Bombadil

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Very happy to hear you are on the path to recovery!

You certainly live up to my expectations as a reader

I know I am dragging things out a bit. And I know that everyone’s attention span is limited. But the fault is not mine.

It’s that damn brilliant Professor and his enormously deep powers of subcreation who has made my life intolerably difficult!


When the Mercury Rises

Not satisfied with Celtic gods – there’s every chance Tolkien extended a demigod personification theme by purposefully brewing both Norse and Greco-Roman deities into Tom’s character mix. The Norse one I’m not going to dwell upon. Except to point out that September 29th 3018 happened to be a Thursday – a day named after the Asgardian god Thor. An accidental* association perhaps – but it is quite curious that the Teutonic heathen worship of Thor (just like the Celtic Lugh) changed to venerating St. Michael instead:

“In the late nineteenth century, E. Gothein argued in his ethnographic study of the archangel in German-speaking territories that St. Michael replaced the war-god Thor in the religious pantheon of the primitive Germans.”

– Saint Michael the Archangel in Medieval English Legend, Introduction – pg. 2, R.F. Johnson, 2005

‘Hmm … not convincing’, I can feel the reader judge. So my far greater focus is going to be on Greek and Roman mythological connections to Bombadil. To expose and then explore such an avenue it is helpful to recall Tolkien’s revelatory words:

“To my mind it is the particular use in a particular situation of any motive, whether invented, deliberately borrowed, or unconsciously remembered that is the most interesting thing to consider.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #337 – 25 May 1972, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

From this advice we need to fearlessly dig further. We need to consider what motives might have stimulated ideas in the largely mundane life of an academic. Is it possible his working environment supplied bursts of inspiration?

What we do know is such a career choice inevitably resulted in contact with architecturally grand old institutions. Thus, it would be logical to concentrate our attention on his beloved Oxford, and indeed upon its multiple university colleges. Naturally the time period to evaluate would be prior to inception of The Lord of the Rings (drafting of which began in late 1937). For the moment, putting aside undergraduate years, I will focus on a span after Tolkien’s triumphant accession to the rank of full-fledged Oxford Professor.

It was during the summer of 1925 that Tolkien accepted a post as Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Pembroke College. Upon his return to Oxford environs, he established residency at Northmoor Road in early 1926. This was virtually a straight 1.5 mile ten minute cycle** ride (or thirty minute brisk walk) directly south to his college building.

Satellite Map – Tolkien’s Route into and out of Pembroke College

 
The turning off St. Aldate’s Street (A420) into Pembroke Square (a cul-de-sac***), where the main entrance to the college is situated, lies directly opposite Christ Church College. In fact turn west, and you’re into Pembroke, while turning east feeds to the west gate of Tom Tower – the principal access to Christ Church; an edifice which houses Great Tom – the famous bell of Oxford that chimes 101 times each night at 9.05 p.m. (GMT).

However, there are ties to Bombadil to consider beyond Mark Hooker’s exposition of the great bell****. As well as the audible there are stark visual ones to contemplate. For sure, the Professor must have cycled or walked past Christ Church’s massive wide open doors every normal lecturing day. Peeping past them into the quadrangle, some time in 1928 – something rather interesting arrived!

Tom Gate of Tom Tower – Entrance to Tom Quad, Christ Church College

… to be continued


* Only two occasions where a day is specifically reported are mentioned within the body of The Fellowship of the Ring story. The first relates to Bilbo’s birthday. While the second centers around the Bree episode. For the latter – ‘Monday’, the first visitation of the Black Riders to Bree, is cited three times. Hence, subtly a reminder to the reader is triggered that the current day (the 29th) is three days later and thus a Thursday.

** Records exist of Tolkien both cycling and walking the route:

“Cycled to Pembroke and deposited bike and lamps.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #58 – 3 April 1944, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

“I walked home … after dining at Pembroke.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #72 – 31 May 1944, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

*** It is acknowledged though currently a cul-de-sac, Pembroke Square may not have been at the time of Tolkien’s service. Whether it then opened out onto Pembroke Street, with access for pedestrians and cycles, is unknown. In any case, the more direct route and definitely the more scenically imposing would have been past Tom Tower.

**** See The Hobbitonian Anthology, Magnus Thomas Bombadilus Oxoniensis, 2009 by Mark Hooker.

[Priya]

… continued from previous post


Yes, one day in 1928 an astonishing event occurred in the grounds of Christ Church. Something that Tolkien could hardly have missed or been unaware of. Inside Tom Quad, at the center of the water-lily fountain, was erected a leaden statue. After a century gap* upon a pedestal in the middle of the water-feature was placed a new statue of Mercury, the Roman god whose Greek counterpart is Hermes.

Whether an unveiling ceremony or celebration activity marked the occasion is unknown. But what is certain, is that Tolkien cannot have missed the sculpted figure. For it is both an imposing and beautiful work of art in an otherwise featureless landscape. Facing the open west doors of Christ Church – the deity, in the distance, would have practically beckoned to Tolkien as he turned onto St. Aldate’s Street on his journey home.

Mercury Statue amidst Mercury Fountain, Tom Quad, Christ Church College

 
Over the decade after Mercury’s installation, Tolkien ought to have seen him many, many times – and it’s inconceivable that no effort was made to take a closer look. Indeed, I suspect quite the opposite. In all probability he inspected him on many instances and undoubtedly during the crucial period when those seeds for the prequel to his opus were being laid and beginning to sprout. During these years he must have extensively mulled on mythology. At the same time Mercury was omnipresent.

To Tolkien the statue would have oozed attraction. Why? Because surely it would have brought back the fondest of memories from his last day at school: King Edward’s Grammar in Birmingham. There, with two of his T.C.B.S. friends, he performed on stage in the traditional end of year play: Aristophanes’ Peace. And in the theatrical production he had a major part. For he dressed and played the role of Mercury’s Greek precursor: Hermes himself!

The play was an outstanding success. And the revelry that ensued was an indulgence of delirious elation. Even though nigh on a decade had passed – Tolkien did not forget the mad joy coupled with high-spirited camaraderie on this very, very special occasion. Many years later he vividly recalled:

“ ‘… having just taken part in a Greek play, I was clad in a himation and sandals, and was giving what I thought a fair imitation of a frenzied Bacchic dance.’ ”

– Tolkien: A biography, ‘T.C.,B.S., etc.’ – pg. 49, H. Carpenter, 1977




 

J.R.R. Tolkien dressed as Hermes, 1911

… to be continued




* The story goes that the original statue:

“… was dragged from its pedestal … by some riotous undergraduates.”
 
– Notes and Queries, Volume II – pg. 532, July-December 1904, A.C.B.

The date of the occasion is reconciled as the late 1820’s.

[Priya]

… continued from previous post

Now Christ Church is traditionally known as ‘The House’ by its students and staff. The nickname stems from Latin: Aedes Christi, meaning the House or Church of Christ. Tolkien, I feel, must have pondered and been bemused over what on earth Mercury had to do with Christ Church. Was there some deeper meaning here? After all one might expect Christian related statuary to have been erected at the center of the quadrangle. Something such as a sacred Cross* would have been apt. But certainly not a naked pagan god.

By their sheer absence it is conspicuous that no other statues of Norse, Celtic or Greco-Roman deities are present in any other college grounds. In all of Oxford the mythic statue must have seemed so out of place and character – and Tolkien would probably have felt it. Whether it would have angered him to see a pagan and religious ensemble (scorn which he later displayed in criticizing** C.S. Lewises mishmash of religion and unrelated legends making up the Narnia tales) is up for conjecture. But it was in Tolkien’s nature to seek for deeper reasons and meaningful links.

If the Professor had dug into matters (and of course there is no evidence he did) he would have discovered the former existence of an alike Mercury statue similarly mounted amid the fountain dating back to 1695***. Moreover, the realization would have come that a cult of Mercury became established in England back in Roman times. Mercury was indeed firmly rooted to the English soil.

One curious matter related to the sculpture is the fountain basin itself. Though seasonally filled with water-lilies (which, of course, is an interesting connection for us - given Tom’s gathering of them for Goldberry) it’s the circular bowl that arouses equal curiosity. Because it has a ‘ring’ lip to it.




 

Aerial View of Tom Quad showing Ringed Fountain

 
Symbolically for us, all paved compass paths – North, South, East and West lead to the ‘ring’. To avoid the draw of the ‘ring’ – one must traverse considerably far around it by taking the outer circular path close to the House of Christ. And to avoid ‘temptation’ altogether one must traverse through the connected buildings. In other words – through the ‘body’ of Christ Church itself. Ultimately then, the four-walled ‘House’ encases the ‘ring’ and has mastery over it.

As to the figure – Tolkien can’t help but have noticed Mercury staring at his arm raised in challenge with a single finger on one hand extended above the rest.

Mercury Statue, Right Hand showing raised Fore-finger

 
Or, depending on the viewing angle, perhaps the god is really staring at his little finger****?

 

… more to come




* The fountain:

“… occupied the site of an ancient preaching-cross formerly belonging to the priory of St. Frideswide, …”.

– Notes and Queries, Volume II – pg. 532, July-December 1904, A.R. Bayley

** Harsh criticism has been reported:

“Tolkien said that he thought the book was almost worthless, that it seemed like a jumble of unrelated mythologies. Because Aslan, the fauns … Father Christmas, nymphs … had quite distinct mythological or imaginative origins, Tolkien thought that it was a terrible mistake to put them together in Narnia, a single imaginative country.”

– Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, Into Narnia – pg. 312, G. Sayer, 2005

*** The original Mercury statue was erected in 1695 (see Notes and Queries, Volume II – pg. 532, July-December 1904 by A.R. Bayley).

**** One should recall:

“Then Tom put the Ring round the end of his little finger and held it up to the candlelight.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya: You have been a busy poster this week. Is your life so difficult that it is barely tolerable? Whoosh, that's saying something then. Perhaps take it a bit calmly? I am bit too tired to reply further, sorry.

Next morning:

I wanted to point out that 29 September 3018 is a Tuesday in the fourth millennium and takes over another thousands years yet to happen. I think you made a typing error.

“To my mind it is the particular use in a particular situation of any motive, whether invented, deliberately borrowed, or unconsciously remembered that is the most interesting thing to consider.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #337 – 25 May 1972, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981
From this advice we need to fearlessly dig further. We need to consider what motives might have stimulated ideas in the largely mundane life of an academic. Is it possible his working environment supplied bursts of inspiration? - There is certain food for thought here, I think. Good idea to search first in the immediate circle around the workplace and then in a wider circle. The statue is an element you see on the first time, but not if you come by many times. They are part of the furniture of the courtyard. I don't know if the professor would study a statue so out in the open obviously while others can come and walk by. Perhaps in a moment of secrecy?

Mercurius is a Roman god for trade, voyagers, thieves and profit and his first temple was build in 495BC on Aventino, one of the seven hills in Rome. I think to the modern statue something is missing. With him ought to be a rooster, a goat and/or the lyre. I think he would hold the lyre in his right hand...

So far my thoughts, till next time! Interesting route of thoughts!

[Yesyesmy]

The information on Saint Michael the Archangel presented in the previous posts is scholarly. That Tolkien incorporated references and images to Saint Michael, like Saint Michael in a stained glass window, into Bombadil is well presented.

I would like to give a Lord of the Rings/Silmarillian investigation to Bombadil’s identity and include the use of this letter.

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.

The recognizable story structure for beings like Gandalf and Sauron, elves and orcs is:

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.

Bombadil resides in this story structure:

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.

I do not think this should not be taken as an absolute, like in an ascetic monk. But, an expatriate soldier, weary of war, wanting to find a more natural pacifist view, but still a warrior, could fit this story structure. Maybe Tolkien himself, though not an expatriate, leaned toward such a philosophy.

All the powers and spirits of Valinor have natures and characteristics that befit their casts or roles. Goldberry matches well as a Maia of Ulmo, lower in status compared to Osse or Uinen. Bombadil is more difficult to identify. His enigmatic character does allow for imaginative interpretation.

Some of what can be gathered about Bombadil is:
-He is not ignorant of the Ring's malevolence. He brings a sharp attention to the Ring's nature when Frodo wears it.
-Laughing at, boldly wearing, and overcoming the Ring Power's to shift the wearer to the wraith world are traits that can help identify his cast.
-He finds unexpected love with and devotion for Goldberry. A trait that is equally expressed with another Valar pair.
-He has no beasts of burden or means of transport other than his feet. A minor point, but a trait of another Valar.
-He seems not to relate well with elves and other immortals. The reference to “fatherless” can indicate that he does not want his cast or past know.
-The most endearing aspect of Bomdadil is that while he may not relate well to immortals, he knows farmer Maggot and jewelry from an ancient barrow sends him into a reverie of a long ago mortal.

Bombadil could be a warrior that has seen enough of war and did not return to Valinor after the fighting ended. I would have liked if Tolkien had let us hear the conversation between Gandalf and Bombadil at the end of the Lord of Rings. Did Gandalf tell the expatriot Bombadil that he has to leave Goldberry and return to Valinor?

The fun part with Bombadil is being allow to create some imaginative back story to fit his character:

At the Great Battle of the Fall of Angband, the Valar did not themselves attend, but did send Maiar such as Eonwe. Tulkas calls from his Middle-Earth wanderings his lieutenant to join Eonwe's forces. As the Mountains above Angband collapse, the Maia of Tulkas faces Morgoth as the Valorian champion. Morgoth is cast down and chained for a second time. After Morgoth is expelled from Arda, the war wearer Valorian retreats into the quiet of Middle-Earth, until one day he rests on a branch overlooking a minor river in an old forest...

Perhaps such a being could laugh at Sauron's Ring.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Yesyesmy, sounds a good start to an imagination of Tom and Goldberry. I don't have a sense of the Maia of Tulkas, so I'll leave it to others to comment on the source. Your idea did send me off into a memory of Patrick McCormak's trilogy on Arthurian Britain - which proved profitable, because I discovered the third book of the trilogy!

I'm now starting again on the first book, which begins 10 years after the death of Arthur at the Battle of Camlann, with Bedivere an old man living as a hermit by the sea. It came to mind after reading your post. But in this story, Bedivere lost his love and lives alone, and of course is called out of retirement by events.

By the way, on the beasts of burden - Tom does have a pony.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Sorry about that bombardment of posts. I’ve been on vacation - so before I went, I thought I’d leave some extra material for readers to chew upon!

The setting of Frodo’s encounter with Bombadil is the Third Age. So the 29th of September 3018 is a Thursday. Did I mistakenly suggest Fourth Age somewhere?

We will see more associations of Bombadil to a historical/legendary Mercury and the statue in Christ Church College soon. The thing is, I think Tolkien was subtle and only used some associations and didn’t make them at all obvious. And that is because, he wanted Tom to link to many fairytale and legendary characters - not just one. At least that is my opinion!


Hello Yesyesmy

Welcome to the Plaza and thanks for participating in this thread.

It appears Tom has been in Arda since its very beginning:

“ ‘… Tom remembers the first raindrop …’ ”.

And in much the same sector of Middle-earth too.

There isn’t any evidence he participated with the Powers from the West in any conflict against Morgoth. The tired warrior image doesn’t come across to me because Tom is full of energy and vigor. Nothing seems to dismay him.

Still - you have an interesting line of thought, which I haven’t seen presented before.

I know that a lot of Tolkien’s remarks about Tom in his letters as well as what we know about him from the books still need tying up from what I have presented thus far. However, I think it’s not out of reach.

[Priya]

… continued from my post of 8 Aug 2024


Given Corpus Christi = The House of Christ, with Mercury positioned where once a Cross was erected - perhaps we should not be surprised at Tom’s endowed association to Christianity, or rather ‘pre-Christianity’. It would seem the chapter title: In the House of Tom Bombadil was a formulation with a deliberate allusion.

And so one can understand why Tolkien decided to make Tom’s house in the shape of a cross (see posts of 10 Mar 2024, 12 Mar 2024 & 15 Mar 2024) and equip him with Christian symbolism (see posts of 13 Feb 2024 & 26 Feb 2024). Mercury lies at the heart of the crossroad in Tom Quad, and to understand Bombadil we have to extract his Christian face symbolically implanted within the novel. But to do that we have to see our merry fellow through interlinked pagan deities - such as Mercury.

“Andrew Lang’s said: … that mythology and religion … have become inextricably entangled, …”.
- On Fairy-stories Lecture/Essay, The Monsters and the Critics, 1984

And guess what - Tolkien agreed!


In examining the statue, one certainly can’t miss Mercury balancing on one foot. Running or hopping – who can truly say? And at the fountain pump’s normal setting, from afar only his lower leg appears to get wet. Recall from the story, how water only hits Tom’s booted lower legs:

“Tom Bombadil came trotting round the corner of the house, waving his arms as if he was warding off the rain – and indeed when he sprang over the threshold he seemed quite dry, except for his boots.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

From all of this – one can’t help but mull upon whether the threads of a story began to be woven together – with our Tom Bombadil taking up aspects of the Roman god’s persona.

In further contemplating the imagery displayed by Mercury – he obviously has power over the ‘ring’ – because, of course, he is visible. Facing the west, it’s almost as if a symbolic declaration is being made (to whichever powers are out there) that he is in command over a particular piece of territory. Notably there are no others among the pantheon of Greco-Roman gods present. Yes, there is nobody. So indeed Mercury is both ‘first’ and ‘last’ in this setting. And when it comes to the rimmed ring-like kerb of the fountain – when the lighting conditions are right – that which is encased by the ‘ring’ can resemble a “wheel of fire”:

“… a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire.”

– The Return of the King, Mount Doom


 

Mercury Fountain, waters reflecting Christ Church buildings

It’s quite possible that the shape and architectural details of the fountain, as well as the statue itself - were the source of such ideas!



… to be continued

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hey Priya: It was definite to chew on. How was your vacation? Where did you go to or visit? Nah mistake is mine then, I took it for a date in our day and age. ME dates come usually with FA, SA or TA. Just as Thursday 29 September TA3018. I'll see what you come up with your idea what Tolkien wanted for Bombadil. Nice picture from the buildings reflecting in the water and the two ducks lazy standing at the rim.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Priya, I really like the way you are disclosing geometrical patterns. I always thought that Mark Hooker's idea about the bell one of his better hypotheses, and your satellite image above showing the cross in the ring behind the bell is a really striking extension of this hypothesis into new ground. In my own work on Tolkien's allegorical tower I am becoming more and more convinced that the key is to discern the underlying geometrical patterns on which the imagery is built (e.g. a spiral staircase = fusion of circle and vertical line), so I'm very open to what you are doing here. I need to go back to your analysis of the shape of Tom's house.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Thanks for staying tuned in!

I went to see grandma and my brother in England. Just a little family reunion.
A bit boring really - because, as usual, English weather lived up to its rainy reputation!!!



Hello Chrysophylax Dives

Yes, I thought Hooker’s article was most convincing! And so did the late lore-master halfir from the old Plaza!





… continued from my previous post

 
Turning our attention to science:

“The Gaulish ‘Mercury’ … was imagined to be the discoverer of all the sciences: …”.

– Origins of English History, Chapter X – pg. 258, C. Elton, 1882

Bombadil too had a scientific side:

“He is in a way …” aligned with “… Botany and Zoology (as sciences) … as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #144 – 25 April 1954, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (my underlined emphasis)

The chemical symbol for Mercury is Hg. It is derived from Latin: hydrargyros, meaning ‘water’ and ‘silver’ – from which the term ‘quicksilver’ has evolved. A rather fitting description for the Withywindle waters that flowed past Tom’s house one might presume. Because as Tolkien seems to have subtly alluded to via Goldberry’s voice:

“… water flowing down … came falling like silver to meet them: …”.

– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest   (my underlined emphasis)

 

Mercury flowing at Room Temperature

 
If one looks at the element’s chemical symbol – what might be interpreted is that a Christian cross forms a foundation over which a ring has a connection, but no hold – for ultimately the upper ring is broken.

Mercury – Element Symbol

… to be continued

[Priya]

… continued from my previous post


To the ancient Gauls Mercury is accredited as the ‘inventor of the arts’:

“Julius Caesar in his Commentaries on the Gallic War … of the gods of the continental Celts, … declares that their principal divinity was Mercury, whom they held to be the inventor of the arts …”.

– The Religions of the World, Chapter XV – pg. 290, G.A. Barton, 1919

Mercury then is a true master just like Bombadil:

“ ‘… Tom Bombadil is master.’ ”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

“He is master in a peculiar way: …”.

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #153 – September 1954, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   (Tolkien’s italicized emphasis on ‘master’)

Tolkien may have inwardly chuckled as the god has a linguistic side. Apart from the ‘erm’ and ‘mer’ in Hermes and Mercury being interchangeable, the Professor may have been reminded of these deities often enough in constantly dealing with ‘hermeneutics’ – the science of interpretation. The god had mastery over philology then!

In legend, Mercury watched over roads and borders while protecting travelers:

“The Gaulish ‘Mercury’ … presided over roads, markets, and boundaries, …”. 

- Origins of English History, Chapter X – pg. 258, C. Elton, 1882

“… their principal god was Mercury, … guide of travellers; …”.

– Orpheus: A General History of Religions, Caesar on the Gods of Gaul – pg. 119, S. Reinach, 1909

Such facets are reflected in the novel through Tom escorting the hobbits to the edge of his land, along with his own claims:

“Tom’s country ends here: he will not pass the borders.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

“ ‘… He made paths before the Big People, …’ ”.

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

It is well known Mercury was a messenger and trickster god. Both angles were displayed by Tom in the ‘tricks’ he played with the ring and the multiple dream-vision messages the hobbits received while in his company:

“Tom laughed again, and then he spun the Ring in the air – and it vanished with a flash.” 

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

“… as he spoke they had a vision … Men, tall and grim with bright swords, and last came one with a star on his brow.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

Mercury also being a psychopomp, a leader of newly deceased souls, ties him in with St. Michael per the discussion of my earliest posts. Interestingly enough in the Cathedral of Christ Church College (located on the east side of Tom Quad) – there exists a stained-glass window of St. Michael standing atop Satan, the dragon:


 

The ‘St. Michael Window’, Christ Church Cathedral

And just as I have surmised the shape of Tom Bombadil’s house to be, Christ Church Cathedral is of course shaped like a crucifix:

… more to come

[Chrysophylax Dives]

I went to see grandma and my brother in England. Just a little family reunion.
A bit boring really - because, as usual, English weather lived up to its rainy reputation!!!

Hi Priya, sorry to go off topic but I was just curious where in England your family live? (I myself am London born and bred, and now that I live in the Middle-east am deeply nostalgic about rain. I miss grey, rainy days very badly.)

On Mercury and all - I do like your method of gradual accumalation of evidence, as also with Goldberry. Am pondering all of it...

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: Surely! I hope you had a great time with your family? I haven't been online much lately, but I'll have caught up. Interesting. Hope for a new update. I don't have much to comment this time, alas.

[Priya]

Hello Chrysophylax Dives

I am from the US, born and raised. My only surviving grandparent (my grandmother) lives in West London in a place called Ruislip - famous for the capital’s nearest sandy beach. That’s my father’s side. But my mother’s side stems from Finchley in London - though none of her kin reside there now. Rain or not, London is still a fabulous city. Probably my favorite in the world!

Anyway, glad my posts are interesting enough to chew on!


Hello Aiks

Yes - had a lovely time with family. Happy to be back in the US though!




… continued from my previous post

As a sign of his authority Mercury carries a Caduceus; a rod which is wrapped in a double helix and topped off with wings. Was this symbolized in the novel by Tom and Goldberry weaving themselves around a long* table, setting it with seemingly winged speed?

“… in some fashion they seemed to weave a single dance, neither hindering the other, … round about the table; and with great speed food and vessels and lights were set in order.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

The Caduceus of Mercury

 
Caesar also noted that before the introduction of the cult of Mercury to England, the Gauls venerated the deity above all other gods. Confusingly there are allusions to Mercury being ranked even above Jupiter:

“ ‘Amongst the gods, they worship Mercury above all …’ ”.

– Bellum Gallicum 6.17.1, Julius Caesar’s firsthand account of the Gallic Wars, 58–49 BC

“He stole Jupiter’s sceptre, Neptune’s trident, the tools of Vulcan, the sword of Mars … altho the gods were all powerful or omnipotent they could do nothing except on the advice of Mercury.”

– The Rod of Mercury, Chapter IV – pg. 15, H.B. Stein, 1996

After his popular spread to Gaul, Mercury gained a foothold in Britain. But perhaps most intriguingly, one should not forget Hengist and Horsa the legendary Saxon ‘founders’ of England** after whom several scholars have noted the hobbits Marcho and Blanco were modeled***. Because according to ancient records (translated from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historian regum Britanniae) Hengist and Horsa found their way and settled into England:

“… under the good guidance of Mercury.”

– Old English Chronicles, Chapter X – pg. 184, J.A. Giles, 1906 (my underlined emphasis)

Aha - so was it really Tom Bombadil who steered Marcho and Blanco safely into the Shire? Was this part of a planned parody?****

“ ‘… He … saw the little People arriving. …’ ”.

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

If The Shire was a parody of England:

“The toponymy of The Shire, to take the first list, is a 'parody' of that of rural England, …”,
- The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 3 July 1956, Letter #190, published by H. Carpenter, 1981

was Bombadil, in part, a parody of Mercury? Surely the answer lies before us!




* The table had ‘sides’ and ‘ends’ – from which we can infer it was rectangular.

** Christopher Tolkien notes:

“… the tradition of the invasion of Britain by Hengest and Horsa in the fifth century A.D. This was a matter to which my father gave much time and thought; he lectured on it at Oxford and developed certain original theories, …”.

– The Book of Lost Tales I, The Cottage of Lost Play – pg. 23, 1984

Thus, it would be unlikely that Tolkien was unaware of the historical account in which Mercury played a part.

*** For example:

“The names of the Fallohide brothers considered the founders of The Shire (Marcho and Blanco) are calque-translations of the names of the Anglo-Saxon founders of England: Hengist and Horsa.”

– The Hobbitonian Anthology, The Stoors – pg. 61, M.T. Hooker, 2009

**** In Mark Hooker’s opinion:

“… Tolkien created a parody of the Anglo-Saxons Hengist and Horsa with the Fallohide brothers Marcho and Blanco, …”.

- The Hobbitonian Anthology, The Stoors – pg. 62, M.T. Hooker, 2009

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya, oww new update. I have seen that symbol before somewhere, but I cannot recall where. Maybe in a book? Exists an account of Julius Ceasar also? That is interesting. I don't think Bombadil was a parody on Mercurius. It wouldn't do the character nor the god really right. That is my thought. Looking out for the next segment.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

What I’m trying to convey is that I believe Tom, being a ‘source’ is effectively a ‘parody’ of many characters: those from classic fairy tales as well as gods from legends and mythologies. He possesses an angelic Christian face too. And so Mercury is just one of many parodies Tolkien contrived.

I don’t have much more evidence to expose on Mercury, and I do have other ‘faces’ that I want to discuss, but instead - right now I want to give everyone a breather - change course and focus on ‘colors’. But I will lead into this slowly.

By the way, I’m quite ok with yourself (and other folk) being unpersuaded with my evidence and approach. I actually want negative feedback - so that I can change and improve my own understanding. Where you excel is that you give me your valuable time and provide me with meaningful input.

What a Colorful Pair!

 
I’ve split the following analysis into a five-part interlinked series of posts which, in the main, focus on a unique approach to looking at Tom (and Goldberry). That being from a ‘color-coding’ standpoint. Most appropriately, the conducted study applies the principles Tolkien himself recommended in On Fairy-stories. As such, an attempt has been made to intracontextualize* that work with The Lord of the Rings as no others have done before. The resulting conclusions are intriguing. If true, they showcase the author’s highly agile and creative mind; once again – one that could think ‘outside the box’!
 

Part I: Fayvorite Colors – Early Days
 

A New Naming Source Proposal

Undeniably the hierarchy of Tolkien’s mythological beings evolved. Terminology in classifying races also underwent change. Given these pertinent facts, we ought to try to establish whether Tom and Goldberry evolved too. Progressive tracking might help us grasp not just more about the merry pair, but also provide us with further insight into the story. Fortuitously along the way – we might glean, or even unlock, some rather special subcreation techniques!

So the adopted approach is to divorce ourselves from the final products and instead try to understand these enigmatic creations over distinct phases. That way, we may be able to reconstruct an evolutionary pattern. To work towards that goal, in this first phase I will attack the period up to publication of the original The Adventures of Tom Bombadil poem. What indeed did Tolkien consider these two in 1934 while completely oblivious of The Lord of the Rings to come? Unfortunately the clues are scant, and we must rely much on guesswork.

 

Illustration from ‘The Adventures of Tom Bombadil’, Pauline Baynes, 1962

All we have available is the Doll, the ‘King Bonhedig fragment’**, the ‘Germ poem’***, the 1934 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil**** and perhaps one remark made by Tolkien prior to starting The Lord of the Rings in earnest, where Tom was referred to as:

“… the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, …”.

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #19 – 16 December 1937, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981


… to be continued




* Meaning to apply the principles Tolkien delineated in On Fairy-stories to The Lord of the Rings. Jason Fisher notes in his review of Verlyn Flieger and Douglas Anderson’s Tolkien On Fairy-stories, 2014:

“To consider more subjective matters, my own opinion is that while the editors do a great deal to intercontextualize “On Fairy-Stories” with other works in the critical and literary milieu to which it belongs, they do less than they might have to intracontextualize it with the larger body of Tolkien’s own work, especially (but not exclusively) his fiction.”

– Mythlore Volume 27 Number 1 – pg. 183, Review by J. Fisher, 15 October 2008

** See J.R.R. Tolkien: A biography, The storyteller – pg. 162, by Humphrey Carpenter.

*** See The Return of the Shadow, V The Old Forest and the Withywindle, Note on Tom Bombadil – pg. 115: ‘Date unknown – germ of Tom Bombadil so evidently in mid 1930s’ – and subsequent poetry.

**** The 2014 revised and expanded re-release of The Adventure’s of Tom Bombadil edited by Christina Scull & Wayne Hammond provides no further significant information enlightening us about Tom himself.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya: Sure, I understand. It is good we all have different opinions. The element is that different sights, give different approaches. Ah, five parts hmm I see. Really nice drawing from Pauline Baynes. Although it express the vibe of a children tale. I'll look out to the next segment.

[Priya]

… continued from my previous post

Now Michael Tolkien’s doll does lend us some threadbare clues. We know it was probably wood-jointed, likely pretty hardy* atypically Dutch in design and possibly manufactured in Holland too. It wouldn’t be a stretch to presume that Tolkien’s son played with it not only inside the house – but also in a garden setting while resident at Northmoor Road**. One can easily imagine a sunny spring day with daffodils blooming in the grass and the children at play with their toys and father, while Oxford church bells faintly tolled in the background – an ever-present reminder of Christ Church College’s Great Tom. From John and Priscilla Tolkien’s memories:

“We were very much aware at the time that Oxford was a city of bells: the many churches and college chapels in the area had an idiosyncratic attitude to time and it would often take a quarter of an hour before the different hourly chimes were finished!”

– The Tolkien Family Album, pg. 74, John & Priscilla Tolkien, 1992

Garden of 20 Northmoor Road, Oxford – titled ‘Spring 1940’, J.R.R. Tolkien Artist & Illustrator, Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull

Perhaps this sort of circumstance triggered the doll’s naming, for it is quite possible that a spontaneous idea arose. Especially as the Professor admitted that:

“… it is the particular use in a particular situation of any motive, whether invented, deliberately borrowed, or unconsciously remembered that is the most interesting thing to consider.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #337 – 25 May 1972, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981



… to be continued



* The doll is known to have survived being thrown into a toilet by John – Michael’s elder brother.

** Tolkien occupied two residences in Northmoor Road. The earliest was in 1926, which as far as we can tell – was well before Tom Bombadil’s conception.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya, some interesting facts. Thanks, looking for the next input.

[Priya]

So having provided a background setting that one can feel comfortable with, I’m going to suggest a new ‘external’*origin for Tom’s surname which I think is equally as plausible as Mark Hooker’s in The Hobbitonian Anthology.

Tolkien may have just imaginatively put together a faux history. Though the doll was now a fixed inhabitant of England and a member of the Tolkien family, unquestionably it had some Dutch heritage which just may have been acquired along a journey accompanying England’s ancestors in Germany – the Saxons. Just like the ‘Tollkühn’s’ – the toy had been on a migratory trek but was now firmly reunited and finally settled. Having toured two regional counties with the family it had naturalized to become both an Oxonion and Berkshirean. In effect, the doll was part English, part Dutch and part German and thus deserved a name that reflected all three chunks of its heritage. Perhaps he felt that the doll had some mythological history and was the long-lost image of a well-traveled nature-spirit which had now become attached to his local countryside.

Anyhow, in agreeing with Mark Hooker, ‘Tom’ – was the English appropriation stemming from an inscription on an old Oxford bell. While the ‘dil’, I am guessing, came from the Dutch de affodil (English asphodel) – very befitting from a man who, as we saw with Goldberry, enjoyed involving a botanical side to naming etymology. But what about the ‘Bomba’? Where did Tolkien get that from? Which person of German extraction would he have selected?

For that I am going to suggest someone I have already introduced – namely: ‘Paracelsus’ of German-Swiss origin. A man whose real name was: Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim. And so to honor a sub-branch of ancient mythology, my proposal is that the partial name of a renowned medieval mythologist, botanist and alchemist was subtly incorporated into a mix. For Tom in the 1934 poetry reflects a being somewhat reminiscent of a Paracelsian ‘Earth Elemental’. A spirit that Tom Shippey has not only described as:

“… a kind of exhalation of the earth, …”. 

– J.R.R. Tolkien Author of the Century, Chapter II – pg. 64, T.A. Shippey

but also referred to specifically as:

“… an ‘elemental,’ …”. 

– New Learning and New Ignorance: Magia, Goeteia and the Inklings by T.A. Shippey, Myth and Magic: Art According to the Inklings, Editors: E. Segura and T. Honegger, 2007
 

The Paracelsian Elemental of the Earth (Gnome) – Gjellerup’s: ‘Den Ældre Eddas Gudesange’, 1895

 
One can quite understand how the staunchly Germanic surname of von Hohenheim, or the Greco-Roman rooted Phillipus, Aureolus and Theophrastus, would have been immediately discarded for consideration – as would have been the Greek and very German sounding ‘-stus’. But ‘Bomba’ was really the most intriguing and absurdly melodic segment of Paracelsus’ actual full name, as well as that of the doll, echoing Tolkien’s assertion:

“… I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name …”.

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #153 – September 1954, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Is there a possibility that Tolkien kept his naming for our merry fellow at a very simple etymological level? Were the English ‘Tom’, the German ‘Bomba’ and the Dutch ‘dil’ all combined to simply give ‘Tom Bombadil’? Who knows? At the end of the day – I freely admit my solution is just a guess. An educated guess perhaps. But nevertheless just as likely as any others.




* Tolkien related:

“… the nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings; …” was “… the product of very considerable thought and labour, …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #297 – August 1967, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

As well as that nomenclature ‘internal’ to the tale there was:

“… the matter of ‘external’ history: the actual way in which I came to light on or choose certain sequences of sound to use as names, before they were given a place inside the story.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #297 – August 1967, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (Tolkien’s italicized emphasis on ‘before’, my underlined emphasis)

Somewhat strangely, Tolkien felt the ‘external’ naming process was unimportant:

“… the labour involved in my setting out what I know and remember of the process, or in the guess-work of others, would be far greater than the worth of the results.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #297 – August 1967, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

But he did say that his ‘exterior’ naming choices were developed from:

“… the influence of memory of names or words already known, or of ‘echoes’ in the linguistic memory, and few have been unconscious.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #297 – August 1967, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Despite being on a to-do list, to our knowledge, he never created:

“… an onomasticon giving the meaning and derivation of all names and indicating the languages that they belong to.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #297 – August 1967, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (Tolkien’s italicized emphasis on ‘onomasticon’)

Whether he would have fully confessed all the exterior sources behind naming is unknown. But what we shouldn’t forget is that in translating the Common Speech (Westron) into modern English, it was Tolkien as the (feigned) translator who decided to deliberately ‘make’ many names English in form and thus to English ears euphonious, familiar and an easy read. This was a necessary part of the conceit that would make The Lord of the Rings acceptable to an intelligent audience, including any philologists who might take interest.

However, what we must not forget is that some of those names, used in the novel’s narrative, were devised by Tolkien long before the inception of The Lord of the Rings. Two such examples are ‘Goldberry’ and ‘Bilbo’. Yet as we have already seen already in my ‘Goldberry’ thread, and despite the Professor’s negativity, figuring out his contrived ‘external’ etymology can be extremely helpful in understanding the background and makeup of a character.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya: Interesting discussion you wrote yesterday. I know the doll is not to be taken literally. But a well funded hypothesis where the Tom Bombadil name came from. I know it is an 'educated guess', but it sounds pretty solid as a possibility. The Affodil plant comes from the Alpes and part of the fields there on the slopes of the mountains.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

I’m happy you enjoyed my last post. The following one is hopefully even more interesting. Sorry for its length - I haven’t posted in quite a while - so I thought I’d give readers an extra dose!




Colors Thrown into the Mix

Before I move on to the main thrust of Part 1 – one other interesting detail can be extracted from the early writings – and that relates to the size of both Tom and his consort. 

From the ‘Bonhedig fragment’ we know Tom was well below normal adult human height and stocky in build:

“ ‘… Four foot high in his boots he was, and three feet broad. …’ ”.

– J.R.R. Tolkien: A biography, The storyteller – pg. 162, H. Carpenter, 1977

Then later in the published 1934 poetry Goldberry was described as a ‘little’ water-lady:

“ ‘… Go down! Sleep again where the pools are shady
far below willow-roots, little water-lady!’
… 
clasping his river-maid round her slender middle.”

– The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Oxford Magazine, February 1934   (my underlined emphasis)

Obviously she possessed a slighter frame – and we can reasonably assume she was shorter than Tom too. Otherwise, it would be odd for him to refer to her as ‘little’. Despite being petite Goldberry appears fully compatible with Tom. This would put the couple as somewhere between hobbits and humans in height – seemingly closest to dwarves. Though of course, that they were most definitely not. Does this get us anywhere? Probably not very far. All we can say is that even at this early stage – the pairing had a puzzling peculiarity about them. A peculiarity that might be better understood by skipping forward for a moment and investigating color symbolism in The Lord of the Rings.

In this case it is advantageous to look forward in order to look back. For one matter which stares us in the face, yet surprisingly has been pretty much overlooked by scholars, is how vividly Tom and Goldberry were described compared to others in The Lord of the Rings. A review of the entire ‘trilogy’ reveals that no other characters were singled out with so much emphasis placed on the color of their clothes and worn accessories. An intriguing thought thus surfaces. Could Tolkien have had a special underlying reason in mind for the merry couple? So to probe whether there is significance to the observation, we must now rewind back to early times and investigate those historical depictions.

The first textual mention of color occurred in the so-called ‘King Bonhedig fragment’ from the late 1920’s or early 1930’s (exact date unknown). Tom had a:

“ ‘… blue feather, his jacket was blue, and his boots were yellow.’ ”.

– J.R.R. Tolkien: A biography, The storyteller – pg. 162, H. Carpenter, 1977

This rendition is consistent with Michael Tolkien’s playmate which was confirmed by his elder brother John to really:

“… wear the same bizarre clothing mentioned in The Lord of the Rings.”

– Conversation reported in Mallorn 5, 1972
 

A Vintage Dutch Doll – perhaps in the style of Michael Tolkien’s

 
Because the doll and ‘Bonhedig fragment’ chroma are identical, Tom’s genesis colors are concluded to be: Blue and Yellow. To the best of our knowledge – this is the case from both toy and textual standpoints.
Our next encounter with Tom where color arose is in poetry per The Adventures of Tom Bombadil from 1934. Tom was again described as owning yellow boots and a blue jacket. But now the feather in his hat specifically became a greeny-blue peacock’s. Whether this was the one and same bird which donated the apparently pure blue feather of the ‘Bonehedig fragment’ is unknown, yet unlikely. In any case, no other clothing colors were acknowledged outright except Tom was crowned for the wedding with buttercups. Not to be missed then, was how Tom had more yellow gracing him.

A Buttercup, Genus: Ranunculus

We can see that if anything – Tolkien stayed loyal (color-wise) in taking Tom from his origin as a toy into jottings and then full-fledged published verse. There appears to have been little desire to radically alter him, despite the fact that yellow for male boots is quite odd, and a rarity* in both fiction and fashion of the pre-1940’s.

Turning our attention to fair lady Goldberry, her introduction to the public also occurred in the same 1934 rhyme. Therein she was described as wearing a gown of green by the rushes at capture and then silver-green matrimonial robes. Her wedding garland was of entwined flowers – flag-lilies and forget-me-nots, however their colors were not explicitly revealed. Though, of course, we know they must have been yellow, blue and green.

Silvery Dew Drops on a Green Plant Stem

The designated coloring of apparel and adornments at first published poetry and pre-The Lord of the Rings was thus:

Tom     Explicit:- Blue, Yellow and Green   Implicit:- Yellow

Goldberry     Explicit:- Green and Silver   Implicit:- Blue, Yellow and Green

At this point it might be fruitful to kick back and pontificate on what sort of beings Tolkien envisaged Tom and Goldberry to be. A mystery it is, and one which does not have an immediately obvious answer. Nor is it easily resolvable. Because at the time of this early literature, the evidence that there is points to ‘The Adventures’ poetry having been written in good part for personal pleasure. It seems that at the poem’s conception and during its creation, there had been no intent to bring the pair into the already existent Silmarillion mythology.

Exactly what Tom was in Tolkien’s mind right then is uncertain. Obviously he wasn’t human. His ability to interact and communicate with both animals and arguably ‘unnatural’ beings, coupled with a potent power of command, put him in an entirely different category to mortals. If I were to take a stab, I would think a reasonable guess is that Tom was imagined as a fay-creature – who had come from the land of Faërie (commonly termed Fairyland). And if I were to further speculate, Tolkien cleverly justified such an attribution by realizing that as outfitted – the combination of blue and yellow made green**.

For in his own words:

“… green was a fairy colour, …”.

– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, pg. 86 line 151, J.R.R. Tolkien and E.V. Gordon, 1925 


And it is this pronouncement which is of greatest significance!




… to be continued



* The nearest match I can think of whereby Tom’s blue jacket and yellow footwear crop up in near fairy tale (Tolkien ruled it to be a beast-fable), is an example provided by Tolkien himself:

“… Peter Rabbit left without hope in a garden and lost his blue coat and yellow shoes.”
– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript A – pg. 185, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014


** In mixing ‘paint pigments’ – not in mixing ‘spectral colors of light’. As an artist, Tolkien certainly knew the three core colors and, of course, blending principles to obtain more complex ones:

“We do not, or need not, despair of drawing because all lines must be either curved or straight, nor of painting because there are only three ‘primary’ colours.”
– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 145, HarperCollins, 1983 (Tolkien’s emphasis in quotes, my underlined emphasis)

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya: Ah sure, I don't mind. I think the expression of colour is where evil couldn't touch them both, what I am myself convinced off hides in powers of the Ainur. The watersprites as Goldberry and her mum are, are symbiont with their natural water surroundings. They can take on solid form, if they wish, but are not human, elf or dwarf or any other solid kind at all. Something (natural magic likely) protects them, and so the colours around them do not fade. Tom's colours yellow and blue are radiant in view and experience.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

The watersprites as Goldberry and her mum are, are symbiont with their natural water surroundings. They can take on solid form, if they wish, but are not human

I like the way you are thinking here. I’m going to post some more on this line of thinking in my ‘Goldberry’ thread.



… continued from my previous post …

Though green is also the color most readily identified with Nature, to Tolkien who was wrapped up in the subjects of fairy-stories and mythology – it was more. Indeed much, much more. Leaving us obligated to look at matters, that might seem mundane, from a bold new perspective. Broaching into evidence from the next time period to be scrutinized in a post to come, it’s time to heed the Professor’s advice and shift our frame of reference:

“We need, in any case, to clean our windows; so that the things seen clearly may be freed from the drab blur of triteness or familiarity – from possessiveness. Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention, …”.

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983

We need to recall that there exist ‘base constituents’ behind certain colors, just as there are probable everyday explanations forming ‘base constituents’ behind legendary creatures such as centaurs and dragons:

“We should meet the centaur and the dragon, and then perhaps suddenly behold, like the ancient shepherds, sheep, and dogs, and horses – and wolves.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983

What Tolkien wanted us to see was how easily the human mind could be fooled into believing centaurs were real. And that simply from circumstances that were just right for a shepherd to mistakenly make a mental composite of his companion favorably stood in front of the neck and head of a grazing pony. Or similarly, a flock of short-legged fur-laden sheep funneling through a gate at twilight, with a shepherd’s long-snouted dog or even a wolf in the foreground. Using imagination and perspective – one can understand how one might mentally visualize a long sinuous worm complete with a dragon shaped head. In both cases, we need to separate from the final product the two sets of ingredients to regain a clear view. And in both cases, the observer’s imagining is momentary. The underlying truth comes as a flash.

The Centaur Chiron (LHS), Part Man/Part Beast – Or two separate Life-forms?

The Golden Porch – A Book of Greek Fairy Tales, W.M.L. Hutchinson, 1914

Then too long have we ignored the marvelous potential of two base colors – yellow and blue:

“They have become like the things which once attracted us … and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983

So what is to come will focus heavily on looking at the enigmatic pair from a chromatic angle not explored before. And re-assuredly more evidence on Tolkien’s exploitation of color mixing will duly follow, though first I must briefly turn back to a 1934 Goldberry.

Our yellow-tressed lady though predominantly clad in fairy-hued green, also had one garment tinged with beaded streaks of silver. Nonetheless, as I will emphasize later, silver was also ‘a fairy color’. Then as a compatible couple with compatible dress, there is every reason to believe Goldberry and Tom initially came from the same bucket. In other words, the probability is high that this peculiarly short couple were intentionally created as otherworldly fays. Once again, as far as we can tell – this was done independent to the legendarium mythology*.

So to summarize, we are beginning to see:

“The “fantastic” elements … in this … fairy-story, a thing built on or about Fantasy, of which Fantasy is the core.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 147, HarperCollins, 1983   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

Though it is not readily apparent, Tom is virtually in a splintered state. His entire attire when looked at in reverse through the lens of a painter’s prism – is ‘fairy-green’. Goldberry of course – at first sight – is plainly dressed in ‘fairy-green’.


… to be continued




* Independent at least as far as the Silmarillion tales, though not necessarily as a type of being. For ‘fays’ certainly constituted part of Tolkien’s creature hierarchy within the early mythology.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya: Aye okay, I'll read it there. *reads post*

Could they have been my words? Awesomely written! "What Tolkien wanted us to see was how easily the human mind could be fooled into believing centaurs were real. And that simply from circumstances that were just right for a shepherd to mistakenly make a mental composite of his companion favorably stood in front of the neck and head of a grazing pony. Or similarly, a flock of short-legged fur-laden sheep funneling through a gate at twilight, with a shepherd’s long-snouted dog or even a wolf in the foreground. Using imagination and perspective – one can understand how one might mentally visualize a long sinuous worm complete with a dragon shaped head. In both cases, we need to separate from the final product the two sets of ingredients to regain a clear view. And in both cases, the observer’s imagining is momentary. The underlying truth comes as a flash."

Yes, there is indeed a thought Tom and Goldberry were created for other purposes, and were added in just by a brainwave, they would fit nicely in the Legendarium. It could explain one of the few pecularities they have about themselves and remain unanswered to full agreement on all fronts. I hadn't considered an independent element, but that could be very well. *nods*

[Priya]

Hello Aiks


I hadn't considered an independent element, but that could be very well the case.

I have a suspicion Tolkien wanted to create a relatively short and humerous tale starring the Bombadil’s. Perhaps along the lines and length of Farmer Giles of Ham which we know he constructed to be amusing. But I think he got too wrapped up with getting The Hobbit published. That’s my guess!

Part II: Fayvorite Colors – Early Influences to the New Plot

 
Tiny Fairies – Out!

By the time Tolkien initiated the gargantuan effort of writing The Lord of the Rings – the idea of fairies being diminutive in size had virtually been abandoned. For many years there were no signs that those tiny flower-fairies in the Qenya Lexicon of c. 1915 would continue to be part of the on-going mythology:

“Ailinóne … a fairy who dwelt in a lily on a pool.” … 
“Nardi  a flower-fairy.” … 
“Tetille  a fairy who lived in a poppy”.

– Parma Eldalamberon 12, Qenya Lexicon, c. 1915

If there was any reconsideration – it happened after The Lord of the Rings had been published, and it is by no means certain that Tolkien was firm on the matter*. For all intents and purposes, remarks jotted down for his 1939 ‘Fairy Stories’ lecture governed his thoughts. And they were not altogether flattering.

Among extensive notes which appear never to have made actual delivery**, he admitted how he had once suffered acute embarrassment at the hands of a little boy:

“I was walking in a garden with a small child. I was only nineteen or twenty myself. By some aberration of shyness, groping for a topic like a man in heavy boots in a strange drawing room, as we passed a tall poppy half-opened, …”. 

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 248, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

‘The Poppy Fairy’, Cicely Mary Barker, c. 1918

The question was then posed:

“ ‘Who lives in that flower?’ ”

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 248, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

The child knowledgeably retorted:

“ ‘No one’ … ‘There are Stamens and a Pistil in there.’ ”

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 248, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

It seems Tolkien was quite taken aback. Perhaps recollection of such a blunt rejoinder cemented his position in the published account where he openly admitted a strong aversion to miniature fairies – unlike Michael Drayton or William Shakespeare. Those blameworthy two were the reprehensible instigators of:

“… that long line of flower-fairies and fluttering sprites with antennae that I so disliked as a child, …”.

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 111, HarperCollins, 1983



… to be continued



* As the mythology developed to the point where spirits from before the creation of the Universe were termed the Ainur and then upon its entry sub-categorized as the Maiar and Valar, Tolkien appears to have subsumed some of the earlier (so termed) fays into the Maiar. Notably he did conceptualize that:

“… the Maiar robed themselves like other lesser living things, as trees, flowers, beasts.”

– The History of Middle-earth, Morgoth’s Ring, Myths Transformed – pg. 412   (my underlined emphasis)

Though of course being robed as a flower is not quite the same as a diminutive fluttering flower-fairy.

** What Tolkien exactly presented at St. Andrew’s is not recorded in its entirety.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya: Sure that could definite be the case. The professor was human just as everybody else. And yes, getting the Hobbit finished on time next to a teaching career, that brings stress. He could have lost partly focus on the Bombadil and Goldberry arc, that it never developed into what it ought to have been?

Among extensive notes which appear never to have made actual delivery**, he admitted how he had once suffered acute embarrassment at the hands of a little boy:

“I was walking in a garden with a small child. I was only nineteen or twenty myself. By some aberration of shyness, groping for a topic like a man in heavy boots in a strange drawing room, as we passed a tall poppy half-opened, …”.

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 248, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

The question was then posed: “ ‘Who lives in that flower?’ ”

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 248, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

The child knowledgeably retorted: “ ‘No one’ … ‘There are Stamens and a Pistil in there.’ ”

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 4 F 73-120 – pg. 248, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

It seems Tolkien was quite taken aback. Perhaps recollection of such a blunt rejoinder cemented his position in the published account where he openly admitted a strong aversion to miniature fairies – unlike Michael Drayton or William Shakespeare. Those blameworthy two were the reprehensible instigators of:

“… that long line of flower-fairies and fluttering sprites with antennae that I so disliked as a child, …”.

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 111, HarperCollins, 1983

I can only say about this little event, Tolkien has to blame himself as young adult of twenty years old, the child is not to blame for the answers he gives. Tolkien underestimated the gained wisdom of the kid and the honesty element in the child age, who knew already how it really was, and not a fairy that hid in it. Tolkien assumed that little boy still believed in the fairystory and asked so the question. He was not humiliated, even he felt so. He could have anticipated that the young boy would say something else than he thought or assumed.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Tolkien assumed that little boy still believed in the fairystory and asked so the question. He was not humiliated, even he felt so. He could have anticipated that the young boy would say something else than he thought or assumed.

Hmm … you are probably right that he wasn’t humiliated, but I think that it’s clear the incident left a deep impression on him.



… continued from my previous post


Despite being born in an era where tiny fairy-folk were extremely popular in visual literature - Tolkien’s view evolved to eventually cast off such impressions.

‘Rabbit Among the Fairies’, John Fitzgerald, 1823-1906

 


 
Tolkien was not alone among his compatriots in dismissing the notion of the ‘wee folk’ being really tiny. C.S. Lewis was definitely very much on the same page:

“I have found no trace of anyone believing or ever having believed (in England or Ireland) in the tiny fairies of Shakespeare, … a purely literary invention. Leprechauns are smaller than men, but most fairies are human size, some larger.”

– Letter from C.S. Lewis to M.W. Shelburne, 9 October 1954   (with italicized emphasis on ‘tiny’)

As evaluated in Part I, the Bombadils were not quite human size, but neither were they far off. If the couple (as I have surmised) really started out conceptualized as fay (fairy) creatures, they certainly weren’t diminutive. However on one matter Tolkien kept some consistency. He refused to drop the fairy-flower theme altogether. There was so much material already engraved in the hearts and minds of the English that there had to be some valid mythological link; and Tolkien wasn’t willing to completely discard a firmly established Edwardian and Victorian fad. Hence, as previously shown – Goldberry, though petite, could still be modeled after a flower-fairy. Yes indeed, she could be cast as a ‘fay of the water-lily’!
 

‘Water-Lilies and Water Fairies’, Richard Doyle, 1870

 
With the topics of ‘fairies’ and ‘mythological links’ fresh in our minds, by now readers ought to have grasped that The Lord of the Rings from the very beginning had its roots in:

“… myth … fairy-story, and … heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale …”.

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #131 – late 1951, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Few, if any, scholars have realized how deep those roots went in fleshing out Tom Bombadil. Especially when it came to English fairy-stories. That exposure has to a large extent already happened in this thread. But for now Bombadil’s connection to fairy-story will continue to focus on ‘colors’. In picking up from where I left off at the end of Part I, long overdue is a much needed exhaustive look at the symbolism Tolkien imbued.


… to be continued

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya! Yes, those years little fairies were very popular. And Tolkien took the elves on a mature road. We picked up in Holland a lot of fairy ideas from tales out of Germany, and not particular England. Thanks for the update.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

So continuing on from my previous post, I’m soon going to introduce another ‘fairy color’!



Fairy Colors: Green and Red too!

An unearthing of further credible and pertinent information regarding the importance of colors required only logical and minor ferreting on my part. Unsurprisingly it was once again necessary to zoom in on remarks made by Tolkien for the 1939 Andrew Lang Lecture: ‘Fairy Stories’. However before I visit that crucially important part of the puzzle – I will deliberate a little on Tolkien’s 1925 note in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight:

“… green was a fairy colour, …”.

– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, pg. 86 line 151, J.R.R. Tolkien and E.V. Gordon, 1925 

Why, we must ask ourselves, did the Professor feel that way? What made him come to such a clear conclusion? Surely it couldn’t have been just the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight tale?

“If we are introduced to a green man, with green hair and face, on a green horse, at the court of King Arthur, we expect ‘magic’; and Arthur and Gawain should have expected it also, we think. As indeed most of those present seem to have done: ‘a phantom and fay-magic folk there thought it’ …”.

– ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, W.P. Ker Lecture Paper, 1953   (Tolkien’s emphasis)



 

The Green Knight and his Green Horse, ‘The Cotton Nero’

 
Because the man was green obviously meant there was something amiss; but why indeed should “we expect ‘magic’ ” ? What conditioned Tolkien and Gordon to think along such lines? Well – the answer probably lies in the multitude of times ‘green’ has been mentioned in association with fairy beings. Particularly when it came to those of the British Isles. It seems such a detail had become well-embedded tradition:

“My grandmother has often told me of fairies dancing upon our green, and that they were very little creatures clothed in green; …”.

– Round about our Coal Fire, Chapter VI – pg. 56, 1734   (my underlined emphasis)

 

Woodcut Header to Chapter VI, ‘Round about our Coal Fire’, 1734

According to English folklore, the ‘Greencoaties’ were the names of fairies that dwelt in the countryside of Lincolnshire. Nearby, the ‘Greenies’ were fairy residents of Lancashire. And of course the Scottish Highlands and Ireland both have many Celtic inspired tales of fairy-type creatures clothed in ‘green’. The medievalist Lisa Spangenberg provides three catching and more specific examples:

“I think Tolkien is right about green as a fairy color. We have many references to fairies and green, but I shall be charitable and only refer to three. In the ballad “Thomas the Rhymer” the fairy Queen’s skirt “was o’ the grass-green silk” … In the twelfth century Ralph of Coggestall and William of Newbridge tell stories about mysterious green otherworld children. The Sídhe, the Irish otherworld residents, have a pronounced fondness for green, second only to red, …”.

– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Tolkien’s ‘game with rules’ – pg. 2, L. Spangenberg, 2007 (my underlined emphasis)


And it is ‘red’ that I will turn to scrutinizing in my next post!


… to be continued

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya! Surely looking forward to read your thoughts on both colours, red and green. Why green and red? Those two are like blue and yellow, brown and black, the basic colours. Green comes from the plants around us, from bare branches in winter, to the sprouting green in the spring, renewal of life. I think it is this renewal of life that associates itself with the magical fairy aspect. It ties with the fay magic folk that is believed to live in this nature.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Well, Tolkien himself said that ‘green’ was a ‘fairy color’. And from the post below, I think one can reasonably assume that he thought ‘red’ was a ‘fairy color’ too. I hope you agree!



… continued from my previous post

As Spangenberg exaggeratedly points out, “legions of scholars” have written about “the meaning of green” and on “green as a fairy color”.

‘Thomas The Rhymer and Fairy Queen’, The Scottish Fairy Book, E.W. Grierson, 1918 (Note the red saddle cloth and green dress)

Of her cited examples, we know Tolkien almost certainly knew of all three*. Indeed, they are quite sufficient to prove the point. Moreover Tolkien’s study of fay creatures appearing in fairy-story definitely included pondering on chosen colors. Especially when it came to ‘green’ and ‘red’. From the W.P. Ker lecture of 1953 on Sir Gawain and Green Knight we have some telling thoughts in his reflection on both knights’ colors.

In comparing the red-hued armor of Sir Gawain against the predominant green of his adversary, the Professor aired his own musings:

“… we now may be caught … by the contrast of … scarlet … with the green of the challenger, and ponder its possible inherited significance, …”.

– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, W.P. Ker Lecture Paper, 1953

And while he noted that:

“… the colour red … is only twice named.”,

– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, W.P. Ker Lecture Paper, 1953

he lamented that as far as chroma:

“… the poet’s interest is not there.”

– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, W.P. Ker Lecture Paper, 1953

But his certainly was, even though ultimately he decided:

“… it does not matter greatly what other or older significances were attached to green or red, …”.

– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, W.P. Ker Lecture Paper, 1953

Yes, Tolkien heavily hinted at deep thought about these two hues. There was significance to them. Undoubtedly they were both very apt colors for fairy-stories in which ‘Faërie’ arose!


… to be continued


* Thomas the Rhymer is mentioned in Tolkien’s On Fairy-stories essay (see The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays – pg. 113, HarperCollins, 1983).

The story of the green children of Woolpit is documented in Edwin Hartland’s English Fairy and Other Folk Tales (see Works consulted or cited by J.R.R. Tolkien per Tolkien On Fairy-stories, 2014 by Verlyn Flieger & Douglas Anderson).

The ‘Sídhe folk’, the Irish Otherworld residents also known as the Tuatha Dé Danann are mentioned in The Lost Road and Other Writings and documented in James MacDougall’s Folk Tales and Fairy Lore in Gaelic and English (see Works consulted or cited by J.R.R. Tolkien per Tolkien On Fairy-stories, 2014 by Verlyn Flieger & Douglas Anderson). Tolkien’s grasp of this core part of Celtic mythology is patently evident from his 1932 essay: The Name ‘Nodens’.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya! I read on... Green and red are contrast colours. I feel the argument on red is not over yet, so I don't exactly what to comment at this point. You can focus also on the many dogs lower regions of the painting. And how different they are portraited, if you count the number, there are ten dogs in the scene. One prancing horse, looks like the one board outside the inn "prancing pony' in Bree. Maiden on the back, child across the stream (kind of fuzzy in the background).

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

I feel the argument on red is not over yet

Yep - there is more to come within the next few posts!




The Makeup of Green

Given how certain colors have symbolic associations to Faërie – it’s now that I would like to turn attention back to The Lord of the Rings. The emphasis will be placed on scrutinizing a time span between 1938 and 1940. This being an acutely critical developmental period for the new plot and cast. In the remainder of this section focused upon will be ‘green’. Not until the next section will the significance of ‘red’ be broached.

So some four years after the published poetry: The Adventures of Tom Bombadil – Tom, Goldberry and some accompanying characters were revived for what became The Fellowship of the Ring. ‘Green’ and its links to Faërie (and so to our couple) is conjectured to have been very much on Tolkien’s mind for those formative Bombadil chapters sketched out in the late 1930’s. A glimpse of this peeks through from Tolkien’s revelation of a new Celtic fairy tale he had been working on.

In August 1938, not too long after embarking on The Lord of the Rings, The King of the Green Dozen:

“… an unfinished pseudo-Celtic fairy-story …”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #33 – 31 August 1938, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

was offered to Allen & Unwin. It was about:

“… the King of Iwerddon, whose hair and the hair of his descendant’s twelve sons is coloured green.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Footnote 2 to Letter #33 – 31 August 1938, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Yet another fascinating glimpse is evident from a slightly earlier lecture Tolkien gave in February of the same year at the University of Oxford’s Worcester College. From out of his coat pocket, and conveyed in all seriousness to a post-talk gathering, was pulled a supposed real leprechauns’ shoe. Smaller than a human’s (but not tiny) and presumably reptilian in feel, the shoe was, of course, green. Undoubtedly in Tolkien’s mind it was: ‘fairy-green’:

“One undergraduate asked about the truth underlying all legends – he referred especially to Dragons – and Tolkien said, “Yes – there was always a kernel of fact behind a legend.” He pulled out of a pocket … a leprechaun’s shoe! It measured about six to seven inches and was very green, as if lizard’s skin, with a long thin pointed toe.”

– Lecture of 14 February 1938, Report in Amon Hen 28, August 1977

The Leprechaun and his Legendary Pointed Shoes (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

 
Yes – significantly it was in this interval (c. 1938 to 1940) that the early chapters, which included Tom, were both being written and undergoing revision in the process of his assimilation. It was also within this same period that Tolkien prepared* and delivered his landmark lecture: ‘Fairy Stories’.

Realistically in prepping for the speech, The Lord of the Rings must also have hovered at the front of his mind. One can imagine that if Tolkien had constructed ‘the Bombadils’ to be fays (to us – fairies) – then some of his ideas may have seeped through to the presentation itself. And so they did – as best as we can tell**!

… to be continued



* Chronologically, Tolkien began writing The Lord of the Rings (~December 1937) before accepting an invitation (October 1938) to be the keynote speaker for the ‘Andrew Lang’ Lecture at St. Andrews. Just one month prior to lecture delivery (March 1939) we know he had near enough solidified the chapters involving Tom Bombadil and Goldberry having revised them several times (Letters #33 & #35 from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981). However, from reviewing The Return of the Shadow – clearly they had not reached their final form in all aspects and details.

** The original content of the lecture delivery was altered and expanded upon in 1943 and later published as an essay (On Fairy-stories) in a memorial to Charles Williams (Letter #159 from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981) in 1947.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Morning Priya! Again cold outside, brrr.... the consistencies of green, ah. I have been told that colours have significance to fairyland. Would the green not be a synonym for the want of something good? That it seeped in, because of the pending war in Europe, nobody wanted? A kind of rejection to the normalcy of the reality of RL at the time? That it was tried to repair it in fairytale?

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Who knows? An interesting idea though!




… continued from my previous post


When it came to ‘fantasy’ and ‘color’ it appears Tolkien was heavily influenced by the introductory words of Maisie Ward* for G.K. Chesterton’s 1938 posthumous release The Coloured Lands:

“The artist … who mixed blue and yellow creating green would ‘brighten and freshen the world with what is practically a new colour.’ ”

– The Coloured Lands, Introduction – pg. 12, G.K. Chesterton, 1938

No amateur to science and given his love of painting, the Professor was palpably familiar with the fact that:

“… there are only three ‘primary’ colours.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 145, HarperCollins, 1983   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

Those in art being:

“… red blue and yellow, …”.

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript A – pg. 192, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014   (Tolkien’s underlined emphasis)

Primary Colors Red, Blue and Yellow and resultant mixing: Art pigmentation

Before even introducing the “ ‘primary colours’ ”, general* colors and their adjectival importance to both Faërie and the creation of ‘fantasy’ were voiced:

“We may put a deadly green upon a man’s face and produce a horror; we may make the rare and terrible blue moon to shine; or we may cause woods to spring with silver leaves and rams to wear fleeces of gold, and put hot fire into the belly of the cold worm. But in such “fantasy,” as it is called, new form is made; Faerie begins; Man becomes a sub-creator.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 122, HarperCollins, 1983   (my underlined emphasis)

Indeed:

“… the invention of the adjective …”,

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 122, HarperCollins, 1983

was held to be supremely potent in fairy-stories. So much so that the example he elected to give was suspiciously based on his fairy color:

“… green-grass …”.

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 122, HarperCollins, 1983

More pointedly after talk of a need to ‘escape’ through the act of subcreation, and using an example of chromatic blending, he then decided to again place special emphasis on green:

“We should look at green again, and be startled anew …”. 

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983

But then after asking us to ponder on that color – having clued us towards using our powers of abstraction, he told us not to be:

“… blinded … by blue and yellow and red.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983

Remarkable indeed – because of course green is not made from red. Just from blue and yellow. Which in itself is quite startling. Because individually blue and yellow are so different from green!

… to be continued




* See Editors Commentary, 84 – Mooreeffoc in Tolkien On Fairy-stories, 2014 by Verlyn Flieger & Douglas Anderson.

** I say ‘general’ – but we must note that these are presumably all colors Tolkien associated to Faërie: blue, green, silver, gold (= yellow) and fire (= red).

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: Aye, hehe some curious thoughts on the primary colours, and all that can be created in between. I think this post is a prelude to what comes after in a new sort of chapter.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks


Yep - there is more to come on colors - even after this post!



… continued from my previous post

In writing these thoughts, the Professor’s mind appears not to have been clouded by alcohol intake. Absinthe – a drink which became increasingly popular at the end of the 19th Century – had led many (even some academics) to experience the hallucinogenic effects of the ‘Green Fairy’!

 

Absinthe – ‘The Green Fairy’, Albert Maignan, 1895

 
Joking aside, following on in the essay from these initial thoughts on color was the process described as ‘Recovery’. To achieve this one must regain:

“… a clear view.” 

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983

To see:

“… things as we are (or were) meant to see them … freed from the drab blur of triteness or familiarity …”.

- The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983

Laid bare then, the action he ever so subtly asked from us is: to regain a “clear view” of what comprised ‘green’. Left for us to unravel was to distinguish from ‘green’ – the colors: ‘blue’ and ‘yellow’. A lesson that might well have been applicable to his own newly developing fairy tale:

“Fantasy is made out of the Primary World. So Green is made out of Yellow and Blue; but redirects attention to them, throws indeed a new light on them.”

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 14 F 30 – pg. 281, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

Given such an opinion, there is no reason why we cannot apply the same principle to his fantasy character: Tom Bombadil. We ought to take a fresh look at his primary attire colors of blue and yellow and redirect attention to them:

“Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

As Chesterton suggested, we should look at the potential artistry with these two colors. Yet once we do so, we are led full circle in that:

“… we must hark back to … green, …”.

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript A – pg. 193, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

For of course to the Professor:

“… green was a fairy colour, …”!
–
- Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, pg. 86 line 151, J.R.R. Tolkien and E.V. Gordon, 1925 

And Tolkien was right. In a way a sensation of ‘joy’ was experienced by this writer in:

“… a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 155, HarperCollins, 1983


… to be continued

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hi @Priya, this colour stuff is all very interesting. I've only just looked at it a first time and need to read it again slowly and digest but I like what I have seen. I recall that halfir in 'Peeling the Onion' had a lot to say about colours and I recall also thinking this the least convincing part of his thread, so I feel we have progress!

When it came to ‘fantasy’ and ‘color’ it appears Tolkien was heavily influenced by the introductory words of Maisie Ward* for G.K. Chesterton’s 1938 posthumous release The Coloured Lands.

It has been a few years since I engaged seriously with OFS but I recall arriving at Maisie Ward and Chesterton and thinking how important it was. So any digging here strikes me a priori as digging in the right spot.

One criticism (for now), and not a new one:

Chronologically, Tolkien began writing The Lord of the Rings (~December 1937) before accepting an invitation (October 1938) to be the keynote speaker for the ‘Andrew Lang’ Lecture at St. Andrews. Just one month prior to lecture delivery (March 1939) we know he had near enough solidified the chapters involving Tom Bombadil and Goldberry having revised them several times (Letters #33 & #35 from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981). However, from reviewing The Return of the Shadow – clearly they had not reached their final form in all aspects and details.

Certainly they had not reached their final form in all aspects and details, but the changes are not numerous and might readily be listed. But what I object to here is the 'revised them several times' with Letters 33 and 35 cited as evidence.

Letter 35 does not mention the Bombadil material so I don't see how it supports the 'revised several times'. Letter 33 is used by CT to date the writing of the Bombadil material - CT suggests that this letter was written just after the Bombadil chapters had been penned for the first time. As such, Letter 33 also does not support the 'revised several times'.

Incidentally, Letter 33 seems relevant to your current colour investigation, with its reference to an unfinished satirical pseudo-Celtic tale by Tolkien named The King of the Green Dozen. I don't doubt you have already noted this!

[Priya]

Hello Chrysophylax Dives

Glad to have you re-engage. I think ‘colors’ are quite an important aspect of Bombadil’s makeup. And on top, lend a big clue to his genus.

Incidentally, Letter 33 seems relevant to your current colour investigation, with its reference to an unfinished satirical pseudo-Celtic tale by Tolkien named The King of the Green Dozen. I don't doubt you have already noted this!

Yes I have put out a lot of information - so the multiple posts on this subject will take some time to digest. I brought this up, as evidence to the case I am making, in my post of 17 March 2025.

Just one month prior to lecture delivery (March 1939) we know he had near enough solidified the chapters involving Tom Bombadil and Goldberry having revised them several times (Letters #33 & #35 from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981).

Letter 35 does not mention the Bombadil material so I don't see how it supports the 'revised several times'.

Apologies, I was a bit lax (actually - rather lazy) in explaining the references. Letter #33 was meant to relay that Tolkien had indeed begun the chapters involving Bombadil. While Letter #35 is first hand evidence for their revisions:

“By the end of last term the new story - The Lord of the Rings - had reached Chapter 12 (and had been re-written several times),”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #35 – 2 February 1939, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (my underlined emphasis)

Please note, Tolkien’s statement is all inclusive. He doesn’t state ‘some of the story’ or ‘part of the story’. Also - on this matter, I much prefer to take the Professor’s word from ‘fresh’ memory, rather than rely on CT’s (admirable) reconstruction attempt many decades later.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya: Absinte? Hehe. Probably. Anyhow waiting on what comes more about colours and which others are going to be covered by you.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

Never ever tried Absinthe. Sounds strong enough to see every color fairy.

I am going to address another ‘fairy’ color which I’ve not mentioned before. But not just yet. I want to wrap up blue, yellow and green first.



… continued from my previous post

All of this about yellow+ blue = green being a focus for Tolkien shouldn’t be that hard to believe? Nor should its subtle application to Bombadil. Particularly as much later Tolkien confessed that some of what was contained within The Lord of the Rings:

“… was a practical demonstration of the views … expressed.”, 

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #234 – 22 November 1961, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

in his ‘Fairy Stories’ lecture of 1939.

The comment was directed at the adult nature of the book – it being one with fairy-story elements, yet styled unlike those traditionally written for children. However, one cannot help but feel that the essays’ points about ‘green’, the ‘mixing of colors’, and the importance ‘of others’ – was reflected by another “practical demonstration” for the tale. In particular, for us, an application of coloring that symbolized the fairy side of this very unusual couple.

Though some scholars have had suspicions that On Fairy-stories is:

“… necessary for a full understanding of Tolkien’s own fiction.”,

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, The History of “On Fairy-Stories” – pg. 128, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

they have failed to understand several detailed applications of his philosophy in The Lord of the Rings.



 

The Blue to Golden-Yellow to Green progression from the Heart of the Peacock Feather*

 



Let us not be fooled, the supplementary evidence is far from weak. Tolkien must have known the pairings’ colors of outfit** and adornments handily made a coding for fay-creatures. Really then we should stand up and applaud with aplomb. How inventive! That fertile and lithe mind had managed to figure out a path justifying Tom and Goldberry as from another realm – namely that of Faërie. What we have to do now is verify whether this hidden design was carried through to final form.

… to be continued




* Bombadil in the 1934 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil poem had his hat adorned with a peacock feather. Paulolapetus of ‘The Lord of the Ring’s Plaza’ in thread ‘Tom B. Peeling the Onion’ has suggested that the feather endowment was modeled after the fairy figure in Estella Canziani’s painting The Piper of Dreams. The painting was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1915. The Medici Society promptly secured sufficient rights allowing postcards to be sent to many deployed British troops:

“… many soldiers received Estella Canziani’s ‘Piper of Dreams’ postcard, …”.

– Chesterton and Tolkien as Theologians, Introduction – pg. 3, A. Milbank, 2009

“… it sold an unprecedented 250,000 copies before the year was out.”

– Tolkien and the Great War, The Shores of Faërie – pg. 77, J. Garth, 2009



 

‘The Piper of Dreams’, Estella Canziani, 1914

 
It has been theorized that Tolkien’s Tinfang Warble (a possible precursor to Tom Bombadil) was created with The Piper of Dreams in mind.

According to my analytical evaluation, the chromatic symbolism of the feather is again appropriately reflective of a fay (fairy) being. One also might take into account that the feather of the peacock has been a Christian symbol of ‘immortality’ since the days of St. Augustine of Hippo and possibly as far back as the latter days of the Roman empire.

** More discussion on Goldberry’s fairy-colored clothing will follow shortly.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hello Priya. Yellow, blue and green are the more quiet colours, that might have the center of this symbolisation. Red hues are missing out. Tolkien did that definite in purpose. If you bring up peacock feathers, it is just if there a bunch of eyes staring at you and those - despite the calming colours - have a quite threatening effect. It should be come over that way if two male peacocks are in a battledance together?

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

I completely understand the frightening aspect of male peacock feathers and their eyes. I wonder how and why they became associated to Christianity?



… continued from my previous post

Part III: Fayvorite Colors – The Plot Firmed Up

Green in the Published The Lord of the Rings

Our best evidence portraying how the Bombadil chapters developed in The Fellowship of the Ring results from The History of Middle-earth series. In particular the books titled The Return of the Shadow and The Treason of Isengard. Except for some minor matters, quite a lot of text that concerns Tom and Goldberry in The Old Forest, In the House of Bombadil and Fog on the Barrow-downs more or less reaches final form by the early 40’s. Nonetheless, a finishing touch is often missing. Unfortunately hardly any clues within The Return of the Shadow or The Treason of Isengard point to when Tolkien actually ceased fiddling.

Though The Lord of the Rings was laid aside for quite a while upon Tolkien’s said completion in 1949, there is nothing concrete pinpointing any later emendations of interest to us. Some frantic editing* was certainly performed just prior to The Fellowship of the Ring being published in 1954. But nothing specific has been reported regarding the merry pair. There is a good chance then, that however Tolkien viewed our couple in the early 1940’s ended up being the same as at publication in the mid 1950’s. That or any evolution to the legendarium mythology allowed them to neatly slot in anyway. Thankfully then – from this aspect I’m sure the Professor breathed a sigh of relief; for early ‘Fellowship’ text would need no substantial late alterations.

When it came to the published account, the color ‘green’ was extensively employed in the chapters featuring Tom and Goldberry. Whether from mixing or not, green was doubly suitable. Because as well as signifying a deeper and secret function, it also nicely meshed in with the predominant hue found in Nature. Wasn’t that dandy! Tricksy Tolkien had in a way created a clever distraction that fooled the reader into a false sense of comfort. How can I be sure? Well, I really can’t be one hundred percent. Yet the evidence at the end of this chromatic analysis leads me to believe my hunch is totally correct. Thus, even though ultimately what I submit is a theory, a more factual tone is adopted henceforth.

So upon review of the issued The Fellowship of the Ring, we can see that Tolkien made no changes to Tom’s boots of yellow or the blue hue of his jacket. In one change of outfit during the hobbits’ stay, a familiar color was once again assigned. ‘Blue-eyed’ Tom came newly and aptly garbed:

“… all in clean blue, blue as rain-washed forgot-me-nots, …”.

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Tom’s other new clothing is consistent with my opinion of the Professor’s ‘fay-assignation mentality’; Tom unsurprisingly:

“… had green stockings.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Goldberry, on the other hand, had already been linked to forget-me-nots. Tolkien the fond and learned amateur botanist – I’m sure would have been thinking of the blue-petaled English marsh variety scientifically known as:

“Myosotis scorpioides … Water Forget-me-not.”

– The Flora of Oxfordshire, Chapter 9 – pg. 200, Killick, Perry, Woodell, 1998

Blue & Yellow Blooms of Myosotis scorpioides: Water Forget-me-nots

 



 
Once again – blue and yellow made green, but the Professor left the reader with another little puzzle. At our first encounter, Goldberry’s dress is mainly green shot with beads of silver just like her wedding outfit from the 1934 poem. But her belt is described to be:

“… of gold, shaped like a chain of flag-lilies set with the pale-blue eyes of forget-me-nots.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

We must take a step back here and question whether the belt truly was formed of metallic gold, or whether the hobbits were initially mistaken, or whether Tolkien took adjectival liberties.

There is certainly some confusion on this point. At the threshold of the house entryway, in the “golden light”, her belt may indeed have looked like gold. Be that as it may, after a few steps into the room she is then said to be:

“… clad in living flowers.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Reinforcing the point Tom then later tells us:

“ ‘Here’s my Goldberry … with flowers in her girdle! …’ ”. 

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Given some conflicting and ambiguous text, the reader is left to wonder whether the belt, as initially described, was really forged from precious gold. For indeed it would be a marvelous piece of workmanship. Handicraft truly worthy of a queen if “shaped like a chain of flag-lilies”. Seemingly something so ostentatious is not entirely at odds with a very stylishly portrayed female. Nevertheless, what puts the matter mightily in doubt is that flag-lilies and forget-me-nots also arise in Goldberry’s wedding garland per the 1934 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil poem. In that case they were most definitely live flowers:

“… his bride with forgetmenots and flag-lilies for garland …”.

– The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Oxford Magazine, February 1934

Faced with such evidence the logical conclusion is that Tolkien had those very same flowers now modeled into a living girdle for Goldberry. Though the flag-lilies were near enough to gold, they were really yellow:

“… glædene ‘iris’, in my book supposed to refer to the ‘yellow flag’ growing in streams and marshes: sc. iris pseudacorus, …”.

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #297 – August 1967, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

‘Yellow Flag Iris’, Francis Russell, 1820-1915

 
In any case, what we have then with blue/yellow forget-me-nots and a gold or yellow flowered belt is a combination of colors that when mixed make up either plain green or metallic green!

* Of the books comprising The Fellowship of the Ring Tolkien told the publisher in the spring of 1953 that:

“I practically completed a detailed revision of these … I can let you have them by the end of this month.”,

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #136 – 24 March 1953, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

while explaining that: 

“The first two books were written first a very long time ago, have been often altered, and needed a close consideration of the whole to bring them into line.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #137 – 11 April 1953, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Tolkien was clearly under quite some pressure to deliver, but he missed the promise date.

[Silky Gooseness]

I had no idea about the peacock feather having Christian significance. I’m more familiar with the mythology of Argus and Hera, and thus its aspect as representative of a watchful guardian.

Live flowers seem more fitting to me, as Goldberry is known to wear flowers to ornament - if she had a golden belt, would this not be worn at her wedding if at all? And if not, who might have crafted it for her? Tom is master of many things, but is he a goldsmith, and where might he obtain such worldly wealth - or perhaps a gift from her mother? Gold does sometimes unexpectedly fall into rivers, I suppose.

[Priya]

Hello Silky Gooseness

Tom is master of many things, but is he a goldsmith

Agreed - certainly Tom is a ‘master’. But, although he appears to know what a ‘bellows’ is, I can’t find much else that points him to be one in metalwork:

“ ‘… where be you a-going to, puffing like a bellows? …’ ”.
- The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest

As I pointed out in my post of 31 July 2024 - there appears to be hardly anything made of metal in Tom’s house.

perhaps a gift from her mother? Gold does sometimes unexpectedly fall into rivers, I suppose

That’s another interesting idea. But I observe that Goldberry’s mother is not even mentioned as being present at the wedding ceremony in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil poetry.


I lean, like you, to Goldberry’s belt being fabricated from natural river-flora.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya! Interesting divulsion of your post upon Green. But I don't think myself Tolkien put so much thought or emphasis on the blue and green and yellow of the couple. But it is interesting to read where you take your analysis and as always you put much thought and consideration into it. It helps me to reconsider matters myself. I don't know more to add, so I leave my reply with this. I commented quite a lot in the other two threads.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

But I don't think myself Tolkien put so much thought or emphasis on the blue and green and yellow of the couple.

The best I can do is offer/re-emphasize quotes that essentially originate from 1939 when he was embroiled in the drafting the early TFotR chapters involving Bombadil:

“… there are only three ‘primary’ colours.”

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 145, HarperCollins, 1983   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

“… red blue and yellow, …”.

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript A – pg. 192, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014   (Tolkien’s underlined emphasis)

“Fantasy is made out of the Primary World. So Green is made out of Yellow and Blue; but redirects attention to them, throws indeed a new light on them.”

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 14 F 30 – pg. 281, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014 (my underlined emphasis)

“We should look at green again, and be startled anew …”.

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 146, HarperCollins, 1983 (my underlined emphasis)


Is Bombadil not truly a character of fantasy? Hasn’t Tolkien brought up green, yellow and blue and related it to fantasy?

Still not convinced?




Silver and White: Two more Fairy Colors

Later on in the episode the ‘gold’ belt was exchanged, along with robes, for equally stunning exterior wear. The lady of the house came clad all in silver with a new white girdle. Her shoe material was described to be like fish scales; presumably possessing a silvery sheen. Visually the outfit must have looked spectacular. To use a modern-day phrase: out of this world!

No differing clothing or accessories (to those already worn) were ever mentioned again in connection to Goldberry except the gifted brooch from the barrow. Here once more, quite intentionally, Tolkien via Tom chose ‘fairy-mixable blue’:

“… a brooch set with blue stones, many-shaded like flax-flowers or the wings of blue butterflies.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-downs

In summary, the colors of clothes/adornments (specified explicitly or implicitly) were as follows:

Tom: Blue, Yellow and Green

Goldberry: Green, Blue, Yellow (Gold), Silver and White

Thus, we can see how the only color added to the duo’s attire after the published poetry was ‘white’. And both ‘silver’ and ‘white’ are distinct enough not to be readily associable to green. So what may we inquire, was their significance?

Given Tolkien’s extensive Celtic and medieval book collection and clues bound up in On Fairy-stories, undoubtedly it was known that there were chroma other than green strongly connected to the realm and peoples of Faërie. It was the particular variety of fairy-folk mythologized within the British Isles that he was most interested in. The earlier the recorded material the better. And so it is thought that white and silver featuring prominently in Celtic legends and medieval scripts was concluded as also apt for his fay beings. Some pertinent examples are:

White: Arawn’s dogs*, Morgan le Fay’s chalk-white veils**, The Queen of Elf-land’s milk-white steed***
Silver: Nuada’s hand****, The bough of the sacred apple tree*****, the Banshee’s comb 

Deliberately then, white and silver were colors assigned to Goldberry too. Perhaps we should not be surprised because just as Tolkien had doubly provided a coded and Nature related color to Tom, so had he for Goldberry. Symbolized then were:

“… real river-lands in autumn. Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands.”

– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #210 – June 1958, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Obviously the whole Withywindle valley underwent coloration transformations as waters dwindled and surged and as the climate changed throughout the year. One can easily imagine how river-land flora naturally sprouted, expired and renewed through the seasons. Special emphasis was placed on the color of Withywindle aquatic plants tying them directly in with Goldberry’s colors. Without restressing the flora making up her belt, other examples are:

“… on a tray a small pile of white water-lilies.”, 
“… her gown was … green as young reeds, …”, 
“The floor was … strewn with fresh green rushes.”,
 “… green leaves and lilies white to please my pretty lady, …”.

– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest & In the House of Tom Bombadil   (my underlined emphasis)

The European White Water Lily, Nymphaea alba

Water itself – the life force of the Withywindle, and its borders, was alluded to be both silvery and white-hued before the hobbits even reached Tom’s house:

“… the white glimmer of foam, where the river flowed over a short fall.”,
 “… White mists began to rise and curl on the surface of the river …”, 
“… glad water flowing down … came falling like silver to meet them: …”.

– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest   (my underlined emphasis)

Imagery of silver and white connecting water to Goldberry’s clothing became strong once inside:

“… her gown was … shot with silver like beads of dew; …”. 
“… she was clothed all in silver with a white girdle, and her shoes were like fishes’ mail.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, In the House of Tom Bombadil   (my underlined emphasis)

There is no doubt that Tolkien wanted Goldberry firmly intertwined with the river, its margins and its flora. Commensurately the Professor specially brought out the fay associated seasonal colors of the region. Goldberry’s clothing was destined to become an ideal medium for reflecting that.

Lastly, when it came to attire – the hosts of the house had a special luxury item for welcoming guests. Even though hardy-soled hobbits might not have needed them, all four were provided with pairs of soft slippers******.

Guess what color?

Oh yes once again how extraordinarily ‘convenient’ for fairy-folk: green, green, green and green!

Perhaps for some, the point has been made – but the story doesn’t quite end there.


… to be continued




* See Tolkien’s essay English and Welsh. Tolkien produced a translation of approximately the first fifth of Pwyll, Prince of Dyfed, the first tale in the Mabinogion. It is here that the account of the hunt involving Arawn’s white hounds occurs. Tolkien’s translation is yet to be published.

** From Tolkien’s own translation per Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, 1925: “enveloped was her black chin with chalk-white veils” (Line 958).

*** Explicitly mentioned in Tolkien’s 1939 ‘Fairy Stories’ lecture paper (see The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 113, HarperCollins, 1983).

**** In Tolkien’s paper The Name ‘Nodens’ (published in Appendix I of the 1932 Report on the Excavation of the Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman site in Lydney Park, Gloucestershire by R.M. Wheeler, Tolkien discusses the medieval Welsh Lludd Llaw Ereint (‘of the Silver Hand’) in relation to the Celtic god Nuada – the king of the Tuatha Dé Danann.

***** See The Voyage of Bran (Immram Brain), an Irish Celtic tale of the 7th or 8th century about a voyage to an otherworld. Tolkien knew of it as can be gleaned from The Lost Road, pg. 99: “Such loveliness to look upon / no Bran nor Brendan ever won”. The description of the Celtic tree resonates with Tolkien’s ‘Silver Tree’ Telperion of the Silmarillion mythology.

****** Fairy slippers are the first on a list of items associated to fairies in The Denham Tracts. This publication contains a reference to ‘hobbits’ and precedes The Hobbit. Tolkien denied knowledge of it at the time controversy first arose soon after his book was issued, but subsequently having investigating the matter – may have become acquainted with it while writing The Lord of the Rings.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya! Partly, I think in the earlier stages of writing it was not on Tolkien's mind, as later when the readers and the journalists began asking: Who is this Tom Bombadil fellow and how do we have to view him? Bombadil as character intrigued readers more than Tolkien anticipated or thought, a normal character with oddities instead of exceptional with oddities. Otherwise these questions would never have been asked. Bombadil is a character in a fantasy tale, but inside the context of the tale itself, he is not I feel.

But let's read further... Silver and white. Good post on the other colours. It could well be that certain colours are given to particular characters. The argument is well funded. In essentials the whole Legendarium can be stalked with research and will never bore.