish the barrow-wight, but on the whole his way seems all about non-violence and non-intervention. On Wikipedia I find: "In Roman Catholic teachings, Saint Michael has four main roles or offices. His first role is the leader of the Army of God and the leader of heaven's forces in their triumph over the powers of hell..." Various characters from Tolkien's stories might be said to fit this role, but surely not Bombadil?

Still deeply disturbed by the image above, please forgive me for pasting some verses from a song about the evils of dragon-slaying in an attempt to wash my mind free of the image of an armed saint with wings dealing out death to a beautiful dragon.

We heard her scream we heard her die
We heard the knight's triumphant cry
Our hearts beat faster we locked our doors
Blind eyes turned let the battle take its course

Pastor Skull threw up his hands
Wept for the worm on the silver sands
Turned to the knight and cursed him through
May God forgive for I will never do

Gallows-bait sneer in his bully-boy's eye
We watched the knight go riding by
In shame at his sport was the village renamed
Wormingford t'was called and so remains

[Chrysophylax Dives]

For Tolkien the inheritance and persistence of the 'High' genetic links from Maia and Elf 'down' to humanity seems one of the greatest drives characterising the Long Defeat. Yet he loved and dwelt upon at length these two characters, Bombadil and Goldberry, who stand quite outside that theme, as does the River Woman. Is their function to abide, to always be there, while every other kind of being fades away? If so, I wish I could find them!

"Is their function to abide, to always be there, while every other kind of being fades away?"

I really like that. At least, it speaks to me quite deeply. Everything in Tolkien is genealogical, from words and stories to peoples. Goldberry has a mother, but Tom is aboriginal - ab origine, from the beginning. And it seems to me of vital significance that they live together as man and wife and yet have no children. They are not part of the world in the same way that everything and everyone else is, and as the generations come and go they simple abide, local spirits of some little corner of the earth and the river that flows through it.

[Priya]

Chrysophylax Dives


Oh dear, oh dear. What a faux pas! The red sun aureole was my focus, and I foolishly lost sight that I might hurt your feelings. Apologies galore - but let’s not let any ill-feeling drag on!

Especially as St. Michael was even celebrated in your very own tale: Farmer Giles of Ham!



A couple of things worth emphasizing:

(a) As I stated at the end of my last post, Tom is not St. Michael surreptitiously inserted into Middle-earth. That would constitute allegory - a matter strictly out of bounds for Tolkien.
(b) Looks and might don’t always equate in Tolkien’s world. A rather shabby, wrinkly old fellow obviously possessed great power.
(c) Bombadil acts when he needs to. He isn’t a pacifist - after all he ‘maimed’ Old Man Willow, along with conducting a forceful barrow eviction.

I want to try and answer your question on why Tom appeared when called (while others failed to always do so). However, it is bound up with how he managed the feat practically instantaneously. I prefer to save such discussion for a future post; when it might make sense, after some necessary foundation work.

I agree with you that Bombadil evolved. But I think the timeline is somewhat uncertain. For those ‘Bombadil chapters’, I find substantial differences in what Christopher supplied in HoMe text and that of the final form. And though HoMe is of interest - it is the final text which is most valuable. It’s those irrefutable dates in the finished product which to me - are of immense significance in the quest for understanding Bombadil. Either we have to accept them or dismiss them as coincidence. But I totally understand that more evidence would help sway minds.

Why is it that the 29th September spans across more chapters in The Fellowship of the Ring, than any other day? If Michaelmas Day and the Archangel were of such importance - surely Tolkien would have left other clues? And there must have been a purpose, surely?

Before I get much deeper in exploring those clues and connections to St. Michael, I’m going to briefly touch on:


Flower Lore

Because, I think Tolkien used such a means to link his feigned world to ours, and in particular - to our archangel Michael. There’s a rather curious two-part word Bombadil sang about:

“Light goes the weather-wind and the feathered starling.” (my underlined emphasis)

What exactly is ‘weather-wind’?

No, ‘weather-wind’ had no direct correlation to ‘windy weather’ as most of us might presume. Once again exploited was:

“… a boundless store of knowledge about trees and plants.”
– Tolkien: A biography, Northmoor Road, pg. 160, H. Carpenter, 1977

Because it was commonly employed English plant names that I think Tolkien had in mind:

“Stachys Sylvatica, … Archangel*, … Cow’s Weatherwind, … Withywind (Cow’s).”
– A Dictionary of English Plant-names, Index – pg. 612, J. Britten & F. Holland, 1886

*Supposedly, the herb’s commonly used ‘archangel’ title stems from its revelation to Mattaeus ‘Sylvaticus’ (physician of Mantua, Lombardy, Italy, died 1342) of its medicinal virtues by an Archangel.

At this point it’s worth recalling Tom beside the Withywindle:

“... charging though grass and rushes like a cow going down to drink”. (my underlined emphasis)

Had Tolkien tied in Tom to the Archangel, Withywindle and a cow - all through flower lore? Lore whose true origins are lost in antiquity? And what was behind the inclusion of a cow? Is there a deeper underlying framework present in the text?

.......


Now for those interested in horticulture, a source of great pleasure and pride for the average Englishman (Tolkien included), might have wondered what exactly were those flowers, so late in the year, blooming in Tom’s garden:

“Near at hand was a flower-garden and a clipped hedge silver-netted, …”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Michaelmas daisies would have been a fair guess. For as the traditional rhyme goes – not much else blossoms at this particular time:

“The Michaelmas Daisies, amonge dead weeds,
Bloom for St Michael’s valorous deeds. …
And seems the last of flowers that stood,
Till the Feast of St. Simon and St. Jude, …”.
– A Handbook of Weather Folk-lore, On Various Saints’ Days – pg. 264, C. Swainson, 1873 (The Feast of St. Simon and Jude is 28 October)

Hmm ... a lot of ideas to ponder on!

Maybe things will soon become clearer - because there's much more to come ...

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Chrysophylax Dives

Oh dear, oh dear. What a faux pas! The red sun aureole was my focus, and I foolishly lost sight that I might hurt your feelings. Apologies galore - but let’s not let any ill-feeling drag on!

Especially as St. Michael was even celebrated in your very own tale: Farmer Giles of Ham!

My dear Priya, no ill feelings whatsoever! Aside from everything else, I could never feel ill will to one who knows the tale of Farmer Giles. I will read the rest of your post (and those to come) with due care and attention.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Chrysophylax Dives

(c) Bombadil acts when he needs to. He isn’t a pacifist - after all he ‘maimed’ Old Man Willow, along with conducting a forceful barrow eviction.

I want to try and answer your question on why Tom appeared when called (while others failed to always do so). However, it is bound up with how he managed the feat practically instantaneously. I prefer to save such discussion for a future post; when it might make sense, after some necessary foundation work.

I agree with you that Bombadil evolved. But I think the timeline is somewhat uncertain. For those ‘Bombadil chapters’, I find substantial differences in what Christopher supplied in HoMe text and that of the final form. And though HoMe is of interest - it is the final text which is most valuable. It’s those irrefutable dates in the finished product which to me - are of immense significance in the quest for understanding Bombadil. Either we have to accept them or dismiss them as coincidence. But I totally understand that more evidence would help sway minds.

Priya, I am working slowly through your post. First, thank you for taking seriously my question about why Tom appeared when called - I will wait patiently and look forward to reading your explanation.

On the Home vs final text. I think we may simply have different perspectives on how to read the story. I'd be happy to discuss this further. If you can spare the time, I'd be interested to see what are the substantial differences that you refer to. From memory, I recall that the notion of Tom's realm as bounded and limited was imposed afterwards, but I am not sure there is much else.

On the pacificism, well in the famous 1954 letter Bombadil does seem to be cast as an embodiment of pacificism:

Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends.

[Priya]

Now taking another look at some of Tom’s poetry, one can reasonably conclude that the early part of this particular song is directed at Goldberry:

Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! My darling!
Light goes the weather-wind and the feathered starling.
Down along under Hill, shining in the sunlight,
Waiting on the doorstep for the cold starlight,
There my pretty lady is, River-woman's daughter,
Slender as the willow-wand, clearer than the water.
Old Tom Bombadil water-lilies bringing
Comes hopping home again. Can you hear him singing?
Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! and merry-o,
Goldberry, Goldberry, merry yellow berry-o!
Poor old Willow-man, you tuck your roots away!
Tom's in a hurry now. Evening will follow day.
Tom's going home home again water-lilies bringing.
Hey! come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?

Most of it is intelligible (apart from the merry dol / derry dol), but that curious sentence I’ve underlined seems a tad out of place. It too seems to be somewhat nonsensical.

But was Tom just expressing his love for Goldberry with imagery? Imagery using nature, perhaps?

It’s curious that the commonly-named ‘Archangel’ plant has leaves (serrated though they are - see previous post) which are ‘heart-shaped’. And the feathered starling too has ‘heart’ mottling!

Hmm ... the ‘heart’, an iconic and traditional manifestation of love! Was this then, a meaningful insertion reflecting Tolkien’s intent? Is that how we were meant to shed ‘light’ on Tom’s words?
Or is it all just a coincidence?

.....

Lastly for this post - I want to bring attention to Goldberry’s forget-me-nots. For they too might have had a connection to an angel which Tolkien may have known about (though I have no specific evidence).

The Persian poet Shiraz relates the following tale regarding the origin of the forget-me-not. Echoes of Tom and Goldberry are found in the story, don’t you think?

“It was in the golden morning of the early world, when an angel sat weeping outside the closed gates of Eden. He had fallen from his high estate through loving a daughter of the earth, nor was he permitted to enter again until she whom he loved had planted the flowers of the forget-me-not in every corner of the world. He returned to earth and assisted her, and they went hand-in-hand over the world planting the forget-me-not. When their task was ended, they entered Paradise together; for the fair woman, without tasting the bitterness of death, became immortal like the angel, whose love her beauty had won, when she sat by the river twining the forget-me-not in her hair.”
– The Folk-lore of Plants, Chapter XXII, Plants and their Legendary History – pg. 308, T.F. Thiselton-Dyer, 1889 (my underlined emphasis)




Hello Chrysophylax Dives

That letter, at first sight looks rather incriminating - I wholeheartedly agree.

“... but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, ...”.


However, I think what Tolkien was trying to do was analogize a secret ‘allegorical’ role that he assigned Tom. Just as I believe Tom didn’t actually take a ‘vow of poverty’, neither was he a true ‘pacifist’ - although his covert designated role would expect him to be a ‘natural’ one. This letter and one to Premyslaw Mroczkowski in 1964 are key to fitting together crucial puzzle pieces and understanding a remarkable piece of creativity.

I know I’m coming across as clear as mud, and I know my cryptic talk might be a bit frustrating - but I promise I’ll eventually get to Tom’s unique covert role in roughly the sequence given below.


Tom’s connectivity to:

(a) Christian Calendar dates & the archangel Michael ✓
(b) Flower Lore ✓
(c) Folklore of the British Isles & the archangel Michael
(d) The New Testament of the Bible
(e) The Old Testament of the Bible
(f) Household Fairy tales (Lower mythologies)
(g) Legendary Gods - Lugh, Lleu, Esus, Mercury (Higher mythologies)
(h) Color mixing & Resulting Implications
(i) Secret allegorical roles
(j) Legendary Welsh Bard - Taliesin


In any case, it’s difficult for me to reconcile Tom being a ‘true’ pacifist - especially after his graphic verbal attack on the willow-wren. From Bombadil goes Boating (with my underlined emphasis):

No names, you tell-tale, or I’ll skin and eat you,
babbling in every ear things that don’t concern you!
If you tell Willow-man where I’ve gone, I’ll burn you,
Roast you on a willow-spit. That’ll end your prying!’

Idle threats or not, no peace-loving being would talk to another sentient creature using such savage language describing an awfully gruesome demise - and be classified a pacifist, surely?

Also, would you mind terribly if I defer discussion of Bombadillian differences in HoMe to the final text - to a later date?

[Saranna]

Quote from @Chrysophylax Dives ' I really like that.'

I am very pleased to come back after a couple of weeks feeling unable to think, write or get off the sofa to find this comment. Thanks!

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Saranna :)

Priya, it is such a pleasure to read your posts! I'm very happy to go along with your choice of arrangement of the material. Do bear in mind that my reading of Tom and Goldberry seems to be close to Saranna's above, and I tend to think that people have tried to fit a round peg into a square hole making them into Silmarillion elements. That said, I'm much taken with your rebuttal of pacificism for Tom with these lines:

No names, you tell-tale, or I’ll skin and eat you,
babbling in every ear things that don’t concern you!
If you tell Willow-man where I’ve gone, I’ll burn you,
Roast you on a willow-spit. That’ll end your prying!’

It does seem to me that Bombadil became a bit of a cypher into which Tolkien projected stuff down the line. I want to think about this a little and will get back to you.

Even more, I feel indebted to you for the first serious discussion of Goldberry that I have encountered (she is a weak spot of 'Peeling the Onion' imo). Also, I really appreciate your wide reading of late 19th-century material. As you say on this, no evidence Tolkien ever read it. But the story is very striking when thinking about Tolkien (though it only fits a Goldberry viewed through a Silmarillion lens). Are you aware of the apochryphal story of the Watchers - the angels who lust after human women?

Lastly for this post - I want to bring attention to Goldberry’s forget-me-nots. For they too might have had a connection to an angel which Tolkien may have known about (though I have no specific evidence).

The Persian poet Shiraz relates the following tale regarding the origin of the forget-me-not. Echoes of Tom and Goldberry are found in the story, don’t you think?

“It was in the golden morning of the early world, when an angel sat weeping outside the closed gates of Eden. He had fallen from his high estate through loving a daughter of the earth, nor was he permitted to enter again until she whom he loved had planted the flowers of the forget-me-not in every corner of the world. He returned to earth and assisted her, and they went hand-in-hand over the world planting the forget-me-not. When their task was ended, they entered Paradise together; for the fair woman, without tasting the bitterness of death, became immortal like the angel, whose love her beauty had won, when she sat by the river twining the forget-me-not in her hair.”
– The Folk-lore of Plants, Chapter XXII, Plants and their Legendary History – pg. 308, T.F. Thiselton-Dyer, 1889 (my underlined emphasis)

[Saranna]

@Priya That's a lovely tale, and the lovers in it definitely remind me of Tom and Goldberry. Tom and the angel are both in exile (of different kinds) and each is in a relationship of interdependence with a woman who is very closely identified with nature, nurture and growth. Perhaps as Treebeard says, their redemptions will lead each couple to a land far away, where both their hearts may rest?

[Priya]

Folklore Traditions of St. Michael embedded in LotR Text

Michaelmas - a day honoring the archangel Michael was one Tolkien certainly knew:

“Meʒelmas, n. Michaelmas (Sept. 29); …”.
– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Glossary – pg. 175, J.R.R. Tolkien & E.V. Gordon, 1925

Now one of the medieval texts Tolkien was quite likely familiar with (even Tom Shippey in The Road to M-e agrees) is The Early South-English Legendary:

“St. Michael fought Lucifer and his companions. He overcame the rebel angels and drove them to hell. Ten orders of angels were created, the tenth of which went to perdition. Good and evil angels cause dreams and the nightmare. Out-cast angels are elves in the woods and on the downs, …”.
– The Early South-English Legendary c. 1280-1290, 45. Michael, C. Horstmann translation, 1887 (my underlined emphasis)

Yes – disguised ‘angels on the downs’ – part of the ‘true tradition’ of English folklore!

Then, doesn’t Bombadil fit in? Wasn’t he seen on the ‘downs’? Most of the hobbits certainly had their fair share of dreams under Tom’s roof as well as dream-like visions while in his presence. And didn’t Pippin and Merry have nightmares?

Hmm ... matters worth pondering!

.....

Now many traditions have sprung up, especially in the UK, surrounding the archangel Michael for which there are no readily documented reasons or sources. But before I dive in deeper - I want the reader to bear in mind the wise words of a particularly astute scholar:

“Tolkien’s works are deliberately complex and multi-layered, drawing on many traditions, … The principal conceit of Tolkien’s legendarium is that it stands as a lost prehistoric tradition, of which the many myths and legends we know in our own primary world are meant (fictively, by Tolkien) to be echoes, fragments, and transformations.”
– Tolkien and the Study of His Sources, Tolkien and Source Criticism: Remarking and Remaking – pg. 40, J. Fisher, 2011

So Tolkien I believe, as we have just seen with The Early South-English Legendary, made use of real-world legendary fragments in the characterization of Bombadil. Further examples follow.

In English folklore St. Michael is the patron saint of horses – echoed by Tom’s close affinity with ponies:

“Sharp-ears, Wise-nose, Swish-tail and Bumpkin,
White-socks my little lad, and old Fatty Lumpkin! …
… they answered to the new names that Tom had given them for the rest of their lives.”
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

And he is the patron saint of the police – the ‘boys in blue’. Tom’s ‘uniform’ is similarly colored:

“Bright blue his jacket is, …”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Traditionally celebrations on this day involved a feast for which bread was freshly baked, and for those who could afford it – a goose was served. At the Prancing Pony inn for supper:

“There was hot soup, cold meats, … new loaves, …”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, At the Sign of the Prancing Pony (my underlined emphasis)

And although the types of “cold meats” aren’t stated, nevertheless the inclusion of ‘geese’ in the picture, to my mind, is all too ‘convenient’. For other than the incident referenced, there is no other mention of them in TLotR.

“ ‘… the dogs were yammering and the geese screaming. …’ ”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Strider (my underlined emphasis)

Tolkien, with deft skill, inserted conversation on September 29th betokening their doom was nigh. Forevermore they were to be associated with this date in our Primary World. Because in line with established Christian practice, we must note the hearty meal at the inn was consumed after the demonic Barrow-wight’s defeat. The origin of a celebratory English tradition and widespread saying perhaps?

“… September, when by custom (right divine)
Geese are ordain’d to bleed at Michael’s shrine, …”.
– The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill, Gotham – pg. 144, G. Gilfillan, 1855

So with that thought, a most telling detail for us relates to the legend of how after the Devil was cast from heaven on the 29th – his landing site was a thorny blackberry bush. Satan cursed it. He scorched the fruit with his fiery breath and stamped and spat on it (or even worse – urinated upon it). Thus, the tradition goes – blackberries should not be picked after Michaelmas Day – being unfit for human consumption.

Masterfully inserted into the text – the only mention ever of ‘blackberries’ within the entire novel occurs on September 29th when the hobbits eat at the Prancing Pony. Served as part of the evening meal:

“There was … a blackberry tart, …”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

Of course one can logically assume those blackberries must have been gathered before the 29th of September!

On our part – it’s too easy to be dismissive. We mustn’t be fooled or lulled into believing a word such as ‘blackberry’ wasn’t of significance. Tolkien carefully considered each word, with its placement equally weighed. Here was a self-admitted pedant who could give a:

“ ‘… nonstop half-hour lecture on … the origins of a certain word.’ ”;
– The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2017 Edition, Reader’s Guide, Hill, Margaret Joy – pg. 490, C. Scull & W. Hammond

was known for a slavish attention to detail in working:

“ ‘… like a coral insect’ ”;
– The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2017 Edition, Chronology, 31 December 1947 , C. Scull & W. Hammond

and was reputedly:

“ ‘… in all things a perfectionist’ ”.
– The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2017 Edition, Chronology, late August 1952, C. Scull & W. Hammond

For us then, it should be of no surprise how he unashamedly confessed that for The Lord of the Rings:

“ ‘I don’t suppose there are many sentences that have not been niggled over.’ ”
– Tolkien: A biography, ‘The new Hobbit’ – pg. 203, H. Carpenter, 1977

So shouldn’t we try to fully absorb the ‘trivia’ of ‘blackberry’? Surely we ought to attempt to trace the mindset of a man who habitually endeavored:

“… to wring the juice out of a single sentence, or explore the implications of one word …”.
– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, Valedictory Address to the University of Oxford 1959 – pg. 224, HarperCollins, 1983 (my emphasis)



Chrysophylax Dives - ‘Angels & Watchers’, eh? IMO - you are ahead of the game! As to Goldberry - her interconnection to Tom makes it an appropriate time to bring her into meaningful discussion. More to come in another thread.

Saranna - Thank you - I quite agree, it is an endearing tale. And your ‘exile’ comment is quite perceptive!

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Poor goose...

[Ephtariat]

@Priya What you write about Elves being the oucasts on Earth connects with the current thread on neutral angels. Tolkien implicitly connects the Elves to Tom Bombadil in his Letters in describing both as being disinterested in domination, but only in pure knowledge - which as a student in Philosophy I've always found interesting since it's a pretty good definition of what a philosopher should be.

[Ephtariat]

And what about Tom Bombadil and Melchizedek?

«Once upon a time there was a king called Melchi, father of two sons: Melchi and Melchizedek. This king, zealous in the worship of idols, one day sent his younger son to purchase cattle for sacrifices. Along the way, the contemplation of the starry sky offered Melchizedek the revelation of the one God, Creator of all things. He therefore renounced the mission he had been entrusted with, returned to the palace and announced his conversion to his father. The king, furious, decided - to make amends for this outrage done to his gods - to sacrifice one of his sons to them. Fate decided for Melchi. Melchizedek, during the preparations for the ceremony, climbed Mount Tabor and asked God to destroy all those who would be present at the sacrifice. His prayer was soon answered: the entire city, with all its inhabitants, was engulfed by a cataclysm: not a single soul survived. From that moment, Melchizedek, fearful, remained on Tabor for seven years until the day when Avraham, by order of God, appeared before him.
“Since there is none of his family left,” G-d said to the patriarch, “he will be called fatherless, motherless and familyless; and he will have neither the beginning nor the end of his life; and since he pleased G-d, he will remain a priest forever ”».
Athanasius, quoted by Marcel Simon, “Melchisedec dans la polemique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la legende”, in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse, 1937. Publication of the Faculty of Theology of Strasbourg (Paris, F. Alcan publisher).

[Ephtariat]

Athanasius, “On Melchizedek”, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 28, 523-530.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Yup. @Priya, I do have the sense that you and @Ephtariat are converging on the same thing, or at least something that seems very similar. Could I encourage you to check out his thread on neutral angels? Your take on that would be most interesting.

[Priya]

Hello Ephtariat

Your thread Elves, Fairies and Neutral Angels is certainly stimulating - and I’ll make a comment there shortly. And yes I agree there is a parallel between elves and Bombadil (in general terms) in them avoiding interference in the affairs of others - if at all possible. However, the elves were ‘artists’. I don’t think Bombadil can be classified so. He is more a ‘watcher’ as he soaks in information, but doesn’t appear to do much with it.

In the story of Melchizedek - I think that the most striking word in connection to Bombadil is “fatherless”. However I don’t think it is used here in the same context as TLotR.

Elrond voicing at the Council that Tom is “fatherless” is wording many may have misunderstood:

“ ‘… we called him, oldest and fatherless. …’ ”.
– The Fellowship of The Ring, The Council of Elrond

Some have mistakenly opined that ‘fatherless’ meant Tom had no father, and was deliberately cast as an orphan – similar to Tolkien himself. Others have felt that the term can only mean Tom is Eru incarnated into Middle-earth. When Peter Hastings questioned along the same lines, his suggestion was rebuked:

“As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #153 – September 1954, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Despite the religious overtones, a supreme being identity was an impossibility for a devoutly Christian Tolkien. There could only be one God and his incarnation as a Jesus figure would be a shocking mockery if allegorized by Tom:

“The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #181 – January or February 1956, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

And quite pointedly, Tom being called “fatherless” clashes with Eru’s alternate Elvish name: Ilúvatar – which is translated as ‘All-father’. Two such opposing definitions, with the “fatherless” one having connotations of disrespect, should be sufficient to dismiss an Eru theory.

Now Elrond’s brief historical encounter with Tom is not expanded upon in great detail. Had he really asked Tom: ‘Who’s your daddy?’ Or had he come away bemused, like Frodo, without learning exactly ‘who’ or rather ‘what’ Bombadil really is? There is no reason to believe the Elf-lord would have been given any answer different to the one Frodo received. In which case we can deduce that Elrond’s use of “fatherless” was in the same vein as Tolkien’s in a letter to Christopher Fettes:

“So Bombadil is ‘fatherless’, he has no historical origin in the world described in The Lord of the Rings.”
– Tolkien letter to Christopher Fettes – 1961: Hammond & Scull LotR Companion p.134 (my underlined emphasis)

The Oxford English Dictionary does not give such a definition to the word ‘fatherless’ as underlined in the quote above. However the word ‘unfathered’ has this secondary archaic definition associated to it:

“Unfathered: Of obscure origin …”.
– Oxford English Dictionary, 2014 Edition

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Tolkien felt ‘fatherless’ and ‘unfathered’ were philologically commonly rooted and had similar meaning. In all probability this is rather likely given that Collins confirms archaic linkage:

“Unfathered: (archaic) fatherless”.
– Collins English Dictionary, On-line Edition

From a primary meaning standpoint both words possess the same definition (i.e. without a father). Quite possibly, the Professor might instead have preferred to convey a common secondary meaning. Imaginably then, this is one of those instances where antiquated vocabulary from a bygone era crept into the text:

“there are a number of words not to be found in the dictionaries, or require a knowledge of older English”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #188 – 3 April 1956, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Outmoded though it may be – the usage of “fatherless” in The Lord of the Rings was simply to convey Tom was of unknown origin. Such a startling and perhaps surprising conclusion highlights the many nuances of the English language, and the care we must take to correctly interpret Tolkien’s words!

[Ephtariat]

@Priya Thanks for your comment on "fatherless".

Concerning Tom, I'm aware that Tolkien distinguishes him from the Elves in the following passage:

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 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 . Even the Elves hardly show this: they are primarily artists. (Letters, page 192)

Nonetheless, Tom Bombadil is an artist, since he is a master singer. And if you read the passage on the Elves you can see Tom in what Tolkien writes about them:

The Elves represent, as it were, the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men. That is: they have a devoted love of the physical world, and a desire to observe and understand it for its own sake and as ‘other’ - sc. as a reality derived from God in the same degree as themselves - not as a material for use or as a power-platform. (Letters, page 236)

[Priya]

Hello Ephtariat

I carelessly omitted a descriptive word Tolkien used, which is: ‘primarily’.

I should have said: “However, the Elves were primarily ‘artists’. I don’t think Bombadil can be classified so.”

Does it make more sense now?

[Ephtariat]

Hi, @Priya.
Yes, I see what you mean.

[Priya]

Some of the readers of my posts might be getting a sense by now, that Tolkien included a deeper substructure to the tale when it came to Bombadil. Indeed, I believe he did - and much of it is unrecognized. To reinforce the matter - I’m going to digress a little and relay some of the ‘hidden’ matters not so readily apparent in the tale on September 29th.


Quarter Days

September 29th, as well as being Michaelmas Day, was historically an English ‘quarter day’.

a) Debt Settlement

In medieval times, quarter days were lawful occasions to settle debts. Undoubtedly Tolkien knew it, and so we see inserted symbolism as Frodo and the innkeeper square accounts for services rendered for the period of the stay. All obligations were intended to be tallied and made good by the ‘start of the new quarter’:

“He’s welcome … so long as he pays in the morning.”
– The Fellowship of the Ring, At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

b) Payment Methods

English historical documents record how bills were often settled with bushels of barley – likely joked upon by Tolkien nicknaming Butterbur*: ‘Barley’. An association of ‘barley’ to ‘September’ went back to Anglo-Saxon times:

“September … The Saxons called it gerst-monath, or barley-month, because barley, their chief cereal crop, was generally harvested during this month.
– The International Cyclopedia, Volume XIII, September – pg. 338, H.T. Peck, 1898

*Tolkien acknowledged that Barliman was chosen to relate to barley. Of course, his ‘Guide’ – was not the most appropriate document to spell out all academic matters:

“Butterbur. … Butterbur’s first name Barliman is simply an altered spelling of ‘barley’ and ‘man’ (suitable to an innkeeper and ale-brewer), …”.
– Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings, Names of Persons and Peoples, J.R.R. Tolkien

c) Servant Employment

This was also a traditional time to hire new servants, exemplified by:

“ ‘… Strider shall be your guide. …’ ”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Strider



Humor

We all know by now, that Michaelmas Day in our Primary World is a day full of celebration. But the same day in the TLotR is packed with suspense and dread. Apart the eucatastrophic rescue of the hobbits by Tom - there seems to be little other joy on that day. However, I believe Tolkien injected a wry bit of hidden mirth into the episode at the inn.

Most readers become immediately aware of the ‘Town Hole’ jest, but what were the A,B,C’S that young Shire hobbits learned? G was for ‘Grand’ but perhaps the A,B,C’S stood for some local geographical places?

Maybe Archet, Bree, Combe and Staddle!

And where else would one mind their Ps and Qs but inside an inn.

“ ‘… Mind your Ps and Qs, …’ ”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

For traditionally the saying lies in the landlord and customer keeping a close eye on ‘Pints’ and Quarts’ and not mixing these measures up when it came to charging or paying!

But surely the biggest inside joke was the ‘Prancing Pony’ itself. Why, one may wonder, did Tolkien decide on such a name for an ale house? Was there something behind the imagery of a rearing pony?

“Above the arch there was a lamp, and beneath it swung a large signboard: a fat white pony reared up on its hind legs.”
– The Fellowship of the Ring, At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

Hmm … the inside joke was that indeed the landlord had to ‘pony up’ 30 silver pennies! Yes, this was another occasion where Tolkien left a philological ‘prank’. Because indeed ‘prance’ and ‘prank’ are etymologically related:

“PRANCE … The old sense is to strut about, as if for display; and the word is a mere variant of prank.”
– An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, W. Skeat, 1882

Now the expression ‘pony up’ was first recorded in England by Thomas Darlington within a glossary of The Folk-speech of South Cheshire issued in 1887. However, it is possible Tolkien knew that the first two words of Psalm 119:33 in Christian prayer books (even dating back to the Middle Ages), which was always sung on March the 25th, are ‘Legem pone’. The Latin term became associated with the remittance of debts and was commonly used to convey ‘payment of money’ or ‘cash down’. That meaning of ‘legem pone’ was recorded as early as 1570 by the Elizabethan Thomas Tusser:

“Use (legem pone) to paie at thy daie,
but vse not (Oremus) for often delaie:
Yet (Praesta quaesumus) out of a grate,
Of al other collects, the lender doth hate.”
– Fiue Hundred Pointes of Good Husbandrie*, Chapter 10, Thomas Tusser, 1580

However, the phrase was also strongly associated to another English quarter day. Namely, Michaelmas Day – also a day when debts were settled and payments were made, as we have already seen.

Legem pone (Psalm 119) and Michaelmas Day – Appearing on Common Calendar

Hmm … perhaps Tolkien decided Latin, an aurally similar pony/pone and legendary money having to be coughed up had all got mixed up in the cauldron of story and history. Or maybe this was an occasion where he applied his own belief in language-aesthetics. Via phonemes (meaningful sounds), had the ecclesiastical Latin of early England become mixed in with its inhabitants’ common tongue? That would offer some appeal to a philologist. Hmm …. perhaps then the Bree inn with its evocative signage of a rearing pony on hind legs was the mythical source of it all!

* A quote source that regularly crops up in the OED. Even among words Tolkien was assigned to investigate and provide the definitions for beginning with the letter ‘W’.

[Priya]

Symbolic Architecture - related to St. Michael

Michaelmas term was, of course, the beginning of the academic year at the University of Oxford since founding days. And when it comes to grand buildings and institutions - Tom, the ancient ‘spirit’ of the region, was (I think) deliberately connected to Oxford’s oldest surviving building: the Saxon Tower of Saint Michael’s Church at the North Gate. Here there exists an intriguing link of ‘lilies’ to ‘Archangel Tom’ as we see in the novel. The church itself contains a renowned medieval stained-glass window. In a shape accentuating the crucified body of Christ are five white lilies – the famed: ‘Lily Window’.

‘The Lily Window’, St. Michael’s Church at the North Gate, Oxford

It is possible that the church’s North Gate title might have been symbolically represented by Tolkien in TLotR given the hobbits felt that safety and sanctuary awaited once they had passed through the ‘north-gate’ of the Barrow-downs:

“… the gap in the hills, the north-gate of the Barrow-downs. If they could pass that, they would be free.”
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

Hmm ... yet another trace link to St. Michael then!

An additional historic site related to St. Michael which might have remained etched in Tolkien’s memory, passing view though it might have been, is St. Michael’s Mount in Cornwall. A month long family vacation in Lamorna Cove in 1932 would have taken him through Penzance (whether by road or train). With it being the nearest town to the holiday retreat (being only 4 miles away), Tolkien must surely have had many an opportunity to look out onto Penzance Harbour. Unmissable would have been the storied home of Cormoran – the giant Jack slew in Jack the Giant-Killer – a tale which is retold in Andrew Lang’s Blue Fairy Book:

“In those days there lived on St. Michael’s Mount, off Cornwall, a huge giant, eighteen feet high and nine feet round; his fierce and savage looks were the terror of all who beheld him.”
– The Blue Fairy Book, The History of Jack the Giant-Killer – pg. 374, Andrew Lang, 1889

As a prime tourist destination, it would be utterly surprising if Tolkien had not pointed it out to the family and relayed its fairy tale connection. Indeed, as a predecessor at the University of Oxford, Professor Max Müller wrote in a book Tolkien possessed:

“St. Michael’s Mount in Cornwall is so well known to most people, either by sight or from report, that a description of its peculiar features may be deemed almost superfluous; …”.
– Chips from a German Workshop – Volume III , The Insulation of St. Michael’s Mount – pg. 330, F.M. Müller, 1870

St. Michael’s Mount viewed from Penzance Harbour Lighthouse

The French counterpart of the Cornish edifice is Mont St. Michel which Tolkien must surely have swung past on his visit to Dinard in Brittany from Paris in 1913. The castle is barely 9 miles away at its nearest point, on the N175/N176 (the likely roads Tolkien traveled) and just about visible over the flat featureless plain.

Mont St. Michel, Brittany

Then, in legend, both Cornwall and Brittany have reputedly had visits from God’s archangel resulting in the founding of historical establishments. Such close encounters probably cemented Tolkien’s awareness of this divine being playing a significant role in the lore of lands not far removed from Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Those English counties back in the Third Age had, of course, become equivalent to the land in which Bombadil dwelt. And most remarkably – it was in that region that Tolkien had himself drawn a place of relevance. One can be sure Tolkien would not have forgotten sketching (see picture in post of 11/24) a feature of St. Michael’s Church in Lambourn!

[Priya]

Saintly Etymology

Angels are of course guardians – at least the ‘good’ ones – as Tolkien reminded his youngest son:

“Remember your guardian angel. … God is (so to speak) also behind us, supporting, nourishing us … The bright point of power where that life-line, that spiritual umbilical cord touches: there is our Angel, facing two ways to God behind us in the direction we cannot see, and to us.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #54

One thing that we can be sure about is that in Tolkien’s eyes, beyond God – each and every Christian person had his/her own divine or heavenly personage specially assigned as a ‘caretaker’. As a Catholic the Professor believed, for such a role, saints and angels provided guardianship over mankind. For himself, St. John was the one to turn to in times of need:

“I was born on the Octave of St John the Evangelist, I take him as my patron …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #309

Likewise, Christopher John Reuel Tolkien was told an omnipresent ‘guardian angel’ stood by to assist:

“Remember your guardian angel.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #54

Though Tolkien never spelled out exactly who – it doesn’t take much to figure out the most likely candidates!

Given how such Catholic doctrine was actively employed, there can be little doubt that his second son, Michael Hilary Reuel Tolkien, must too have had a heavenly guardian bestowed upon him. Again there are no prizes for guessing who. Yes, it’s a near certainty that Michael’s assigned guardian was the archangel of the same name.

We shouldn’t be surprised if this particular name had been carefully considered before conferral. Because with Tolkien a name always stemmed from some story or led to one. The connection where ‘Michael’ became the primary name of parental choice, I suspect, had something to do with the circumstances of the Professor’s lodgings at the time of his son’s birth. Newly appointed to a position of Reader at the University of Leed’s, Tolkien found accommodation at 21A St. Michael’s Road, Headingly. And And that was just three weeks prior to Edith delivering baby Michael back in Oxford. This turn of a chapter in his family’s life, and a move to Leeds with a newborn would require apt naming. And what could be more befitting than being under the watch of a mighty angel? Especially knowing residence would be taken up in ‘his’ road!

Though this theory sounds plausible – other reasons may have been contributory. One of these is Tolkien’s indebtedness to the nun Mother Mary Michael of the Sisters of Mercy in Hull. For she had paid visits during his hospitalization/recuperation after being sent home with Trench Fever caught during active war duty in France. Tolkien arranged for Mother Mary to become Michael’s godmother.

Nothing is certain about the Professor’s and Edith’s decision. It is quite possible more than one reason existed in opting for ‘Michael’. But nevertheless the Christian aspect to the name cannot have escaped a religiously inclined father. Indeed, his faith was never far from the forefront of his mind.

But it’s the naming process that draws my interest. So that reminds me of Tolkien’s pointer:

“... Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names. See and ponder Tom's words ...”. - The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #153

Of course, every person’s essence and very identity is encapsulated by their name. But was Tolkien hinting at something more?

When it came to his son’s naming, don’t you think Tolkien might well have known the meaning of ‘Michael’ ? In Hebrew it means:

‘Who is like God?’

So, in connection to Bombadil’s (riddling?) remark:

“Don't you know my name yet? That’s the only answer.” - FotR,

to a reader who has already made the embedded connections to archangel Michael in FotR (that I have pointed in prior posts) what would he/she think?

Especially to perhaps the rhetorical side of a question posed by Bombadil:

“Tell me, who are you alone, yourself and nameless?” - FotR

Hmm ... perhaps someone like God?

Could Michael have been another name, among the many others Bombadil possessed over the ages?

Then just maybe one answer is ‘Michael’ - a divine being; someone who is like God?

[Priya]

In Our World: The Archangel Michael & the Greatest of all Rings

It is a near certainty that Tolkien read The Dragon of the North from Andrew Lang’s Yellow Fairy Book. Especially as the Estonian tale revolved around the slaying of the most fearsome of dragons. Yet in all the world, only through an article with divine powers could the deed be achieved:

“… the Dragon might be overcome by one who possessed King Solomon’s signet-ring, upon which a secret writing was engraved.”
– The Yellow Fairy Book, The Dragon of the North – pg. 9, A. Lang, 1903 (my underlined emphasis)

It was:

“… a precious gold ring.”,
– The Yellow Fairy Book, The Dragon of the North – pg. 14, A. Lang, 1903 (my underlined emphasis)

that not just bestowed powers of strength, but also also conferred invisibility:

“ ‘… The ring formerly belonged to King Solomon, the wisest of kings, during whose reign the wisest men lived. But it is not known whether this ring was ever made by mortal hands: it is supposed that an angel gave it to the wise King.’ ”.
– The Yellow Fairy Book, The Dragon of the North – pg. 14, A. Lang, 1903 (my underlined emphasis)


The history upon which some of the fairytale was based, and which Tolkien likely exploited in connecting our ancient world to his mythical one, was an old Greek written manuscript called The Testament of Solomon. Accounted as the wisest mortal there ever has been or will be – King Solomon possessed a great ring. It was a ring from God delivered personally by the archangel Michael:

“And it came about through my prayer that grace was given to me from the Lord Sabaoth by Michael his archangel. [He brought me] a little ring, having a seal consisting of an engraved stone, and said to me: ‘Take, O Solomon, king, son of David, the gift which the Lord God has sent thee, the highest Sabaoth. With it thou shalt lock up all demons of the earth, male and female; and with their help thou shalt build up Jerusalem. …’ ”.
– The Testament of Solomon, translated by F.C. Conybeare from the codex of the Paris Library (my underlined emphasis)

‘King Solomon’, Simeon Solomon, 1872 or 1874

So now one can see why Tolkien knitted Bombadil to the archangel Michael. Was it really Solomon - or was it the most renowned of Hobbits ‘Frodo’ who possessed the greatest of rings? Was it Michael the archangel who handed over the ring or was it really Bombadil? Had the passage of time and blurring of myth resulted in a distorted account in The Testament of Solomon? Was Tolkien’s feigned history the ‘true’ history? Is that how the Professor’s mind worked?

It’s not impossible to see akin traces present in Tolkien’s story-line. As usual the shading is subtle but nonetheless it exists. Frodo, possessing wisdom, courage and inner strength beyond ordinary hobbits (a Solomon equivalent among his people), had the Ring handed to him by Bombadil - of angelic personage. An all-powerful ring capable of controlling the satanic Sauron and his demonic Nazgûl. A gold ring engraved with secret writing of power yet ineffective on just one Middle-earth being. A mighty being known to us as Tom Bombadil!

The ‘biblical’ resonance of the archangel handing over to a mortal an omnipotent engraved ring with the capacity to dominate evil beings, and bestowing invisibility too, are undertones that cannot be missed. Of course, not everything matches from The Testament of Solomon or The Dragon of the North. Tolkien would not have expected it – nor should we. However though some might sniff the scent of allegory with the continual embedment of a St. Michael theme - we shall see the opposite - because the archangel was just one of many Bombadil faces. For Tom was a case of ‘applicability’ not ‘allegory’. He was Tolkien’s subcreation extraordinaire!

[Priya]

Solomon’s Ring and the Sign of the Pentangle


There is little doubt Tolkien knew the story of Solomon:

“Solomon’s seal was a pentangle in a circle … which is supposed to have had its beginning in the building of the temple by Solomon.”
– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Notes to Line 625, Tolkien & Gordon, 1925

In the same text (per notes to line 632, 642 and 645) commentary is provided on the significance of the pentangle emblazoned on Sir Gawain’s shield with regards to the ‘Five Virtues’, ‘Five Wounds of Christ’ and ‘Five Joys’. But the Professor knew the origin of the five-pointed star:

“… an ancient symbol of perfection …”,
– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Notes to Line 620, Tolkien & Gordon, 1925

was far older than Christ’s arrival on the planet. For he almost certainly understood it was on the archangel’s ring that the pentangle was engraved:

“ ‘… [But] thou [must] wear this seal of God. And this engraving of the seal of the ring sent thee is a Pentalpha.’ ”.
– The Testament of Solomon, translated by F.C. Conybeare from the codex of the Paris Library

The Pentangle - as depicted in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Tolkien & Gordon, 1925

It was a sign of God’s power that none of the ‘fallen’ could overcome, be they mortal or divine. From gleaning what we can – if indeed the Professor had knowledge of The Testament of Solomon, then he would likely have been aware of related Arabic and Jewish stories. Perhaps the most famous, tells of Solomon recovering his all-powerful ring from a fish which had swallowed it – after losing it to a demon. Again, the legend has close undertones to the Déagol/Sméagol/Isilidur/Sauron part of Tolkien’s tale. And so now we see more connections of Tolkien’s mythology to the medieval work of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight as well as an even older history.



Five-pointed Shapes

How deep Tolkien went with the Bombadil/Michael/pentangle theme is not verifiable. How subtle the threads Tolkien decided to weave cannot be ascertained with surety. However, there are traces of embedded symbolism of the pentangle in The Lord of the Rings chapters featuring Bombadil. And I think the Professor accomplished this in three ways:

(a) As a jest. The hobbit’s were under angelic Tom’s protection while spending the night in a penthouse* with an angled roof: amusingly then – under a sign of a ‘pent’ ‘angle’:

“They came to a low room with a sloping roof (a penthouse, it seemed, built on to the north end of the house).”
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

* Originally defined as a simple structure. Middle English homilies describe Jesus’ birthplace in the manger as within a ‘penthouse’.

(b) As a connection to an otherworld – known in Arthurian legend as Avalon: the Isle of Apples:

“There was a fire in the wide hearth before them, and it was burning with a sweet smell, as if it were built of apple-wood.”
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

An apple when suitably sliced has its innards shaped in the form of a pentangle.

Intriguingly we have meaningful coupling back to Bombadil via an analogue of St. Michael and an old English saying:

At Michaelmas time, or a little before,
Half an apple goes to the core.

(c) As a link to the five-petaled flax flower whose green sepals display a pentangular pattern:

“He chose for himself from the pile a brooch set with blue stones, many shaded like flax-flowers …”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

Such subtleties certainly bind the whole ‘story’ I have produced much more tightly. Certainly these type of cross-connections were not beyond Tolkien’s intellect or imagination. Indeed, they make the academic foundations of The Lord of the Rings more visible and stronger; and to someone like me – the Bombadil episode emerges as all the more satisfying!

[Priya]

More Archangel Parallels

Now Michael is an angel in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. His name appears in Christian Scripture five times, thrice in the Book of Daniel, and once each in the Epistle of St. Jude and the Book of Revelation.

Biblical accounts tell us St. Michael ‘fought’ on Earth against Satan for the body of Moses – which when compared against the Barrow episode, is similar to Tom’s ‘fight’ for the bodies of the hobbits. Michael won the contest just like Tom:

“But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”, The Bible, American Standard Version, Jude 1-9.

‘Michael disputes for Moses’ body’, Sucevita Monastery, Romania

Though there is no biblical warrant, Roman Catholics believe St. Michael is a psychopomp - the summoner/guide of the souls of the dead for weighing and judgement. Mirrored somewhat through Tom recalling the seemingly ‘lifeless’ trio of Sam, Pippin and Merry back to consciousness. Their time to depart the world was premature was Tom’s judgement:

“Wake now my merry lads! Wake now and hear me calling!” - The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

‘Doom’ painting, St. Michael weighing Souls, Wenhaston, England

We know the archangel is named as the guardian over the land of God’s chosen people – Israel. But one can understand Tolkien could well have felt England was equally special. A country that those of Dutch heritage (of which our Dutch doll Tom was one) literally translate to be: ‘Angel* Land’. Just maybe the archangel was the guardian of England too. For the Bible records that each nation was assigned an angel to protect its inhabitants.

Tom’s portrayal of guarding the hobbits safely through his land, singing as they traveled and implanting visions (i.e. sending messages) in their minds – reflected all classic angel roles:

“Such, then, are the three great functions of the angelic host: they are Messengers, Choristers**, and Guardians.”
– Sacred and Legendary Art, Vol. I, Angels – pg. 23, A. Jameson, 1848

But to Michael in particular:

“… God bestowed many and great privileges. To him it was given ‘to bid sound th’ archangel trumpet,’ …”.
– Sacred and Legendary Art, Vol. I, St. Michael – pg. 61, A. Jameson, 1848

Curiously the trumpet is one of only two musical instruments associated to Tom. In calling him – to Frodo it seemed the Wight’s chamber resounded:

“… as if to drum and trumpet.”
–The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

So am I exposing the true nature of the light surrounding Tom? The intensity of the halo appears to be bright – yet has a cloud fogged our vision? Perhaps we have all been staring blindly, unable to penetrate the billows of obscuring mist, when before us part of the answer to the Bombadil enigma requires only blowing away a wispy layer!

* Probably from a distortion of Angle - a Germanic tribe which settled in England. However, from Wikipedia:

“Alfred the Great's translation of Orosius's history of the world uses Angelcynn (-kin) to describe the English people; Bede uses Angelfolc (-folk); also such forms as Engel, Englan (the people) ...”.

Perhaps there was a shred of evidence that couldn’t be completely dismissed by Tolkien of a connection of Old England to Angels!


** It’s a stretch to consider Tom as a chorister. But certainly angels of our world are depicted to sing.

[Priya]

Tom’s Religious Face: New Testament Parallels - Part I


It’s time I moved on from the archangel Michael and the Old Testament, to exposing embedded symbolism to New Testament matters.

....

Though many articles have been written concerning what has been perceived to reflect Tolkien’s statement:

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; …”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #142 – 2 December 1953, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

– few of them consider or even touch upon Tom or Goldberry. And those that do barely scratch the surface. Indeed, what researchers have failed to keenly look for is practical working applications to that confessed embedded theology. My intent is not to rehash matters already well-discussed among seasoned scholars where nested Christian symbolism within the novel is strongly suspected. Instead, the intent is to break new ground.

Indeed, my primary aim in this forum is to bring out unrealized academic apparatus underpinning the Bombadil episode. Tolkien’s vast array of knowledge in terms of in-depth detail was not just confined to specialist medieval works, languages and philology. There were other areas of expertise. We have already seen in another thread how his personal infatuation with botany has been adeptly entwined in the characterization of Goldberry. So how can we possibly neglect to look at our merry couple through a lens of religion? Especially since an almost lifelong bond to Christianity meant a vast reservoir of accumulated information was his to tap at whim.

There is virtually no scholar of any repute who will claim Tolkien’s expertise was lacking in the realm of biblical knowledge. So included in a scrutiny of the text involving Tom and Goldberry ought to be a search for Christianity. It’s a quest that I wholly acknowledge Tolkien would have frowned on. For in the end, he preferred us to view his opus as a work of art. Not for us to peel away the paint to reveal the foundational outlines below – but instead to enjoy and revel in the finished portrait. Impertinently then on my part – I’m going to dive into dangerous waters and try and show when it comes to the Bombadil episode – how a variety of dexterously devised script vilifies the Professors’ stance that:

“… the Christian religion … is far the most powerful ultimate source.”
– Tolkien Letter to L.M. Cutts, 26 October 1958

Yet before I begin to relate new interpretations – a few comments on Tolkien’s style and technique are necessary.

Critics do not dispute that certain Christian themes were inserted into the text. One should heed that the method employed was one where:

“… the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #142 – 2 December 1953, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

However The Lord of the Rings constituting a grandiose yet ‘pure’ fairy tale meant that nothing was overt:

“Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #131 – late 1951, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (my emphasis)

Which means those Christian themes were subtly infused, no doubt with delicate finesse. In voicing he was under no constraint to follow:

“… formalized Christian theology, …”,
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #269 – 12 May 1965, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

we must ask ourselves – how could he? For the inevitable result would have manifested itself as instantly recognizable allegory - a big no-no. So where does that leave us? How can we best parse: “the religious element is absorbed into the story”?

In pondering the matter, my own conclusion veers towards cleverly crafted substratal schema making The Lord of the Rings in his mind:

“… a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #142 – 2 December 1953, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

And Tolkien was so pleased that those of similar outlook saw:

“ ‘… a world in which some sort of faith seems to be everywhere without a visible source, like light from an invisible lamp’.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #328 – Autumn 1971, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

God’s Word as set down in the Christian Bible guided Tolkien’s Story-line

So in other words fragments and echoes are all that we can mine. Similarities but not outright copies. Parallels but not obvious mimicry. Another way of putting matters is – the best we can hope for is to observe points of tangency – and not directly match biblical events detail for detail. Thus, we should seek out situations and elements which are:

“… consonant with Christian thought and belief, …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #269 – 12 May 1965, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981



(a) Monetary Betrayal

The first and perhaps the most obvious parallel I’m going to expose is one in which Tom is only a fringe player. If I asked the question of the reader:

‘What is the most infamous financial transaction in the history of our world?’, there will be I’m sure, some scratching of heads.

Some might think of the ‘give-away’ of Alaska by Russia. Others might muse upon the many unscrupulous Ponzi schemes which have robbed decent folk of their lifelong savings – leaving them destitute beyond any hope of recovery. But Tolkien, I contend, would have thought that personal wealth or even that of a country, no matter how many millions were involved, as relatively unimportant. Such monies were not even in the same league as the amount agreed to trade the life of Jesus Christ by one notorious man. For it was Judas Iscariot who betrayed the ‘Son of God’ for a mere 30 pieces of silver!

Do any of us seriously believe that Tolkien was unaware of the heinous amount, coinage or its significance? Of course he knew. And of course the working in of a theme of betrayal, silver coins as well as a matching quantity into his book was purposely done. It was Barliman Butterbur’s hospitality which was spurned (by one, or more, of his guests). With the price of treachery ultimately being 30 silver pennies!

“… thirty silver pennies was a sore blow to him, …”.
– The Fellowship of the Ring, A Knife in the Dark

‘Judas Repentant, Returning the Thirty Pieces of Silver’, Rembrandt, 1629

This was the extent of Christian symbolism Tolkien decided to display: betrayal of the innocent and 30 pieces of silver. There were no disciples or Pharisees involved, nor a Christ like figure suffering crucifixion. But there was enough embedded that an unmistakable echo would resound in the hearts of those of like faith.

Tom’s part was only peripheral. He rectified the financial situation by sending the escaped ponies back as restitution for the innkeeper’s loss. In other words, putting aside the crime itself, from another standpoint some small good eventually came out of the original monetary transaction. In a way this parallels the biblical account where Judas’ 30 silver pieces were eventually used to buy a ‘potter’s field’ to bury the dead of foreign faith/origin.



... more to come

[Priya]

Before I continue, I want to repeat how a remark by a reader in which Tolkien showed particular delight probably captures what he hoped the religiously astute would readily grasp:

“ ‘… but you’, he said, ‘create a world in which some sort of faith seems to be everywhere without a visible source, like light from an invisible lamp’.”
 - The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #328 – Autumn 1971, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981



 

‘The Light of the World’, William Holman Hunt, c. 1851

(b) Jesus’ First Miracle


When water was turned to wine. Echoed in the hobbits’ first meal with Tom and Goldberry:

“The drink in their drinking-bowls seemed to be clear cold water, yet it went to their hearts like wine …”.
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil


(c) Raising of the Dead

Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life. The opening of Lazarus’ tomb by rolling aside the entrance stone, and the miracle of him rising after death. Echoed by Tom’s opening of the Barrow tomb and spiritual recall of Sam, Merry and Pippin:

“There was a loud rumbling sound, as of stones rolling and falling, …”, and
“Wake and hear me calling!”
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs


(d) Exorcism

Jesus on numerous occasions exorcising undesirable spirits. Echoed by the departure of a foreign spirit, in the presence of Tom, which appears to have cohabited with Merry:

“ ‘… Ah! the spear in my heart! … What am I saying? …’ ”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

The Roman soldiers’ spear to check for Jesus’ death while nailed to the Cross is also reputed to have penetrated through to this vital organ.


(e) Baptism 

Spiritual purification through the ritual of immersion in water. Echoed by Tom’s words outside the Barrow:

“ ‘You’ve found yourselves again, out of the deep water. …’ ”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs


(f) Cock Crows

Though not directly involving Bombadil, it was just after Michaelmas Day closed that the attack on The Prancing Pony took place. The cock crow at dawn, heard in the inn quarters, signaled a sellout had already taken place:

“He opened his eyes, and heard a cock crowing lustily in the inn-yard.”
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, A Knife in the Dark

Likewise, in a synchronized attack, the Black Riders waited for Michaelmas Day to pass before raiding Crickhollow. Again a cock crowed:

“… a cock crowed far away. The cold hour before dawn was passing.”
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, A Knife in the Dark

The betrayal in this instance was probably unwitting or passive:

“ ‘… And it is possible that in the morning even a Black Rider that rode up and asked for Mr. Baggins would be let through. It is pretty generally known that you are coming back to live at Crickhollow.’ ”
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, A Conspiracy Unmasked

A symbolic third cock crow in The Return of the King betokened Denethor’s desertion of stewardship duty had finally happened:

“Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, …”. 
– The Return of the King, The Siege of Gondor

The three cock crows and associated betrayals in The Lord of the Rings echo the prediction of Jesus when it came to his apostle Simon Peter:

“ ‘… this very night before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.’ ”
– The Bible, New International Version, Matthew 26:34


 

‘Peter’s Denial’, Carl Heinrich Bloch, 1873

 
This is the way Tolkien mixed in the biblical message. Not a single rooster’s three crows – but three separate birds vocalizing; each signaling a specific betrayal had just occurred.


(g) Christ’s Ascension

The prediction of Christ’s resurrection – echoed on the day Bombadil defeated the demon – the revelation that one day:
“… The crownless again shall be king.” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Strider

————

With these multiple examples – Tolkien made sure that core elements of The New Testament were symbolically represented in the chapters linked to Bombadil. One wouldn’t readily be able to identify the exact source. All that could be felt was the warmth of the Christian radiation. 

Apart from the heartening background glow, we must also ask ourselves: why? What was the Professor’s purpose?

A cloaked inclusion of Christian elements was possibly effected to subconsciously reassure the reader (and perhaps himself) that even in pagan times a Christian God was not wholly absent. In the translated words of St. Augustine of Hippo repeated by Max Müller in a publication Tolkien possessed:

“ ‘What is now called the Christian religion, has existed among the ancients, and was not absent from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh: from which time the true religion, which existed already, began to be called Christian.’ ” 
– Chips from a German Workshop, Volume 1, Preface – pg. 3, F.M. Müller, 1867

In that mythic bygone Age, who was that conduit to pass along ‘the faith’ to mankind when the gods had forsaken Middle-earth? I think Tolkien assigned that role to an omnipresent wrinkly old fellow!

[Priya]

Some Needed Direction


By now, those who have followed my posts closely will not be surprised at Tolkien’s ingenuity. Especially when it comes to concealment. So my intent in the next few posts is to expose how cleverly Bombadil was tied in with the Christian faith beyond previous discussion. To accomplish that I need to digress by first mulling on ‘directions’ – starting out with Tolkien’s favorite point on the compass: the West!

Now the subject of the ‘West’ and its immense importance to the mythology is worth many a chat. I however, will only focus on its relevance when it comes to Bombadil. And the angle I’m going to first discuss the matter through – is the ‘wind’. For what wouldn’t go amiss is a breath of fresh air!

Zephyrus the Greek god of the West Wind was not unknown to the Professor. We encounter him in the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight tale:

“Zeferus, Zepyhrus, the West Wind,”
 - Sir Gawain & the Green Knight, Index of Names – pg. 211, Tolkien & E.V. Gordon, 1925

“After the season of summer with the soft winds when Zephyrus blows himself gently on seeds and herbs …”.
 – Sir Gawain & the Green Knight, lines 516-517 translated, Tolkien & E.V. Gordon, 1925

‘Flora And Zephyr’, Jacopo Amigoni, 1730’s

And again in Chaucer’s works which Tolkien was greatly familiar with:

“Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth …”. 
– Canterbury Tales, General Prologue – line 5, Geoffery Chaucer, c. 1387-1400

By the Greeks, Zephyrus was sometimes imagined as an equine deity – the sire of horses. Such a mythological link didn’t escape the Professor. Provided was a fitting description of Gandalf’s steed Shadowfax and a vestigial trace to our world:

“ ‘Were the breath of the West Wind to take a body visible, even so would it appear,’ ”. 
– The Two Towers, The King of the Golden Hall

Of the four chief legendary winds of our world, Zephyrus was reputedly the gentlest, most breeze-like and the bringer of growth and prosperity. Accordingly, for the mythology, Tom Bombadil viewed the West Wind as kind too:

“The old year was turning brown; the West Wind was calling; … ‘I’ve caught a happy day blown me by the breezes! …’ ”.
 - The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Bombadil goes Boating, 1962

And so did Goldberry. The proverb-like advice given to northbound hobbits was to stay true and keep the:

“… wind in the left eye …”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

Blocked by the ridge of their noses – a lucky westerly breeze would do the trick. For just like Greek myth, wind emanating from the west and blowing eastwards was also supposed to bring good fortune and benevolence. Of course for the tale, it was blessed Aman that was located in the far west before its removal from our physical world, and it was Manwë’s fabled winds sourced thence which were sent to disperse evil.

In contrast, the East Wind was not anywhere as kind. In Christianity, it was a fierce east wind which brought devastation and destruction to mankind. Two well-known examples are:

“Moses calls upon the east wind to bring a plague of locusts.”.
 - The Bible, Exodus 10:13-19

“It was the east wind which blasted the grain in Pharaoh’s dream.” – The Bible, Genesis 41:6

‘The Plague of Locusts’, Illustration for ‘Exodus’, Jan Luyken, 1700

Likewise, the East Wind blew cruelly as Frodo approached the barrow:

“Out of the east the biting wind was blowing.”
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

Without doubt ‘direction’ was of supreme importance. Danger lurked from taking the wrong choice. Yes, misfortune struck the hobbits when they slept on the ‘east’ side of the standing stone soon after leaving Tom’s house. And Barrow doors which faced ‘east’ (at least the Barrow of capture did), would therefore be the least safe way to pass.

Instructions were doled out with due reason. The hobbits were prudently advised to travel:

“… over the western and lower slopes of the Downs: …”;
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

and if they strayed too close to a barrow to pass:

“… by on the west-side, …”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Tolkien was also at pains to stress how outside the Barrow – the ‘west’ side provided safety. Because the unconscious hobbits carried out by Tom and Frodo were purposely laid down on that side of the mound. Facing the ‘west’, with words of power, was the direction necessary to revive (or more likely, ‘recall’) their spirits.

Despite the circumstances of the times in which The Lord of the Rings was written, the Professor made it clear that the reality of the east being the threat to his beloved England was not an implied allegorical allusion. The ‘west’ being the side of ‘blessedness’ for the tale also had no current-day message nor equivalence:

“The goodness of the West and the badness of the East has no modern reference.”
 - The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2006 Edition, Chronology, 6 August 1965, W. Hammond & C. Scull

However the fabled west, for the mythology, once held Númenor (an Atlantean analogue) and Aman. This echoed much ancient history of the British Isles from surviving Celtic tales. For the Celts of Ireland, legendary Hy Brasil and the islands of the Otherworld lay to the west.

Hy Brasil depicted to the west of Ireland on an ancient map, 1325

 


Anwnn too, in Welsh Celtic lore, had an island counterpart to the more commonly discussed below earth location. Known as the ‘land of the dead’ far out to the west of the British Isles, it was here that mortal spirits would tarry before completing their journey. Yet it was not just Celtic recordings but the existence of medieval English writings confirming such tales which likely influenced the Professor:

“In the South English Legendary version of the ‘Life of St Brendan’, a maiden tells Abbot Beryn that he ought to thank Jesus Christ for leading him to the Paradise in the West, …”.
 - The Road to Middle-earth, ‘On the Cold Hill’s Side’ – pg. 288, T. Shippey, 2003

So finally, we have a connection of ‘the West’ to ‘Jesus Christ’. And so, though these salvation analogues were not a “modern reference”, for the more ancient setting of the mythology Tolkien adapted them to fit his character Tom. Tom was steeped in unshakable Christian symbolism beyond the already revealed archangel analogue.

‘Really? How is this?’, you may ask.

The answer is intriguing. It stems from a deduction that Bombadil’s front door faced ‘west’: the direction for the receipt of ‘good news’. A clue which leads to exposing a fascinating matter. With that, for the first time since Karen Fonstad’s effort in The Atlas of Middle-earth – we are going to take a detailed look at the shape of Tom and Goldberry’s house!

[Priya]

The Best Western Hotel


Now one may rightfully wonder why Tolkien declined to draw out Tom’s home (which occupies a whole chapter of The Lord of the Rings) yet decided to sketch both aerial and frontal views of Cotton’s farm*. Well perhaps he did, and the view has been lost? Or perhaps he did, and it just hasn’t been released to the public? Much more likely, in my opinion, is the design was so simple – in being preconceived as special – that he didn’t need to. He knew in his head exactly what shape it was going to be.

The marvelous thing about Tolkien’s works is the depth and detail of the scenes. One can often picture in one’s mind’s eye a vivid layout of the surroundings. The other impressive part is how the image isn’t always instantaneous – because information tends not to be dumped on the reader in one large glob. Instead, it is gradually built up as bits spread throughout the text slowly come together to form a credible whole. The technique is masterful – as what appears to be casual storytelling – really is not. There is purpose behind Tolkien’s method – but the final result is so well blended that all one initially perceives is the seamless flow of a gripping story.

So turning back to Bombadil’s abode, there is a distinct possibility Tolkien had something very special in mind when formulating its architecture. Nestled between the edge of the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs and providing a haven from two places of evil repute, there was something about it that nobody else has picked up on. It may have been conceived as part of an intentional puzzle for the reader, or it may just have been fabricated for Tolkien’s self-satisfaction. In any case – that will be for the reader to decide. So let’s explore its layout using information and clues the Professor provided. Unfortunately (as I will later discuss) Fonstad’s view (bottom right below) differs from mine.

‘The Atlas of Middle-earth’, pg. 123, K.W. Fonstad

Now an impression of a small** rural home was relayed upon initial entry since the hobbits felt they were:

“… knocking at a cottage door …”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Small – because we can reasonably conclude that the original house had just two rooms on the ground level, consisting of a combined living/dining room and a separate kitchen:

“They were in a long low room, … Goldberry busied herself about the table; …” …
 “Tom could be heard about the house, clattering in the kitchen, …”. 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

It is deduced that there was only one bedroom upstairs – namely Tom and Goldberry’s. The square footage of the upstairs living area, as far as I can discern, was smaller than ground level – with the bedroom lying over the kitchen. That is because Tolkien told us the long low living/dining room was:

“… filled with the light of lamps swinging from the beams of the roof; …”. 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Note how the Professor carefully used the term ‘roof’ instead of ‘ceiling’. Thus, we can conclude there was no other structure above. Despite the living/dining room being ‘low’, its roof was likely a sloping or angled design and covered on the exterior with thatch material:

“Water dripped down from the thatched eaves above.” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

The later lower floor addition – described as a ‘penthouse’, completed the living quarters. This is the area in which the hobbits slept. What we should also note – is how once again – the room was ‘low’:

“They came to a low room with a sloping roof (a penthouse, it seemed, built on to the north end of the house).” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

What seems to be stressed is how humble a dwelling this was. Beyond the ‘low’ rooms, Tom and Goldberry’s house was minimalist in terms of furnishings:

(a) The furniture was rudimentary: a wooden dining table and chairs fabricated from river rushes. There were no beds in the penthouse – merely mattresses (presumably hobbit-sized). There were no couches, ancillary tables, sideboards, cabinets, floor rugs, etc. – just a few basic footstools.

(b) No ornaments, artwork or decorative paraphernalia were described apart from some hanging mats.
(c) What was present was very functional: candles for the dining table and mantelpiece, and lamps for the ceiling; single color curtains for the windows and fresh rushes strewn as flooring – providing a warm shield against the cold flagged stone. Mere pots and ewers were available for washing; while drinking vessels were just ‘bowls’ – not cups, mugs or tankards!

The house and associated contents were basic to the extreme. There is not even a mention of a bathroom (in contrast to Frodo’s house at Crickhollow). And so one can conclude this couple by today’s standards, or even reasonably prosperous hobbit one’s, truly led a ‘simple life’.

‘Yet so what?’, Plaza members might respond.
‘What’s the big deal?’

None really – apart from the humble abode resonates with Tolkien’s own thoughts of holiness on Earth as conveyed to Clyde Kilby. Tolkien:

“… was moved by the degradation of the birth of Christ in a stable with its filth and manure and saw it is a symbol of the real nature of holy things in a fallen world.” 
– Tolkien and The Silmarillion, Tolkien as Christian Writer – pg. 54, C.S. Kilby, 1976

Front cover of Tolkien and The Silmarillion, Clyde Kilby, 1976

However, before one can even dare to suggest similar linkage and expect to be believed – one must first fully explain the significance behind the shape of the merry couple’s abode. It is vital to decipher this part of a ‘puzzle’ for it is pretty key in Tolkien’s ‘master plan’. It is by no accident that we can reasonably work out its overall design.


…. to be continued





* See Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator, Hammond & Scull, Figure 175.

** Per the drafts, Tom Bombadil:

“… lives in a little house …”. 
– The Return of the Shadow, VI Tom Bombadil – pg. 117, 1988

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: The description of Iarwain's house reads quite pleasant to me, the christian motives left aside. Fonstad's maps are pretty valuable to me, as they do depict the mapping situation quite well. They are not entirely correct, but for an ill imaginer they are helpful to picture the words better. I don't think Tolkien did have a masterplan with his works. What I find bothering these days that people always seem to seek for machinations in how you approach more complex things. But I'll elaborate more about it in my own thread and not fill this thread with matters that are not trivial to this discussion. About all other religious approaches or motives I haven't read. I have no doubt you wrote them as great, as all others, but I lack any sort of imagination to give a proper reaction as I am a rather heavy atheist. Sorry for that.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Fonstad did a brilliant job overall. However I disagree with some aspects of the Bombadil house map - as you will see.

I totally believe that people of different religious beliefs to Tolkien, or those who do not believe in any at all, can still thoroughly enjoy TLotR. But since he stated that his religion was fundamental to the work - we should all still be able to appreciate what he included.

———

… continued from prior post



Tolkien told us the hobbits stepped into:

“… a long low room, …”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Given such a simply relayed depiction, one can reasonably conclude that it was rectangular – with the entry door at the near end, and Goldberry adjacent to the far wall. Both the front door wall and the one situated behind Goldberry must have been the rooms’ shorter sides.

So we must not forget that though dimensionally unspecified, ‘long’ was from the hobbits’ viewpoint. My own conclusion therefore clashes with Fonstad’s, where she has drawn a ‘wide’ room from the hobbits’ perspective. Yet mine is more logical since it also ties in better with some of the known facts. For instance, we know the hobbits entered the room with a few timid steps after which Goldberry leaped over the lily-laden pots and ‘ran’ to physically greet them. All of this conveys some distance being involved which is more consistent with a ‘long’ dimension!

Now per the text – the table was positioned nearer the door while Goldberry, seated in her chair, was further away being at the far side of the room. We know:

“The room looked westward …”, 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

subsequently leading us to conclude it had only one window; because the text repeatedly mentions just ‘the’ window in this area. However, a single window to light up the whole room during the day doesn’t exactly convey a feeling of spaciousness. Yes, the room appears to have been ‘small’.

Previously in leaving the Old Forest, and as the hobbits hurried towards Tom’s house:

“… a wide yellow beam flowed out brightly from a door that was opened.”
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest

Behind the residence:

“… the Barrow-downs stalked away into the eastern night.” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest

So from this we can reasonably conclude the hobbits were traveling from west to east. Thus, the entrance door was in the short west wall of the original construction along with the previously noted window.

As far as the inside of the living/dining room, there appears to have been only one interior door. In the opposite wall to the entrance was the door leading to the kitchen. We can discern this must have been in the east wall because after looking out of the west facing window on a later occasion, the hobbits turned around to see:

“… Goldberry stood in the door behind, …”. 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Which Tom then used to bring in their supper:

“Suddenly he hopped through the door and disappeared. Quickly he returned, bearing a large and laden tray.” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

But via a short passageway and then by taking a sharp turn, the interior door also led into the addition: the ‘penthouse’ which was:

“… built on to the north end of the house).” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

So the interior door in the eastern wall must have been reasonably close to the north side of the living/dining room. And the passage must also have led to the kitchen and stairwell. Because of the simple nature of the dwelling, there is no reason not to believe the kitchen was anything else but rectangular itself, sharing the same width as the living/dining room. In other words the original house was nothing more than one simple long rectangle in plan-form area with four straight exterior walls.

Then the added penthouse must have formed a tee in being situated on the north end of the house. There is nothing to suggest that it was as long as the living/dining room plus kitchen – along the common wall that is. Indeed, quite the opposite can be sensibly deduced. Since the penthouse eastern window looked out on to a kitchen garden* – that implies a corner was present; one wall constituted by the kitchen itself. Similarly, one might reasonably assume another corner nook was present at the front of the house, as the western penthouse window looked out on a flower garden. It would not be wholly unreasonable to presume that if one looked from the sky downwards – the aerial shape would have been one where the add-on was centrally located in relation to the overall original house, resulting in a reasonably symmetric Tee.

K: kitchen side (E), LR: Living Room side (W), PH: Penthouse side (N)

Or was it?




… to be continued



* A kitchen garden usually has a door or at least a window looking out on to it (from the kitchen, of course).

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: I did have a read through the Tom Bombadil chapter where the quotes are coming from. But it is hard picturing how the layout exactly is. Tolkien is not that clear of painting a good picture on layouts. He is excellent with sphere. The spareroom to the north might what you call an add-on, as the wall between the cottage and the penthouse is solid stone. There are four matrasses and a washbasins and the room has two windows, to the east and to the west. The east one looks out on the kitchengarden, meaning the kitchen is in that vicinity; east, south or southeast? Near the kitchen is a stairs too going up to a second floor. In the main space are hearth a big seat across the door entering, and a table positioned somewhere in the space. I think more of a little cottage, with a guest add-on on the northside. It resembles quite Fonstad's layout but not quite. You have points too. There is the issue from entering and across sitting Goldberry in a chair. She cannot in Fonstad's map.

So far my thoughts on Iarwain's house.

I'll add a drawn map of me, but must shower first. Let me know what you think of it? It is not accurate either, I know.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

That layout is a magnificent effort. It’s what I should have done instead of relaying my thoughts primarily in words.

I am so thrilled you are following along and chipping in so constructively.

Some minor points that you might consider with an updated drawing:

(a) I believe there is only one window in the main room. It is is on the same short wall as the front door as it looks west.
(b) There is an interior door in the east wall of the main room near the north side which I think leads to the stairwell and kitchen. The short passage also leads to the penthouse. So you might want to shove the stairwell a little south and extend the penthouse a little more to the east and then place a door from the penthouse to the little passage that’s been created.
(c) I think the hearth is against the south wall per my discussion below.

Fantastic job though - because I agree with everything else !!!!

—————

… continued from previous post


Hmm … indeed was it?

It is at this point – I think Tolkien would have asked us to use some logic along the following lines:

“I feel it is better not to state everything (and indeed it is more realistic, since in chronicles and accounts of ‘real’ history, many facts that some enquirer would like to know are omitted, and the truth has to be discovered or guessed from such evidence as there is).”
 – The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #268 – 19 January 1965, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

Why is such an approach necessary? Because there is another part of the house structure which needs to be evaluated.

What about the chimney stack?

We know that Goldberry’s chair was close to the eastern wall of the living room. Logically Tom’s seat would have been nearby, and the positioning of both would likely be fairly close to the fireplace. As well as warmth for themselves – the lilies would have appreciated it too! And so indeed – Tom’s seat was close to the fireside:

“With that he jumped out of his chair, and with a bound took a candle from the chimney-shelf …”. 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil   (my emphasis)

while the hobbit chairs were adjacent to his:
“Tom sat on a while beside them …”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil   (my emphasis)

Which makes one wonder against which wall would the chimney have been located?

Not against the northern wall, for why build a penthouse around a chimney stack? And that goes for the central region of the eastern wall too, as it is doubtful it would have been sandwiched within the kitchen interface*. For both of these scenarios chimney stacks are not easy to clean or service and present additional fire-risk for thatched roofs. It is best if a chimney is located against an exterior wall**. So the most logical site would have been against the long southern wall*** given we are told the hearth was ‘wide’. But as far as positioning, the fireplace must have been located over towards the room’s eastern side nearer the lounge chairs, and somewhat away from the front door and western wall. And also away from the dining table and its associated seating.

Certainly some of the chimney protruded into the room as Tom’s wet boots were:

“… put in the chimney-corner.”
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

But with many traditional English cottages – the majority of the stack often lies outside the house. That is especially true when it comes to smaller residences where the chimney would take up much valuable space. Just as problematic – if it lay fully inside a narrowish room, against a long wall, then heat would radiate only locally and not efficiently warm up the entire room. Additionally by specifying “the chimney-corner” Tolkien tells us there was only one corner present in the room. The chimney, then, must have butted up to the eastern wall (perhaps being shared with the kitchen).

Medieval thatched roof cottage with large exterior chimney stack

So given that we are told the hearth was wide – one might reasonably believe the chimney stack itself was large too. Given that cottage stacks are invariably rectangular in cross-section – we have a situation whereby the stack was likely located is an offset position and toward the casual seating end of the room, yet mainly outside the interior. So if one thinks about where the chimney lay relative to the overall southern wall of the entire house, which includes the kitchen as well as living/dining room, one might conclude that it was likely to have been relatively central. In all probability just like the penthouse was against the northern wall.

So what would the hobbits have seen from the brow of the sheltering hill upon departure? Would they have not wanted to take one last view of Bombadil’s house and bid farewell?

Hmm … they looked in every feature-laden direction but down. And I have a feeling Tolkien wanted the reader to figure that out. This place of sanctuary, which they so reluctantly left, should have been important to them.

If they had looked downwards and viewed the residence below, they ought to have seen a shape of utmost importance. One that we all know. Not the shape of a Tee – but the shape of a ‘cross’!

It was the shape of the house, or perhaps its exaggerated shadow**** under the morning sun, that Tolkien wanted the truly curious reader to see in his or her mind’s eye.

Tom’s humble residence was one that had holy significance. Perhaps the earliest ‘church’ in ancient times. A safe haven filled the light of candles was the house of Master Tom. A house in which the hobbits were told to have no fear.

Church - etymological origin from Greek Kurios: The house of the master.

This is one of those occasions where we find substance to Tolkien’s assertion:

“… I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain ‘religious’ ideas, …”. 
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #211 – 14 October 1958, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   (Tolkien’s emphasis)


Angelic Tom, from whom the tales of St. Michael in England sprang, foreshadowed the great Christian symbol and the ‘good news’ to come!



* Besides, Goldberry’s chair up against the eastern wall and facing the outer door is wrongly positioned for there to be a fireplace along the same wall.

** There are no pictures drawn specifically for The Lord of the Rings depicting ‘conventional’ detached homes. The sketch of Cotton’s farm (see Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator, Hammond & Scull, Figure 175) does appear to show an ‘exterior’ chimney against a kitchen wall.

*** A wide hearth and thus a correspondingly wide fireplace would be a logical feature for the long southern wall – perhaps answering why it lacked a window.

**** Early morning shadows are elongated. Tolkien’s awareness of long shadow casting is evident per a discussion of a tree causing a light blocking issue to a neighbor’s property:

“It stood due east of her front door … only about the equinox would it even cast a shadow in her direction, and only in the very early morning one that reached across the road to the pavement outside her front gate.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #241 – 8-9 September 1962, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (Tolkien’s emphasis on ‘east’)

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hey Priya: Here is an updated version of it. I have largely incorporated your ideas, but not complete. Your reasoning about the position of the hearth sounds logic. I don't think it would have been necessarily a cross. With the private grounds around and the gardens? Patches where flowers would grow under the windows, to make it more pleasant? I think there would be a more oval shape to the grounds or perhaps nearly round? I think there is bit elvish accent to Tom's dwelling? It is the sense I get from the descriptions in the chapters.

So what would the hobbits have seen from the brow of the sheltering hill upon departure? Would they have not wanted to take one last view of Bombadil’s house and bid farewell?

Eh.. I think it is fairly logical reaction not to look back, because you would be inclined to remember straight how cosy it all was and give in to return. It is a classical reaction from young children who are picked up by grandma or grandpa for a day of fun and moms stays home. And they sudden look back and are overwhelmed by it and then like an embrace from moms once more. It is something that with adults can happen too, if partings are are long, because both partners are from different nations/places or cultures. The pull to return can be too powerful to resist if you look over the shoulder, when there are emotions involved.

If Tolkien wrote something like this: “… I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain ‘religious’ ideas, …”. 
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #211.... I think it could be anything really as long it has a religious nature, or something close to it. "Religious" could be "philosophical" too, from a certain point of view. That is my surmise about it... even it is perhaps not liked.

But yeah further it is again an outstanding and thorough post of yours. You are fabulous person with fundamenting your arguments! From your point of view I think you are fairly right in your conclusions, even a fair few I don't agree with. It is enjoyable for me to learn reading beyond my scope.

[Priya]

Hi Aiks

So if you add the chimney to the exterior of the house (south of the hearth), and then trace around the perimeter of the entire physical house (including the chimney stack, but not the garden) - the shape you end up with is roughly a cross! I’m actually quite comfortable if some folk do not buy into what I’ve projected, because I think it takes time and thought for matters to sink in.

One might want to mull upon why Tolkien gave such a vivid description of Tom’s abode. He doesn’t appear to have been so particular with any other dwelling in the book. In my opinion he left a deliberate puzzle. And intentionally, sufficient clues (to arrive at a logical solution) were scattered throughout the Bombadil related text. Perhaps this was done in emulating the technique commonly used in Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes detective stories - which according to records were very popular with the boys at King Edward’s School, Birmingham during Tolkien’s time!

————

A Fishy Story


Now I’ve already highlighted many submerged Christian allusions within the Bombadil chapters. One other method employed by the Professor was I believe ever so subtle.

As the hobbits stepped out from the edge of the Old Forest, Tom’s abode could be seen twinkling in the distance. The route to the house “high above them”:

“… wound up on to the top of a grassy knoll … Down again the path went, …”.
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest

“… Down again the path went, and then up again, up a long smooth hillside … There was Tom Bombadil’s house before them, up, down, under hill.”
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest

What was all this: “up, down, under hill” with ‘grey’ grass before them?
 What was it all about, and why was it necessary?

In my opinion, Tolkien subliminally inserted another Christian motif. The grey undulating hills could, without too much imagination on our part, be representative of an oceanic or sea-like setting – meaning waves of water. And that would bring to mind that other great Christian symbol: the ‘fish’.

 Before them lay an unrecognized outline of hope, whose tangible effect was such that:

“… half their weariness and all their fears had fallen from them.”
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest   (my underlined emphasis)

If one starts to trace out the hobbits’ linear journey from the forest edge in two halves and employ the two images given above:

The first part of the journey results in the depicted arc of the upper image - in the travel up the first hill – then reaching its zenith, then continuing on - ending up on the downward leg of the same hill.

The second part of the journey mirrors the first per the depicted arc of the lower image. In continuing down the first hill - after reaching its bottom, the journey would have ended up a portion of the second hill when finally reaching Tom’s house.

In drawing the entire textual trek out as two separate linear curves, and solving the ‘puzzle’ by sliding them together to overlap, what we end up with is a well-known sign; namely that of the Christian fish!


 

The Christian Symbol of the Fish

The imagery is extremely subtle if it was truly designed in. Yet though it exists, I admit that there is no confirming record. Nonetheless, I have this nagging feeling that Tolkien was astuter than even the most fervent scholars give him credit for. So another riddle perhaps? A riddle for an adult to solve? An adult familiar with his faith?

Lastly for this section, worth mentioning as a possible connecting analog is the ‘Skirrid’ located in the Black Mountains of Wales. Known as the ‘Holy Mountain’ it forms the easternmost outlier to the range. For the Welsh – surrounding this very uniquely shaped hill exists stirring folklore concerning the Devil and guess who?

Yes, St. Michael!

At its very summit there are remnants of an ancient shrine to the archangel. For as legend has it, Satan stamped on the side of the hill (after failing to seduce St. Michael) causing a chunk to fall away. As such, the topography results in an up, down, under hill shape which thus befits the novel in tracing Tom’s home-bound route. Just as curious are reports that at the end of the 19th Century, an old wizard-like man lived at the peak.

So once again there are indications of a fusion of religion with folklore connecting to our tale. Though whether Tolkien knew* of such stories – I cannot prove. Still there are the slightest of clues that he did.

The Skirrid, view from south showing land slip

 



Tolkien with his friend George Sayer made a visit to the Black Mountains in 1952 prior to The Lord of the Rings being published. It isn’t recorded which of the mountains they walked upon, passed by car, or viewed in the distance. However of them all, the Skirrid is the most famous in terms of Welsh superstitions and folklore. It seems possible that Sayer who lived barely an hour’s drive away in Malvern, and who was also very friendly with C.S. Lewis, would have purposely chosen this site for that reason. Moreover, it lies on the very border of Herefordshire and Wales – which ties in with a reported ‘borders’ trip**. It is peculiar that within days after returning from the Black Mountains – Tolkien wished to make changes, to what he had previously considered, to be a completed The Lord of the Rings. What would have prompted him to make alterations, what would they have been, and why the urgency?

No documentation currently exists – so we may never know. But it is curious the “up down” to the “up down, under hill” doesn’t appear in the drafts (see The Return of the Shadow). And of even greater curiosity is that while in the Black Mountains Tolkien compared:

“… the scenery to places in The Lord of the Rings, …”, 
– The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2017 Edition, Chronology, Late August 1952, C. Scull & W. Hammond

Unfortunately no full record of which ‘places’ is available. But perhaps one of them might have been the hilly zone in which Tom’s house nestled!






* Tolkien is known to have visited Wales in 1905 – though his destination and route are unknown.

Whether the Skirrid is visible from the westernmost Malvern Hills (possibly visited while staying with his uncle in Evesham) or from Lydney Park (a journey supposedly undertaken in the early 30’s) is not confirmed. However, these are other vaguely viable ways of Tolkien becoming personally acquainted with the topographic feature - even before the vacation at the Sayer’s. How he ran across the legend itself, if indeed he did, again cannot be ascertained and remains speculation.

** At the end of August 1952:

“Tolkien stays with George and Moira Sayer at Malvern … He and Sayer walk in the Malvern Hills, and drive to the Black Mountains on the Welsh borders …”.
 - The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2017 Edition, Chronology, Late August 1952, C. Scull & W. Hammond

While in early September, at his son Michael’s cottage (having written to Rayner Unwin on the 29 August), he had made the decision to:

“… to read through and correct The Lord of the Rings. … Since he has written The Lord of the Rings over such a long span of years, some elements in the story need to be changed, …”.
 - The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2017 Edition, Chronology, 30 August – 10 September 1952, C. Scull & W. Hammond

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: What is in Welsh folklore about the Black Mountain? In that dull peak I see more the face of a person who screams, like it was a giant lying on his back who got screaming in the sun and turned to stone. It might perhaps be a spot where part of the idea for these stone trolls were born in the Hobbit? If there is a reason for some changes, means he had found some new inspiration to deepen out things bit?

Oh the house, it could be with imagination. It is what you like to see in it. I love to see more as full complex, and more that relates to the Ainur idea of building a house and the Eldar from Valinor. I don't think there houses were grand like palaces, but interflowing with the nature around. Particular with the Minyár, where house and garden compliment each other as a natural amalgation between a habitat to life, but not sacrifice the natural flow of the surroundings. Like a perfect kind of harmony, untarnished by darkness.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

What is in Welsh folklore about the Black Mountain? In that dull peak I see more the face of a person who screams, like it was a giant lying on his back who got screaming in the sun and turned to stone.

Interestingly there is a legend of a giant associated to the Skirrid.


https://www.spookyisles.com/skirrid-folklore/

I too see the giant lying down - which I never saw before



As to your perception of Tom’s house - each and every everyone will have their own built-up inner vision - which is the remarkable and marvelous ‘gift’ of literature. With a mainly exterior chimney - this is what I see

——————

Well, this is a good point to summarize a little on what I have revealed so far.

Really, Tom and his partner (as we shall come to see in another thread on ‘Goldberry’) are intricately bound to the Christian religion beyond anything proposed by any scholar/researcher before. Seemingly there is a deeper, ever so subtle substructure to the merry couple’s story - with the theme of holiness at its core. It’s something that hopefully folk will be able to relate to given that:

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; …”,
 - The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #142 – 2 December 1953, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

and:

“Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered.” 
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #131 – late 1951, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

But if so, some of you might be wondering whether Tom, his local lands and his abode’s connection to religion goes beyond mere symbolism.

In which case, after all this discussion about angels and holiness, we can no longer avoid touching upon the ‘dreaded’ subject of ‘allegory’ – a topic I have shied away from actively discussing before.

However at this point, I have decided that it is unfair to jump to conclusions hastily. The reader is entitled to understand the whole story, and yes there is quite a bit more. Nevertheless, the ‘Michael analogue’ is weighty. It’s hard not to leap to an immediate verdict. Whether Tolkien stepped over the line, and with his own definition condemned himself:

“… ‘allegory’ … resides in … the purposed domination of the author.”, 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Foreword to the Second Edition   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

is a matter we ought to deeply ponder. Was the selection of September 29th and November 1st “purposed domination of the author” ? Is the reader (now knowing the significance of these dates) forced to forever associate Tom with Michael, the archangel?

Until Tolkien’s full purpose is known, a stay of judgement is fair. Yet a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing!


… more to come

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: True, anyone has the own imagination how situations are constructed, when there are no images of it. I read the link on the giant, thanks!

I did check on Letter 142 and indeed it is what Tolkien wrote to Robert Murray. But there is much more to it, you haven't mentioned: "Lord of the Rings is natural a fundamental religious and catholic work, first unconsciously, but consciously during the revision. Therefore, I have left out or taken out almost all references to something like 'religion', cults, or practices in the imaginary world. Because the religious element is included in the story and the symbolism*." I guess it binds together what scholars usually read behind certain things in the tales.

I don't have any sort of religious opbringing, though I was for most part of my elementary time in a catholic school as well. It was always joyful, but yeah that was in the 1980's. Precise why he left it out, you don't read it in the texts, if you haven't a connection with faith, or have another faith than catholicism. What kind of symbolism I am not touching myself, as it is pretty sensitive, or if Tolkien wrote something too, what Goldberry and Tom do present in symbolisation, then there is a fundament given by Tolkien himself to hold on with certainty. I ought to read the letters again I guess, I don't remember much of them, or recall.

NB: *The words of the quote can be a little different, because the text came in Dutch and I had to switch it back into English. It is from the first press "Brieven" translated by Max Schuchart in 1982, from Allen and Unwin print in 1981.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Yes - thank you for posting more of the letter. I have thought much about what Tolkien said; and for me what it translates to is that TLotR was consciously made to be a religious Catholic work through deliberately imbued symbolism.

Two such admitted symbolic representations are the dates of March 25th and December 25th that he specifies as special in Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings. So why should we have any reason to disbelieve the 29th September or November 1st weren’t purposely made special too?

Yet there are other ways of symbolically including Christianity into the text.
But to be honest - there aren’t that many visual Christian symbols beyond the fish and the cross. It seems to me that those two would be the ones Tolkien would most likely have ‘consciously’ included.

It doesn’t take much to figure out where and how.

——————

Hopefully per my previous post, some of you have been pondering on whether Tolkien made Tom an ‘allegory’ in portraying him as symbolically representative of the archangel Michael. But it might be premature to make a final decision without understanding whether a fuller story about this marvelous character exists. Is there more to him that has not yet been brought out into the open. Could Tom be case of ‘applicability’?

“I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, …”.
- Foreword to the Fellowship of the Ring - 2nd Edition, 1966

But for us to give Tolkien a fair hearing - we need to dig deep. And the tack we need to take, perhaps not altogether surprisingly, is to firstly extract and establish Tom’s links to classic fairy-stories. This will help direct us towards understanding Tolkien’s ulterior purpose.

So though my next few posts will switch entirely away from religion - eventually after much focus on lower and higher mythologies - we will circle back and link into Christianity and see how Tolkien superbly tied them all together. We will see the depth of sub creation surrounding Bombadil - as no one has exposed before!

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: Indeed. Not many symbols? There are quite a few actually on Christian symbolism:

1. Cross and crucifix
2. Ichthys
3. Alpha and Omega
4. Staurogram
5. Chi and Rho
6. Iota and Eta
7. Iota and Chi
8. Good shepherd
9. Dove
10. Peacock
11. Pelican
12. Anchor
13. Shamrock
14. Water and Fire
15. Lily crucifix
16. Colours: White, red, green, purple, blue, black and yellow.
17. Sacraments
18. Icons
19. Domes
20. Bread and wine
21. Thorn crown
22. Star of Bethlehem

Quite a lot passed by for me in elementary school. Not all of them, but animals like the dove and peacock, the sacraments and icons, the cross and crucifix. A few I could write from memory, but the rest are from the Wiki page. If there could be another Christian reference, it could be the unblocking of the river by the Ents and the water clashing down dying the flames in the caverns of Orthanc? And the elven spots like Imladris and Lothlorien could be symbolic anchors, where the fellowship comes together and rest on their journey. Just a few thougths of mine.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Yes, you are absolutely right - numerous Christian symbols do exist. I was too loose with my phrasing, and should have said “there aren’t that many early visual Christian symbols”. Because, I feel Tolkien - who was always interested in somehow linking his feigned Third Age to our earliest history - would most likely have concentrated his effort so.

Thus, as Wikipedia in order lists, the most well-known earliest symbols are Nos. 1 & 2 the Cross/Crucifix and the Fish/Ichthys.

———-

Bombadil & That Beanstalk Fairy tale

Some of you might yet you be following the Plaza thread: ‘Tom, Bill & Bert - Yeah Really!’ Right now I’m trying to expose the connection of Jack (of classic English fairy tale) to aspects of The Hobbit. But it appears that ‘Jack’ was also cleverly embedded in The Fellowship of the Ring!

Isn’t it curious that Tolkien decided to include beanstalks in his greater tale? From the penthouse east window, the:

“… view was screened by a tall line of beans on poles; …”.
 - The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Why of all the possible vegetables found in an English vegetable garden did Tolkien include only one?


 

‘Jack and the Beanstalk’, Warwick Goble, c. 1890

 

To provide an overarching reason for seemingly the most innocuous of insertions again we must hark back to mythology, in particular ‘lower mythologies’ commonly termed märchen – namely: English fairy-stories. Though it might sound like I’m repeating myself ad nauseum, really the coupling of our myths, fairy tales and and folklore to his own story is a founding principle of Tolkien’s work.

Speechified as downright English – Tom, I deduce, was deliberately connected to that most English of fairy tales: Jack and the Beanstalk*.

Who was that odd-looking old man whom Jack had traded with? 

“He hadn’t gone far when he met a funny-looking old man, who said to him: ‘Good morning, Jack.’ ” 
– English Fairy Tales, Jack and the Beanstalk – pg. 60, J. Jacobs, 1890

Surely only a fairy being would have been in possession of magic beans?

 

The Queer Old Man, ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’, English Fairy Tales, F. Steel, 1890 (Illustration by Arthur Rackham)

 
One of the earliest printed illustrations of the famous tale records a bearded short man with a conspicuous hat and a blue jacket. Might he have been Tom?

Illustrations from ‘The History of Mother Twaddle and the Marvellous Achievements of Her Son Jack’, Benjamin Tabart, 1807

Then after the swap what happened to Jack’s cow: ‘Milky-White’?
Hmm … for our tale clearly Tom had access to a providing farm animal. After all, the extent of dairy produce on the dinner table was substantial:

“… yellow cream and honeycomb, and white bread and butter; milk, cheese, …”.
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil   (my underlined emphasis)

Given the length of the stay of four ravenous hobbits – not to mention the isolation of Tom from human or hobbit neighbors – one can readily deduce that there was plenty of fresh milk available on site. Obviously Tom must have had a large barn type structure to shelter the hobbits’ five ponies; it also served as winter housing for Fatty Lumpkin no doubt. Along with this building must have been stored a copious quantity of hay; because we know the beasts were not forgotten. Then it is surmised Tom must have had ample room as well as hoarded feed for a cow. And why a bovine and not a herd of goats? Well, that is because Tolkien explicitly amplified the cream was “yellow” by stating it twice. Goats produce ‘white’ cream, whereas cows produce (like butter) the yellow sort.

So we can see that there was no shortage of food during the hobbits’ respite. With much of it being milk based, we might ascertain Tom’s cow was a prodigious producer. Resonating with:

“… Milky-white, the best milker in the parish, …”. 
– English Fairy Tales, Jack and the Beanstalk – pg. 61, J. Jacobs, 1890

And one can readily imagine that legends of Milky-white and her ample output originated in hobbit folklore to be passed along through the ages to our own world’s myth through blended and corrupted tales of Tom’s residence being awash in ‘white milk’:

“Frodo … watched the white chalky path turn into a little river of milk and go bubbling away down into the valley.” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil   (my underlined emphasis) 

To search for further findings to bolster the Jack and the Beanstalk link requires digging into adjacent material; for Tolkien, in Conan Doyle fashion, spread out the evidence.

To the hobbits – who exactly were these black men, so much larger than them (and thus in comparison – of ogreish size), who had invaded a thoroughly English Shire with such animosity for its inhabitants? Many of the rustic little people had never encountered the Big Folk; from their viewpoint they must have looked gigantic:

“Sam … was finding his first sight of Men … quite enough, …”. 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

Apart from the ‘ogre’ fueled chase echoing Jack’s experience, what about that heightened sense of smell? What was all the sniffing about?

“… inside the hood came a noise as of someone sniffing …”. 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, Three is Company

The Ogre in Black, ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’, English Fairy Tales, F. Steel, 1890 (Illustration by Arthur Rackham)

 
Presumably it was connected to Aragorn’s revelation:

“… at all times they smell the blood of living things, desiring and hating it.” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, A Knife in the Dark

Hmm … the smelling of blood combined with raw hatred! Now where have we seen that theme before? Yes, we must hark back once again to Jack and the Beanstalk and that most famous of English rhymes:

“ ‘… Fee-fi-fo-fum,

I smell the blood of an Englishman,

Be he alive, or be he dead

I’ll have his bones to grind my bread.’ ”

- English Fairy Tales, Jack and the Beanstalk – pg. 63, J. Jacobs, 1890

Aren’t the similarities  becoming obvious now? Isn’t it obvious how The Fellowship of the Ring mirrors Jack and the Beanstalk in that both heroes look out from a window on to beanstalks first thing in the morning!

“Frodo ran to the eastern window, and found himself looking into … a tall line of beans on poles; …”,
 – The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

“So Jack jumped up and dressed himself and went to the window. And what do you think he saw? why, the beans … had sprung up into a big beanstalk …”.
 - English Fairy Tales, Jack and the Beanstalk, J. Jacobs, 1890

Jack looking out on to the Beanstalk – Artist unknown

Most cleverly, Tolkien had interwoven fragments of a well-known English fairy tale into his story with a combination of affinity and diffused variance. For to the Professor, to repeat what has already been emphasized:

“ ‘… there was always a kernel of fact behind a legend.’ ” 
– Lecture of 14 February 1938, Report in Amon Hen 28, August 1977

And in that process of oral hand-down some inevitable corruption had occurred. It turns out that it was the Horn of Buckland which mustered local hobbits against the ogre-like Black Riders. And the likely order for it to be blown came from the Master of Brandy Hall. Which is all too similar to Jack rallying his people by sounding a horn at the Ogre’s gate in Lang’s version of the tale:

“The men … pressed forward to say that they would serve Jack … to the castle, … they marched … and Jack blew the horn …”.
 – The Red Fairy Book, Jack and the Beanstalk – pg. 144, A. Lang, 1890

Even more remarkable – the hobbits of Buckland were supposedly the originators of the ‘Fee-fi-fo’ part of the rhyme:

“FEAR! FIRE! FOES!” 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, A Knife in the Dark

Just maybe in Tolkien’s mind the missing ‘fum’ was a distorted: “run”. Perhaps this had all got jumbled up in ‘The Cauldron of Story’, leaving a ‘run to safety’ as a little puzzle for the reader to sort out!

“Fatty Bolger … knew that he must run. … And run he did, …”. 
– The Fellowship of the Ring, A Knife in the Dark

Hmm … the aural resonances leave much to ponder! But objectively there are simply too many coincidences for the prognosis not to be true. Which means such integration must have been planned very early on. Reflected perhaps by Tolkien relating The Scouring of the Shire was:

“ … an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, …”. 
– Foreword to The Lord of the Rings

Leaving us to contemplate whether the ending of the Shire occupation, where ruffians (of giant-size in comparison to hobbits) were buried in the battle-pit, was deliberately formulated. Yes, to resonate with the tale of Jack the Giant-Killer**. Therein the slaying and burial of the giant Cormoran was orchestrated through digging a pit. Jack:

“… dug a pit twenty-two feet deep, and nearly as broad, … the giant … tumbled into the pit, … Then … he gave him a most weighty knock … and killed him … Jack then filled up the pit with earth, …”.
 – English Fairy Tales, Jack the Giant-Killer – pgs. 100-101, J. Jacobs, 1890
 

Early Chapbook, ‘History of Jack the Giant Killer’ (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Hmm … when viewed in totality, the evidence is incriminating. Especially as left was much more than ‘a kernel’. Fairy tales, after all, were part and parcel of historical literature; a fact Tolkien wanted to exploit:

“The Hobbit saga is presented as vera historia, at great pains (which have proved very effective).”
 - The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #281 – 15 December 1965, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981



… to be continued



* Tolkien certainly knew of Jack and the Beanstalk. He mentions the tale in his 1936 Beowulf lecture. It is also specified in drafts of his 1939 ‘Fairy Stories’ lecture paper (see Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 215 & MS. 14 F 25 – pg. 279, by Verlyn Flieger & Douglas Anderson, 2014).

** Chapbooks were cheap booklets produced for the literate poor between the 15th and 19th centuries. Tolkien specifically mentions the Jack the Giant Killer chapbook in an early manuscript of his Fairy-stories lecture paper (see Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 215 by Verlyn Flieger & Douglas Anderson, 2014

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hey Priya: interesting assertion on the Beanstock tale compared to Bombadil. In the times those drawings were made, people wore other kind of clothing and also colours. Pictures had often to tell half the tale, where paper was expensive and people were well versed in reading as today. You know the crook from the hero, so to say. Interesting how you come to your thoughts. Thanks for sharing them!

[Priya]

Hey Aiks

I agree that pictures can tell us a lot about a tale. And even those focused on literature, such as Tolkien, are naturally attracted to them. Glad to see you are open to considering my line of thinking!

———

As I have already set out (see thread: Bill, Bert and Tom - Yeah Really!) there are plenty of pointers in The Hobbit harking back to the ‘Jack tales’. In the early drafts of The Lord of the Rings there are more concerning Farmer Maggot that I haven’t already raised.

Bilbo is described as having to defend himself and his nephew against the ogreish Farmer Maggot and his dog. He kills the animal with a stick, a most unusual action for a hobbit:

“He set a great dog on us, … Bilbo broke its head with that thick stick of his.” 
– The Return of the Shadow, A Short Cut to Mushrooms – pg. 296, Note 6, 1988

Such a violent act ties back to two specific Jack tales. One where a magical stick (Jack and his Bargains) is used to apply beatings upon the correct command:

“… ‘Up stick and at it’ …”.
 - The Uses of Enchantment, Jack and The Beanstalk – pg. 184, B. Bettelheim, 1989

And another where a giant (who grinds men’s bones in a mill to make bread) has his dog killed by Jack:

“The giant had a favourite dog, … Jack killed the dog, …”.
 – More English Fairytales, The Blinded Giant – pg. 86, J. Jacobs, 1894


… more to come

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: Off course, it broaden up my horizon. I'll be on the lookout.