Reflections of Old Bill

Original writings and artwork by Tolkien fans.
Post Reply
Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
For @Priya, I'm not suggesting you actually read this but I am happy to have an excuse to post it: a document from Covid days, an attempt to make sense of J.S. Mill's reading of the chalk mark on the door in the tale of Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves.

The Confused Chalk-lore of John Stuart Mill

One Tuesday morning in the early summer of 1839, Bill the patterer lounged in the doorway of a random house on Cheapside, smoking his pipe. He surveyed a world of much noise and little green. The time was quarter to 10.00 o’clock, and the great throughfare running from St Pauls to the City of London already stank from the discharge of countless horses drawing innumerable gigs, cabs, and omnibuses. The early tide of underpaid clerks and inky office lads of Somers and Camden towns, Islington and Pentonville had by now poured into the City, the shopkeepers in white neckerchiefs and spruce coats had arranged their window displays, and the hosiers, shirtmakers, tailors, tobacconists, and jewellers were busy serving customers. Women were far and few between on Cheapside, but the ever-changing concourse of foot-passengers exhibited specimens of all types of men: gay and shabby, rich and poor, idle and industrious.

Born William Cave but known as Old Bill by his acquaintances, the patterer knows all these types. His father was a clergyman who, to the end of his days, let out that his son was in the colonies, and before he was sent down from Oxford Bill had counted various aristocratic idlers among his acquaintances. Sharing their distaste for gainful employment, he has ever since picked up a crust by exercising his not inconsiderable gift of the gab on the streets of the metropolis and, on occasion, the doorsteps of rural villages. Bill has employed his oratorical skills to tell penny fortunes with a bottle, showcase performing animals, and hawk dead fish, live squirrels, corn-salves, rat poison, and literature – this last a somewhat nebulous category that includes ballads, almanacks, and cheaply printed accounts of mendacious murders, impossible robberies, and delusive suicides. Today he will set up a temporary pitch in a nearby alley and sell sealed packets, supposedly containing obscene drawings but actually stuffed with back numbers of The Morning Chronicle. As a patterer, Bill deems himself an aristocrat of the streets and looks down on the costermongers who sell from their barrows, the pickpockets who trade on mere dexterity of hand, and the beggars who trade only on the milk of human kindness. Patterers, he likes to declare, are the journalists and men of letters of the streets, making their way in the world with only their words, wit, and imagination.

As he watches the world go by from the doorway, Bill recognizes a man whose name he does not know. Threading his way among the foot-passengers who crowd the narrow pavement, the man is unaware of Bill’s attention, but over the years Bill has observed him many times. Always in the same black dress-suit and silk necktie, and always on the same streets at the same times: in the morning he follows the Thames, striding widdershins to his work in the City at India House, which he leaves at 4.00 o’clock in the afternoon to retrace his steps home. The man is tall and slim, with a youthful face, bald head, fair hair and a ruddy complexion. Something in his demeaner suggests to Bill a fellow patterer, though his regularity of habit, office job, and evident obliviousness to his surroundings all signify that he is not. Though he neither jostles his fellows nor collides with the lamp posts, he invariably has the air of a man so deeply absorbed in his own contemplations that he would not recognize a friend if he passed him on the street.

Watching him as he walks, Bill scratches his own head and, not for the first time, wonders what the man is thinking about. We, who have both the benefit of hindsight and access to a better class of literature than that hawked by Bill, can answer his question. Let’s borrow from a fairy and provide Bill with a magic stone so he too may hear the man’s articulated thoughts. What Bill discovers is that, as so often with private reflections, these ratiocinations glide between fantasy and reality and do not withstand careful analysis. Walking down Cheapside, the man with the silk necktie steps in his mind between an Oriental story he read as a child and a house on a street he passed earlier on his walk to work. He is thinking to himself:
If, like the robber in the Arabian Nights, we make a mark with chalk upon a house to enable us to know it again, the mark has a purpose, but it has not properly any meaning. The chalk does not declare anything about the house; it does not mean, This is such a person’s house, or This is a house which contains booty. The object of making the mark is merely distinction. I say to myself, All these houses are so nearly alike, that if I lose sight of them I shall not again be able to distinguish that which I am now looking at from any of the others; I must therefore contrive to make the appearance of this one house unlike that of the others, that I may hereafter know, when I see the mark – not indeed any attribute of the house – but simply that it is the same house which I am now looking at.
Bill’s first impression is that he is overhearing the philosophical ruminations of a professional burglar. True, he does not look like a burglar, but the good ones never do. His profession aside, Bill deems his ideas preposterous. As if we can only tell two people apart by dressing them in different coloured clothes! The man has walked the same streets every weekday for years; surely, he already distinguishes each and every house on his route? Bill concedes that this is likely a man whose great devotion to book learning in his early years has interfered with his activity as an observer of facts at first hand. But Bill too has read the story of ‘Ali Baba & the 40 Thieves’ and reflects that the man’s book reading should have taught him better.

Let’s refresh our own memories of a story that everyone thinks they already know. Having wheedled the magic formula Open Sesame out of his brother, Cassim heads into the forest to find the hidden cave where the 40 Thieves store their loot (how he located a hidden door in the rockface without a map is something of a mystery). Once inside, he falls under the spell of the vast stolen treasure and forgets the magic word of opening. Trapped, he is discovered by the 40 Thieves and cut into four parts. When he fails to return home, Ali Baba heads to the cave and brings his brother back in pieces. Morgiana the slave-girl then calls on the cobbler, Baba Mustapha, pays him good coin, and leads him blindfolded to the house, where he sows Cassim back together so he may be decently buried. Meanwhile, on discovering the body has vanished the 40 Thieves infer another burglar and, in succession, three of their number set off into town to track down this second nameless thief. By good fortune, each encounters the cobbler, who talks of his grisly night’s work, and each thief then pay him to again don a blindfold and retrace his steps. Here (in English translation of the original French) is the first such occasion:
... the robber tied his handkerchief over his eyes and then walked by his side, partly leading him and partly guided by him. ‘I think,’ said Baba Mustapha at length, ‘I went no further,’ and he stopped directly at Cassim’s house, where Ali Baba now lived. Before taking the handkerchief off the old man’s eyes, the thief carefully marked the door with a piece of chalk, which he had ready in his hand, and then asked if he knew whose house that was: to which Baba Mustapha replied, that as he did not live in that neighbourhood he could not tell.
The second robber repeats this action, his only variation the use of differently coloured chalk. But chalking the door is a stupid thing to do, for it draws the attention of Morgiana, who infers some nefarious purpose and, twice, foils the plan by chalking the neighbouring houses. When the thieves turn up in the street, they cannot identify the house. Both hapless chalkers are executed by their Chief for having failed. Then there was Ali Baba and 38 nameless thieves.

Bill wonders if the man with the silk necktie is as stupid as the two thieves whose chalking he mentally re-enacts. The first robber is obviously an idiot, the second, who repeats a failed act with differently coloured chalk, an imbecile, while the man himself is evidently as clueless about literature as about the world. After executing the second thief the Chief heads into town, encounters the cobbler and so locates the house, which he simply looks at long and hard so he will know it again. The moral of this part of the story, which Bill knew all along, is that the chalk mark is redundant – a keen eye may discern marks that already distinguish the house.

Bill decides the man cannot be a burglar. If he was, he would have been caught and so be one no longer. Besides, the man’s face has that sanctimonious air of respectability that Bill recognizes from his father. His is the look of a man who holds property sacred and would neither break into another’s house nor deface its front door. His mental re-enactment of a criminal’s chalking is merely a fantasy. But the purely hypothetical nature of this thought experiment in graffiti has allowed the man to lose sight of reality. He does not imagine that he too is tracking a nameless burglar who has discovered the password to his hidden cave, and yet provides no other reason why he wishes to chalk what is therefore a random house. Both Bill and the man are infidels but, unlike the man, Bill in his youth studied his Bible and still recalls the story of how David, fleeing the wrath of King Saul, took refuge in the Philistine city of Gath but then began to fear the Philistine king. David knew he could not leave unless the old man kicked him out, so he dribbled saliva into his beard and scribbled marks on the doors of the gate, thereby inducing the king to send him away and inventing the game of Scrabble at the same time (I Samuel 21:13). The Biblical lesson is that a man who makes random marks on a door appears mad.

What puzzles Bill most is the man’s idea that the chalk mark on the door has no meaning. Bill knows something about chalking houses. Though vagrants, patterers are far from disorganized. When working the country districts, where there are no streets, they are obliged to call at the houses. As they are mostly without a hawker’s license, and sometimes find wet linen before it is lost, such peddlers of buttons are often turned away at the door with a curt Good morning! Patterers therefore employ a system of signs, chalked as signals on or near the door. A diamond shape, for example, is read ‘Bone’ and means good, a triangle is ‘Cooper’d’ and means the house has been spoiled by the imprudence of some previous patterer, a square is ‘Gammy’, meaning that the occupant will have you taken up, and a circle with a dot in the center is ‘Flummut’ and means that calling here will land you in quod for a month. Bill has never chalked a mark on a door that means nothing at all. He suspects the man is mistaken and that this chalk mark is really a cypher. But as its appearance is never described, neither by the man in his ratiocinations nor in the story itself, Bill leaves the issue unresolved for the time being.

But that evening, having retired to a safe if foul smelling house in Feld Lane, Bill lights up his pipe and recalls the queer ratiocinations of the man in the black dress-suit and silk necktie. As he smokes, Bill now makes a connection between two of his own earlier reflections. The chalk mark of the story, he now perceives, is like a patterer mark, but the chalk mark imagined by the man is not, and the difference is accounted for by the man’s peculiar picture of himself chalking a random house.* Such a random mark is indeed meaningless, but only because the man has abstracted his act of chalking from any context, thereby removing from view any possible intention behind it. When Bill chalks a house he has in mind some quality of the occupant, while the robbers in the story chalk the house because they are seeking the burglar we know as Ali Baba; only by abstracting from any such scenario could the man frame a picture of himself putting a mark on a house simply and solely to mark the house. This resolves the issue of the chalk mark, but leaves Bill mystified as to the purpose behind the man’s strange imagination of chalking a house.

One lesson that Bill takes from all this is that possession of a magic stone that allows one to hear the thoughts of another may not be as illuminating as the fairy stories suggest.

* Bill is wrong. The chalk mark in the story is not a Patterer-mark. It would be such if the robbers were decent burglars - but the point is that they are stupid, and actually make just the kind of mark that Mill takes them to make.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 2 817 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:24 am
Chrys: It reads nice! I don't know what really to make out of it. I have heard of the Stuart Mill from the 19th century, but I don't know if this is the person that is the tale above? But on the Wiki page can nothing be found back on Ali Baba, or any work on this topic about he criticised. So I leave off any commentaries. :wink:
Just call me Aiks or Aikári. Notify is off.
Find me stuff in Gondolin.
And let us embark to Valinor!

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Thank you Aiks, :smooch:

A curious thing for me to read it again after a few years. Most of the sentences are lifted straight out of this or that Victorian publication, so it should have a period feel.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Some commentary

J.S. Mill on the fairy-story. From On Names , the second chapter of J.S. Mill's System of Logic (1843).
If, like the robber in the Arabian Nights, we make a mark with chalk upon a house to enable us to know it again, the mark has a purpose, but it has not properly any meaning. The chalk does not declare anything about the house; it does not mean, This is such a person’s house, or This is a house which contains booty. The object of making the mark is merely distinction. I say to myself, All these houses are so nearly alike, that if I lose sight of them I shall not again be able to distinguish that which I am now looking at from any of the others; I must therefore contrive to make the appearance of this one house unlike that of the others, that I may hereafter know, when I see the mark – not indeed any attribute of the house – but simply that it is the same house which I am now looking at.

Morgiana chalked all the other houses in a similar manner, and defeated the scheme: how? simply by obliterating the difference of appearance between that house and the others. The chalk was still there, but it no longer served the purpose of a distinctive mark.
Here is Thomas Shedden in The Elements of Logic, (1864) proposing a different reading of the fairy story.
This example proves exactly the opposite of what Mr. Mill lays down. The robber did not mark the house for future identification, as a police official numbers the houses in a new street; on the contrary, when he marked it his concept of it was, that it was the house where the cobbler had sewn together the four quarters of a man, and to him that attribute of the house was connoted by the mark. The mark was a stenographic sign or cypher for that many-worded name.
This dispute over the correct reading of the story is the key to The Hobbit, or such at least was the conclusion of my Covid-era ruminations. But let us not run before we can walk. Some initial reflections on this dispute.

As an episode in cultural history, I suspect that we observe here a dissemination of awareness of Patterer-marks. Mill composes his passage before Mayhew has unveiled the marks to the public, while Shedden writes in an England that is aware of criminal codes.

In terms of literature, Mill is ironically more correct than Shedden, but one needs both philosophers to appreciate the genius of the storyteller! Mill re-enacts a stupid thief, while Shedden foreshadows the door-scratching of the wizard with his queer sign. Shedden gives an ideal case of criminal door-marking, but overlooks that the story is presenting us with two stupid cases. Mill overlooked that the robbers are stupid, and gave a stupid reading of the chalk mark, and his reading is thereby correct.

Philosophically, the two logicians set out the linguistic riddle that bewildered academics in the early decades of the twentieth century, and as such (imo) provide the linguistic key to The Hobbit. What confused everyone back then was the relation of reference to meaning, such that names both point to specific individuals and inform us about the qualities of those individuals.

The chalk mark on the door of the Ali Baba story is framed by Mill as a linguistic sign that refers to something (the house that is marked) but means nothing. Shedden replies that the sign refers to the house and means something about it.

In the early years of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell (Mill's godson) argued that signs that appear only to refer are, logically, 'disguised' descriptions. In his reading, the chalk mark on the door appears to mean nothing, as Mill says, but really means something about the house, as Shedden says. Up to the 1970s, Russell's position was consensus among philosophers, and the linguists of Tolkien's day were adopting Russell's logical analysis.

The Hobbit takes apart and turns inside out what was then consensus about linguistic meaning and reference.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Why Mill and Dickens are the 'golden generation' of Diyab's readers

Les Mille et Une Nuits as we know them derive from a medieval Arabic collection of stories that was translated and edited by Antoine Galland early in the 18th century. Seeking more stories, Galland had the luck to encounter a young Syrian named Hana Diyab, who was then in Paris and who told Galland some new stories. These include those of Ali Baba and Aladdin. Amost immediately translated into English as 'The Arabian Nights', the stories soon became part of mainstream English culture.

But on the 18th-century London stage, performances of the stories increasingly represented an Oriental despotism that served as a thinly veiled criticism of the current king and government. And in the wake of the French and American Revolutions this kind of political use of the Arabian Nights came to an abrupt halt. For the next 40 years, from the Napoleonic Wars to the middle of the 19th century, we see most of the stories neglected and 'The Arabian Nights' primarily celebrated for three stories: Sinbad (which was medieval), Ali Baba, and Aladdin.

This is the era that produced Dickens and Mill, who were both children in the Napoleonic Wars and published their respective ruminations touching on the Ali Baba story in 1843.

But just as Dickens and Mill were publishing the Orientalist W.E. Lane, an Arabic scholar who lived in Cairo, produced a new English translation out of the original Arabic, which he titled 1001 Nights. Lane correctly perceived that Diyab's stories were not medieval, and so he cast them out of the 1001 Nights!

From the second half of the 19th century, 'Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves' was an 'orphan story', ejected from its home in 'The Arabian Nights'. Fully domesticated through the English pantomime, like the tale of Aladdin it became a 'traditional folkstory', and was analyzed as such by learned folklore students in their learned (but cranky) periodicals. Eventually, packaged as 'The 40 Thieves' in Andrew Lang's Blue Fairy Book.

It seems to me that this history is vital to hold in mind when reading anyone talking about 'Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves'. The story was high fantasy (if you will) to the generation of Mill and Dickens, it captured the heart of the enchantment of 'The Arabian Nights'. To Tolkien's generation, by contrast, the tale was a folktale of unknown provenance that was read in 'The Blue Book', and as such of the same ilk as the likes of Little Red Riding-Hood, Cinderella, Rumpelstiltzkin, The story of pretty Goldilocks, Hansel and Grettel, The goose-girl, Jack the giant-killer, Blue Beard, and A voyage to Lilliput.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
One Door Performances

Here is the basic test of any adaptation of the story of 'Ali Baba & the 40 Thieves': does it have two doors? The original story (as also Tolkien's remix) is bracketed by two doors, one marked and one hidden. If a performance (of either) fails to register one or other door, the director has missed the plot. Here are two adaptations that miss the plot.

1. Sheridan's 'Ali Baba; or, The Forty Thieves' (1806). A performance at Drury Lane in London that went to town on the magic of the hidden door in the forest, which was integrated into a vision of Fairyland and fairies - the curtain opens on 'the descent of the Fairy of the Lake.'

2. This very early French movie of 1902. A movie in which the effects are still theatrical. Again the hidden door is the spectacle while the chalked door vanishes.

It is instructive to see how Sheridan vanishes the chalking by providing a distinguishing mark that is imprinted on the memory, with 'This!' replacing the chalk as the linguistic sign pronounced by the robber on discovering the right house.
SCENE IV …. Another street with gate-way… the door of Cassim Baba’s house in center…. Enter Mustapha followed by Hassarac [a nameless robber of the story, now named].

Mus. No…. the right’s wrong…. Let me see, let me see. Be quiet, I’m like an owl and see best in the dark; (goes to Cassim’s door) this is the house.
Has. This!
Mus. It has one step…. I know I had nearly broke my neck coming out.
Has. It has! It has!
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
I do miss aspects of Covid solitary confinement and the strange paths of meaning and reference that I walked so far down in those days. I guess it took very particular conditions to transform my reading of this one passage by J.S. Mill.
If, like the robber in the Arabian Nights, we make a mark with chalk upon a house to enable us to know it again, the mark has a purpose, but it has not properly any meaning. The chalk does not declare anything about the house; it does not mean, This is such a person’s house, or This is a house which contains booty. The object of making the mark is merely distinction. I say to myself, All these houses are so nearly alike, that if I lose sight of them I shall not again be able to distinguish that which I am now looking at from any of the others; I must therefore contrive to make the appearance of this one house unlike that of the others, that I may hereafter know, when I see the mark – not indeed any attribute of the house – but simply that it is the same house which I am now looking at.
The passage appears in a survey of the elements of language, and introduces Mill's definition of a proper name (a meaningless mark, like the chalk mark). So one reads the passage as an aspiring student of language and expects reason to guide the reader to a logical account of a proper name. And this is of course how it has been read by the many philosophers who have commented on the passage.

After a few years I began to read the passage as something other entirely - as a magical spell, the working of an enchantment, akin to the start of a great fairy-story by a master storyteller. The passage begins by drawing the world of Ali Baba and Morgiana into the world of the reader - the street in the town in Persia becomes something like Cheapside in London, which Mill walks down every morning on his way to work. And now Mill invites us to examine a real house in a London street with the eye of a nameless thief in a fairy-tale, and takes us step by step through an elaborate reasoning that - if we but step back out of the spell we see - is stupid.* We are caught inside a fairy-story, caught by words, and yet we earnestly tell ourselves that we are learning about how words properly work.

The philosophers to this day continue to argue Mill's points, not noticing that they are doing logic inside a fairy-story!

* The house must have some distinguishing feature and a mark is not required (as demonstrated by the Chief robber). Why do we wish to recognize a random house again, anyway? If the householder discovers us chalking the door it might get a bit unpleasant. How would you feel if some random philosopher turned up out of the blue and marked your door for no good reason that you could discern? (Ask a Hobbit.)
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 920 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:00 am
Hi Chrysophylax Dives

I enjoyed Old Bill. What you provided is a nice easy read because it’s relatively short. But more to the point, it’s very relatable to most of us.

We all regularly pass by people we recognize but never make contact with, and often we do wonder who they are, what they do and what they are thinking.

The philosophers to this day continue to argue Mill's points, not noticing that they are doing logic inside a fairy-story!
I’m hesitant to call this a ‘fairy-story’.
The tale doesn’t have the air of Faerie blowing through it in my opinion.
But I can be persuaded. You’ve obviously thought about it a lot more than me.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Well, I called it a fairy-story without due care and attention, and I would not wish to die on the point. But I think I would hold to the claim, and even underline it - though this takes me to the limits of what I really feel sure about, and beyond. Tolkien was fascinated with enigmas and paradoxes, as you yourself have done so much to show. What is going on with the philosophers, when viewed from the point of view of language, is so strange and odd that I do feel it is appropriate to speak of their being in an enchanted state, caught by some spell of words that they cannot escape. Old Bill's ruminations tease out the way that a philosopher pictures a secondary world in which a rational agent chalks a door, but for no good reason whatsoever (beyond illustrating the philosophical thesis). When grown adults dedicate their lives to discussing the meaning of a mark that would only be made by a madman or a philosopher, believing themselves to be discussing the actual marks that people do make in the world, surely we have adults whose minds inhabit a fairy-story, though they know it not. They sub-create a bit more of their secondary world every time they publish another paper investigating the meaning of the robber's chalk mark.

Ludwig Wittgenstein is the one who seems to have seen all this. This from his posthumous work, published in the 1950s.
115. A. picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.
This picture was drawn by Mill as the basic picture of naming: a robber chalking a door. The same picture was subsequently drawn by Russell as Adam naming the animals in the Garden of Eden - it is the same picture of naming. Wittgenstein came to see his mature philosophical practice as a sort of therapy for philosophers, helping them to escape from the enchantment of this picture.
309. What is your aim in philosophy?—To shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.
Obviously, Tolkien and Wittgenstein disagree on the fundamental point. Tolkien wants to take us in to a fairy-story, not escape from one. But I think they share a vision of life and fantasy as mediated by language, with our use (and misuse) of language often taking us over the border without our noticing.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 920 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:00 am
Hello Chrysophylax Dives

I’ve thought about it a little more, but to reconcile Old Bill as a ‘fairy-story’ presents difficulties.

Even though Bill pretends to make use of a ‘fairy-stone’, it is just that - pretense! There is no quality of ‘magic’ present. It’s the musings and imaginative wanderings of a man’s mind. The story contains an element of fantasy - no doubt about that. But for me - though captivating, it’s enchantment lies outside of a ‘fairy-story’.

Nevertheless - the tale provides us insight into Patterers, chalk-marks and their potential use. It gives a link to antiquity through the tale of Ali Baba - and seems to provide us an indication of how the art of chalking has evolved and become more sophisticated.

I’m really not sure about the merits of any philosophical arguments that have surrounded the Ali Baba story in the past. I’m rather bemused by it all, I wonder if too much effort has been expended thinking about it. Has a mountain been made out of a mole-hill?

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Hi Priya,
My apologies - we have been at cross-purposes. My own tale, 'Old Bill', is not a fairy-story, nor intended as one. If I was to develop it I would go in the direction of Sherlock Holmes - a detective or crime story. In a way, I was working towards an intermediary step to The Hobbit, with Bill the Patterer an embyronic Gandalf. On this reading, much of the wizard's magic in this story is word-magic - he knows when and how to make a mark, and as such is not 'fairy-tale magic' but simply word-craft (the real question, to my mind, being how much of fairy-tale magic is deep down actually word-craft - and my suspicion is pretty much all of it).

What I am tempted to describe as fairy-story is the ruminations of the logicians who followed Mill. I think that Mill's passage where he re-enacts the chalking of a fairy-tale robber in a London street is an unintended contribution to the development of English fantasy literature. It seems to me that Mill enchants himself, and his readers, taking them truly into the mindset of a stupid fairy-tale thief while they believe they are seeing the world more clearly.

On the mountains and mole-hills. Well, this is the nature of modern professional philosophy, which when it became a standard university subject late in the 19th century invariably took Mill's book as a text-book. As such, Mill's definition of a proper name was the first philosophical debate that students encountered. This kind of artificial educational environment leads to classrooms in which mountains are built out of mole-hills, while the rest of the world is oblivious.

(Wittgenstein somewhere has a nice anecdote, along the lines of: I said 'The cows are in the field.' Moore asked 'How do you know that the cows are in the field?' You looked puzzled. I explained: 'Don't worry, we are doing philosophy.' His point being that such bizarre conversations only arise in an artificial environment.)

For us who read Tolkien, the arguments of the philosophers are relevant because what Russell was doing from 1900 was refounding philosophy as the study of language, with the idea that all linguistic statements could be reduced to precise logical symbolism. Many linguists were enthused by the new logical analysis and logicians and linguists came together in various efforts to construct a purely scientific language. The chief of these linguists was Otto Jespersen, whose 1924 'Philosophy of Grammar' can be glimpsed in the first chapter of The Hobbit.

Broadly speaking, Oxford philologists were a bastion of resistance to this analytical approach to language. Tolkien loathed Jespersen's engineering vision of invented languages and Owen Barfield's 'Poetic Diction' (which Flieger - perhaps erroneously - has linked to Tolkien) is essentially an attempt to refute Jespersen's vision of linguistic progress.

So back in the 1920s language was a very hot topic, and the Ali Baba chalking went right to the heart of things because it concerns one of the basic, most simple, of linguistic units - a proper name.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 920 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:00 am
Hello Chrysophylax Dives

One word you used in your short tale - I was kind of impressed with is:‘widdershins’. I investigated this word a few years back, and tried to figure out whether Tolkien knew of it or had ever used it.

Any luck in that department?

There is a good reason for my delving - because it intimately concerns the Barrow-downs adventure. Eventually I will get to the matter in your ‘Bombadil thread’.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Widdershins is indeed a most excellent word. I think I came on it reading about Ohio Indians (one of whom, Wingemund, made a drawing in a tree with marks that baffled nineteenth-century scholars), and liked it so much I found a way to use it. But on first reflection, I have no memory of reading the word in anything by Tolkien.

I am curious to discover how you think about the word in relationship to Bombadil.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 920 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:00 am
Hello Chrysophylax Dives

The term ‘widdershins’ in my opinion was of utmost importance to Tolkien.

As it stands, the Barrow-down’s adventure is replete with loose ends. Our understanding of what Tolkien did, I feel, is almost totally missing. For there are a few mysterious events/matters - that almost no one has figured out. I know I’m being evasive - but trust me - you will be scratching your head when it comes to ‘widdershins’, and I’m hoping you’ll agree with me - that its employment constitutes an enormous advance in our understanding of TLotR and the mythology!

Stay tuned!

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Priya wrote: Wed May 15, 2024 5:36 am The term ‘widdershins’ in my opinion was of utmost importance to Tolkien.

As it stands, the Barrow-down’s adventure is replete with loose ends. Our understanding of what Tolkien did, I feel, is almost totally missing. ...
Oooh! Well, the moment the Barrow-downs becomes the frame 'widdershins' starts to fit into the picture... OK. I am excited.

:smile:
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Priya wrote: Wed May 15, 2024 5:36 am The term ‘widdershins’ in my opinion was of utmost importance to Tolkien.
Gah! How could it not be? You may picture me kicking myself.
widdershins (adv.)
1510s, chiefly Scottish, originally "contrary to the course of the sun or a clock" (movement in this direction being considered unlucky), probably from Middle Low German weddersinnes, literally "against the way" (i.e. "in the opposite direction"), from widersinnen "to go against," from wider "against" (see with) + sinnen "to travel, go," from Old High German sinnen, related to sind "journey" (see send).
So it is another item from your Elizabethan closet, eh?

On the Barrow-downs this notion is surely central - of course! I am wondering if it makes sense to think of Frodo's entire journey to Mount Doom as widdershins? Actually, both Hobbit journeys - Bilbo's is the more straightforward West --> East, right?

Image
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Chrysophylax Dives wrote: Thu May 09, 2024 2:15 am
The Confused Chalk-lore of John Stuart Mill


* Bill is wrong. The chalk mark in the story is not a Patterer-mark. It would be such if the robbers were decent burglars - but the point is that they are stupid, and actually make just the kind of mark that Mill takes them to make.
Hmmm. As with other of my conversations in this place, there is a whole other side that I have in view but only because of my research, and so nobody else sees. Usually, this arises out of my research into Tolkien's research into Beowulf. In this case it arises because I have in the OP presented only one of the two doors of the story of the confused chalk-lore of J.S. Mill.

What is at once a startling revelation and an explanation of sorts of what is going on here arises only when one turns to the other door of the story, the hidden door that opens to a spoken magic formula. One must turn to it only after comprehending just what Mill is saying about the relationship between the proper name (who) and qualities (what), and then one discovers what he says illustrated before one's eyes. Mill's model of a proper name actually encompasses both doors!

What is almost impossible to understand - or this is where I find myself utterly unable to decide - is what happened to the other half of Mill's analogy? Possibly there is a rational explanation as to why he decided to only set down one half of it. My instinct, though, is that we are looking at some flash of inspiration in childhood, on first reading the story, recalled only partially a decade or so later as Mill thought out the pages of his great book on Logic as he walked to work each morning.

In any case, I am of the opinion that Tolkien saw what had happened - that is, unlike all the philosophers, who commented on Mill's analogy without opening up and reading again the story, Tolkien turned from Mill to the story, and so saw that half of the analogy was missing.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 920 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:00 am
Hi Chrysophylax Dives

There is definitely an Elizabethan tinge - but what you’ve proposed is not quite what I had in mind.

Fortunately - we are approaching that time where I need to address ‘widdershins’ in your ‘Bombadil thread’.

I am wondering if it makes sense to think of Frodo's entire journey to Mount Doom as widdershins? Actually, both Hobbit journeys - Bilbo's is the more straightforward West --> East, right?

Not sure about any of these and the ‘unlucky’ aspect. Doesn’t seem to make sense. I think my proposal will be more easy to reconcile :smile:

Post Reply