Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

Hello Aiks

The imagination can create the wildest things, if you are in the dark and cannot see clear.

Going blind is one of the things I fear most in this world. Imagine if one is unable to read Plaza posts!

Chrysophylax Dives might say: ‘make the most of your time while you can, “… until the dragon comes”.’



… continued from my previous post


On ‘earthlings’, our best evidence can be found in an early ~1920’s document called The Creatures of the Earth. Within, he labeled ‘Earthlings’ as: wood-giants, mountainous-giants*, pygmies** and dwarves***. Listed below ‘Earthlings’ in a pseudo-hierarchical ‘chain of being’ were: ‘Beasts and Creatures’ and then ‘Úvanimor/Monsters’. If I were to hazard another guess, ‘Earthlings’ were mentally grouped with others (I suspect with those further down the chain) as those whose bodily matter was destined to remain within the confines of the planet, and whose spiritual essence, upon death, eventually dissolved into nothingness or spread into nebulous impotency. Indeed, if that were the case ‘Earthlings’ would be highly befitting terminology.
 










* Stone-giants most likely fell in this category.

** Pygmies here, were likely thought of in the context of being mythological creatures, for they are indeed a term employed by Paracelsus for an elemental of the earth. This view is shared by Patrick Wynne and Christopher Gilson:

“… ‘pygmies’ were probably intended as beings akin to the earth-elementals of Paracelsus …”.

– The Creatures of the Earth, J.R.R. Tolkien, see Parma Eldalamberon XIV

Tolkien was clearly aware of Paracelsus’ invention as pointed out in a footnote to Letter #239 (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981) when comparing ‘gnome’ and ‘pygmaeus’:

“… the word gnome used by the 16th-century writer Paracelsus as a synonym of pygmaeus. Paracelsus ‘says that the beings so called have the earth as their element …’ ”.

It is theorized that Tolkien set apart ‘Earthlings’ from the category of ‘Monsters’ due to the former inherently possessing moralistic free will. In other words ‘Earthlings’ were capable of being both evil and good. This seems to be have been reflected in The Hobbit – where in the journey over the Misty Mountains, Gandalf aired a desire to find “a more or less decent giant”. A ‘mountainous-giant’ under the category of ‘Earthlings’ might well have been what Tolkien had in mind.

In any event, the fact that the group designated ‘Earthlings’ in The Creatures of the Earth appears to contain one Paracelsian-type elemental, makes one wonder whether other creatures of that lore were deliberated to belong too. It is conjectured that water-nymphs, mermaids and undine-like entities, were also considered to – if not wholly belong – at least overlap into that same mythological grouping.

*** Before The Lord of the Rings, dwarves at one time were also considered to be elemental entities. In The Later Annals of Beleriand (The Lost Road and Other Writings, pg. 129):

“… Dwarves have no spirit indwelling, … and they go back into the stone of the mountains of which they were made.”

It should be noted The Creatures of the Earth preceded The Later Annals of Beleriand. Thus, it maybe concluded, dwarves were categorized as soulless creatures in this earlier document.

Hello Aiks

That’s a heart-warming story you told. Yes, we are blessed to live in an era where some disabilities can be mitigated or even overcome. Not possible 100 years ago!




Earthlings in The Lord of the Rings

When it came to drafting up the Bombadil chapters, there is more evidence that Paracelsian-type elementals were intended to be part of Middle-earth’s rich racial diversity. Old Man Willow was referred to as a:

“… grey thirsty earth-bound* spirit …”.

– The Return of the Shadow, Tom Bombadil – pg. 120   (my underlined emphasis)

And then a description of Trolls was given as:

“… stone inhabited by goblin-spirit, …”, 

– The Treason of Isengard, Treebeard – pg. 411   (my underlined emphasis)

with the point being that even inanimate matter in Tolkien’s world could be possessed by a spiritual essence.

Even more telling is a preliminary note for his ‘Fairy Stories’ address. While in the process of gathering thoughts in drafting those Bombadil chapters, Tolkien was also engaged in preparing for the Andrew Lang Lecture of 1939. It is notable that when contemplating a tree-fairy, he acknowledged that though spiritually originating before creation, and:

“… immortal while the world (and trees) last …”,

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 6 F 6-8 – pg. 255, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

most revealingly for us:

“It is possible that nothing awaits him – outside the World and the Cycle of Story and of Time.”

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 6 F 6-8 – pg. 255, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

Again, this evokes the fate of a Paracelsian ‘elemental’, and probably parallels the destiny of his ‘Earthlings’. Sadly though, for such creatures, he felt from a Christian belief and an afterlife perspective – this state of affairs was:

“… a dreadful Doom …”.

– Tolkien On Fairy-stories, Manuscript B MS. 6 F 6-8 – pg. 255, V. Flieger & D. Anderson, 2014

Still, one can understand how the genus of tree-fairies might have been debatable having potentially fallen under a couple of different classifications. Just like mermaids – they might have been:

“… earthlings, or fays? – or both …”.

– The Book of Lost Tales II, The Tale of Eärendel – pg. 263



 






Which from a historical perspective aptly reflected blurred borders present in medieval accounts of supernatural creatures:

“Such things do not admit of clear classifications and distinctions.”

– Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture, 1936

Which is echoed by our understanding of Anglo-Saxon terminology through their lumping together of different female water-entities:

“wæterelfen … water-elf, mermaid, nymph.”

– A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary – pg. 338, J.R. Clark Hall, 1894

… to be continued




* Tolkien stated that the spirit had become “imprisoned” in the Great Willow. The implication being that the tree was not its natural habitat. This is aligned with poetry where the tree is considered to be separate from the entity:

“ ‘Ha, Tom Bombadil! What be you a-thinking,
 peeping inside my tree, watching me a-drinking
 deep in my wooden house, tickling me with feather,
 dripping wet down my face like a rainy weather?’ ”

– The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, 1934 (& 1962) poem   (my underlined emphasis)

Hello Aiks

Good observation about Old Man Willow. And yes the Mama Tree fairy does look a touch masculine!



… continued from my previous post

As to the published The Lord of the Rings, again there are further hints that an inert substance could possess a latent ‘fea’. In Legolas’ words during the Fellowship’s journey through Hollin:

“ ‘… Only I hear the stones lament them: …’ ”.*

– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Ring goes South

As if to provide emphasis, italicized in the voices of the stones themselves:

“… deep they delved us, fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone.”

– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Ring goes South

Legolas wasn’t lying here – but though these particular elementals were innocuous to the quest, others were not so benign. Tom Shippey goes as far as finger-pointing the storm on Caradhras to be the work of presumably malevolent:

“… elementals …”.

– J.R.R. Tolkien Author of the Century, Chapter II – pg. 67, T.A.

Perhaps the strongest evidence and most obvious elemental candidate comes from Tolkien expounding on the nature of Stone-trolls. Worked on by Dark Powers, such creatures were fundamentally preexisting spirits inhabiting stone. These barbaric monstrosities of our world’s Norse mythology were readily included into his writings, yet he heavily hinted they lacked the same as that which typified all elementals, namely – a soul:

“… when you make Trolls** speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a ‘soul’. But I do not agree (if you admit that fairy-story element) …”.***

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








 
Tolkien’s pointed rejection of ‘speech’ to being a requisite for possessing a ‘soul’ reflects a longstanding debate and the lasting influence of his renowned Oxford predecessor – Max Müller, Professor of Philology. An academic who had even challenged Charles Darwin, Müller’s views and works ought to have been well-known to Tolkien:

“There is in man a something, I am not afraid to call it for the present an occult quality, which distinguishes him from every animal without exception. We call this something reason when we think of it as an internal energy, and we call it language when we perceive and grasp it as an external phenomenon. No reason without speech, no speech without reason. Language is the Rubicon which divides man from beast, and no animal will ever cross it.”

– Max Müller and the Philosophy of Language, Darwin and Max Müller pgs. 14-15, L. Noiré, 1879


… to be continued



* Paralleling the ‘stone’ elemental voices are those encountered by the ‘water’ elementals making up the waves in the story of Undine. And the sobbing is reminiscent of the sighs expressed by the Withywindle River-woman in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil poetry.










** Tolkien’s pronouncement about ‘souls’ is implied as applicable to all types of Troll. The comment in Letter #153 (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981) of Trolls being “counterfeits” refers to the Dark Powers only possessing the ability to corrupt, and not truly create life; thus reflected (for the Stone-trolls) in an unstable design destructible by sunlight.

*** Tolkien placed Trolls under ‘Úvanimor/Monsters’ in The Creatures of the Earth (see Parma Eldalamberon XIV, by Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith & Christopher Gilson). These being life-forms classifiable as wholly evil in nature:

“… I do not agree … that my trolls show any sign of ‘good’, strictly and unsentimentally viewed.”

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

Hello Aiks

Ye, I agree consciousness is certainly a divine element. Possession of a ‘spirit’ meant that Eru had provided ‘life’. But I think that Tolkien felt ‘beasts and elementals’ lacked something extra that we possess. A ‘soul’ is a special gift of Eru - that allows his ‘children’ to receive eternal life.




… continued from my previous post

That magical internal energy we humans were so lucky to have, allowing us to use complex reasoning via language, was down to our gifted ‘souls’. But just because beasts and monsters in fairy tales could communicate employing equally sophisticated speech – didn’t mean they too were endowed with souls. So Tolkien disagreed with the ability to talk being a divide:

“In summary: I think it must be assumed that ‘talking’ is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a ‘rational soul’ or fëa.”

– Morgoth’s Ring, Myths Transformed – pg. 410   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

Because the heart of the matter is that from a mythology/fairy tale standpoint, Trolls as life-forms had ‘Mother-Nature’* spiritual origins. All four Paracelsian elementals had life:

“… by means of the Vulcanus indwelling in them, which is not a personal spirit, but a virtus, which is the power of nature …”.

– The Paracelsus of Robert Browning, The Philosophy of Paracelsus – pg. 49, ‎C.P. Denison, 1911

Quite possibly – Tolkien thought there was no place for the spiritual essence of Trolls beyond the physical circles of the World. There was no hall where their spirits were to be gathered upon Earth, and there would be no place for them Outside at the end with Ilúvatar. In effect, they were soulless creatures; and ones associated to the ‘earth’ of Paracelsian lore. 

Such was the impact of Paracelsus’ teachings that they began to spread – eventually to become embedded in north-European folklore and fairy tales:

“… Katrine knew well that the Troll has no soul. He may live a thousand years; but at the end of them he must die forever.”

– Katrine and the Troll, H. Holdich, The Independent, Volume 31 – pg. 27, 27 February 1879   (my underlined emphasis)

“Now of old the isle of Rügen was full of Dwarfs and Trolls,
 The brown-faced little Earth-men, the people without souls; …”.

– The Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier, 1894 Issue – pg. 138, The Brown Dwarf of Rügen – Originating from Arndt’s Märchen of 1816   (my underlined emphasis)

Nonetheless, the theology dictated that elementals still:

.“… have flesh**, blood, and bones; they live and propagate offspring; they eat and talk, act and sleep, etc., …”.

- The Life and the Doctrines of Paracelsus, Pneumatology – pg. 151, F. Hartmann, 1910

All in-line with Tolkien’s portrayal of troll physiology:

.“… Frodo … stooped, and stabbed with Sting at the hideous foot. … the foot jerked back, … Black drops dripped from the blade …”.

– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm
 








… to be continued




* Best thought of as equivalent to the ‘Flame Imperishable/Secret Fire’ in Tolkien’s mythology, perhaps. Particularly as Vulcan (from which Vulcanus is derived) was the Greek god of fire, and the soul is classically referred to as the internal ‘spark of life’.

** Paracelsus described the ‘flesh’ of elementals as transubstantial. Not directly derived from Adam – this flesh (unlike the corporeal kind endowed to mankind) could revert to its basic constituent form. In taking such an idea, Tolkien certainly followed Scandinavian folklore and early pagan thinking when it came to The Hobbit. Trolls therein were essentially portrayed as elementals of the earth, vulnerable to instantaneous petrification if not under it while the sun visibly shone:

“Doubtless ancient pre-Christian imagination vaguely recognized differences of ‘materiality’ between the solidly physical monsters, conceived as made of the earth and rock (to which the light of the sun might return them), …”. 

– Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture, 1936   (Tolkien’s emphasis)

Of course, birds also speak, and are never considered on the context of having souls - not just the crebain, the spies, but also Röac and his people, who cannot merely repeat what they say but have true understanding and friendships

Hello Silky Gooseness

Yep, I agree. They would fall in line under the category of ‘Beasts and Creatures’ in the document Tolkien produced called The Creatures of the Earth.

Of course there were exceptions. Tolkien in late writings (last known thoughts on this matter) classified the great eagles, presumably Thorondor and some kin, as of the Maiar.


Hello Aiks

The Wiki page doesn't bridge anything of it to the fantasy world. The chemist presence is bit confusing at this point?

Paracelsus was obviously a very talented man - in his time.




Withywindle Women and their Mythological Makeup 

Now the “fairy-story element” for a soulless ‘water’ entity is best illustrated by the fortunes of Undine. Because of her resemblance to mermaids of myth and Tolkien’s connecting referral to “earthlings”, it is to her and duly Goldberry that I must next turn.
 
Tolkien once pointed out that:

“… nymphs, … had quite distinct mythological or imaginative origins, …”.

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

His friend C.S. Lewis was well-aware* of Fouqué’s nymphean tale of:

“… Undines who acquired a soul by marriage with a mortal …”.

– Letters to Malcolm, Letter #22 – pg. 158, C.S. Lewis, 1964   (my underlined emphasis)

And no doubt Tolkien with his extensive interests in fairy tales and mythology knew it too.




 




 
Fouqué himself best summarizes Undine’s dreadful plight and that of other types of elemental**:

“ ‘… We should be far superior to you, who are another race of the human family, – for we also call ourselves human beings, as we resemble them in form and features – had we not one evil peculiar to ourselves. Both we and the beings I have mentioned as inhabiting the other elements vanish into air at death and go out of existence, spirit and body, so that no vestige of us remains; and when you hereafter awake to a purer state of being, we shall remain where sand, and sparks, and wind, and waves remain. Thus we have no souls; the element moves us, and, again, is obedient to our will, while we live, though it scatters us like dust when we die; …’ ”.

– Undine, F. de La Motte Fouqué, Project Gutenberg E-book, Chapter 4, produced by S. Laythorpe & D. Widget   (my underlined emphasis)

The mortality of ‘man’ was thus a bestowal by our Maker. A largely unappreciated gift, but nonetheless a most precious thing which even long-lived legendary creatures (including undines and mermaids) found supremely desirable. For being truly human meant intrinsic possession of a ‘soul’, a ‘ticket to an afterlife’ and a guaranteed ‘eternal’ existence. At least that was the case in Fouqué’s and Andersen’s classic merwoman fairy tales. Two tales whose principles were faithfully followed in The Lord of the Rings, and I strongly suspect very much on his mind when he stated for mankind:

“… ‘mortality’ is thus represented as a special gift of God … a legitimate basis of legends.”

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

If we “admit that fairy-story element” – then indeed we can see how and why Tolkien meshed an Undine-like Goldberry into the 1934 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and then her entirely land-based married portrayal in The Lord of the Rings. Within the latter there are perhaps just the faintest of clues indicative that her makeup and consistency was something special.


… to be continued




* One can imagine a spirited discussion having taken place with Tolkien on such a matter. C.S. Lewis, after all, was a lover of mythology and fairy tales too. Certainly he had become acquainted with Arthur Rackham’s Undine; and as early as 1916. We also know that he had read Robert Browning’s Paracelsus by 1918 and it would not be at all surprising if in this same time-frame he’d familiarized himself with the original source of undine mythology, Paracelsus’ Liber de nymphis, sylphis, pygmaeis et salamandris et de caeteris spiritibus (of 1515). In 1949 he related he had already read this work – although he didn’t pinpoint exactly when. It must have been before 1946 when Lewis read a new poem on Paracelsus’ view of gnomes, thought to be The True Nature of Gnomes – at an Inklings meeting.

Though Lewis demonstrably showed much interest in Paracelsus’ elementals, Tolkien – in criticizing The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, obviously claimed superior knowledge on the branch of mythology germane to nymphs:

“ ‘It really won’t do, you know! I mean to say: ‘Nymphs and their Ways, The Love-Life of a Faun.’ Doesn’t he know what he’s talking about?’ ” 

– C.S. Lewis: A Biography, pg. 241, R.L. Green/W. Hooper, 1974   (my underlined emphasis)

** Stated as the ‘salamanders’ amid flames, ‘gnomes’ of the earth, forest ‘spirits’ of the ‘air’ and the race of ‘water spirits’. All of these elementals are perfectly aligned with earlier Paracelsian mythology.



… to be continued

… continued from my previous post


Now Tom poetically described Goldberry as:

“… clearer than the water.” 

– The Fellowship of the Ring, The Old Forest

And then as if to reinforce the point, Tolkien had Frodo practically repeat it:

“ ‘… clearer than clear water! …’ ”.

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

Hmm … in acquiring a soul had she transformed from a ‘water elemental’ into an akin embodied creature, yet retained much of those intrinsic former qualities? Had she now become what we might term – a fairy being?

Then we shouldn’t ignore additional evidence pointing to an elemental type essence as revealed by the light of a candle which shone through Goldberry’s hand:

“… like sunlight through a white shell.”

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

Unusual, I deem, for a hand shielding the flame from a draft – for fingers ought not to be splayed open!

All of these interesting observations aid a needed reconciliation of the River-woman. Because a logical reason why sightings of Goldberry’s mother were not commonplace is that in the sense of a physical anthropomorphic being (as we might imagine) – the River-woman simply wasn’t one! For perhaps, to Tolkien, she had yet to fully transmute? Though equally possible – she remained invisible* to all but gifted beings such as Tom and Goldberry herself.

Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings refers to Goldberry as the river’s ‘daughter’ four times and explicitly the ‘River-woman’ is mentioned once. But it is possible the Withywindle was viewed as housing a non-conventionally embodied entity, yet also a source of shelter and nourishment for a more conventional fully morphed human-like being.

So the Withywindle (in Tolkien’s mind) may have had another resident/visiting female spirit but not always a flesh-clad tangible one as mortals could see. For it is quite possible that at the time of writing the early Bombadil poetry, Tolkien thought that the ‘mother’ spirit of the river (or an adjoining one) was largely elemental in form and locked within the water itself (yet able to move with the flow or against it). Just like the malevolent willow wasn’t really a ‘man’, perhaps she didn’t go out of her way to display herself as an anthropomorphic ‘woman’. 

Against this, in the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Goldberry’s mother is seemingly situated outside of river waters when lamenting her loss:

“… on the bank in the reeds River-woman sighing …”.

– The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, 1934 (& 1962) poem

But perhaps she wasn’t permanently locked in and possessed the ability to survive for short periods on its fringes.

In any case - these are possibilities worth considering. Particularly as we may still not fully have grasped Tolkien’s intent: one which I’ve already relayed in this thread. His idea, I believe, was to make Goldberry (and presumably her mother) a source of our modern-day water-maiden lore, some of which stems from Paracelsus. So perhaps we should heed the evidence pointing towards Goldberry possessing Paracelsian elemental qualities!










We also have to remember that when it comes to poetry, every matter should not be taken literally. We must remind ourselves that many details of the hobbit composition must have come from Tom himself – some of which might have become slightly distorted in translation to jest-ridden rhyme. Especially as the final result was:

“… made up of various hobbit-versions of legends concerning Bombadil.”

– Preface to: The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, 1962

If we choose to adopt a ‘looser’ reading of the poetry and text and follow English tradition ala Michael Drayton, the many problems associated to Goldberry’s parentage can be wholly eliminated. If we choose to embrace the evidence and view Goldberry and her mother as ‘elementals’ in constitution – some puzzling text in The Lord of the Rings becomes readily explainable.


… to be continued



* Paracelsus’ elementals were generally invisible to mortals.

Hello Aiks

Are you saying there is a natural spirit bound to it as well?

Yes I am.

I’m also saying Tolkien’s tale is consistent with English River mythology. See my post below and the next one to come!




English River Mythology

That time is near when I finally wrap up my thoughts on Goldberry. In such a culmination, I will try to positively identify her genus within Tolkien’s own mythology. But that is coming up in a new post shortly. Before I do so, I want to emphasize, once more, how Tolkien desired to link his mythical works with our ‘real’ history.

He said it again and again in his letters:

“I find the blend of Vera historia and mythos irresistible.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #26 – 4 March 1934, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   

“… a story must pass muster on its surface value, as a Vera historia of a journey …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #26 – 4 March 1934, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   

“… the literary pretence of historicity and dependence on record is to be maintained.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #129 – 10 September 1950, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   

“… the product of very considerable thought and labour, has achieved (as I hoped) a verisimilitude which assists probably in the literary belief in the story as historical.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #297 – August 1967, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981   

And so, as touched upon in my previous post, It’s worthwhile taking another look at Michael Drayton and his magnum opus ‘The Poly-Olbion’. For it may have influenced Tolkien with regard to Golďberry and her river setting.

In classical 16th Century English poetry, Michael Drayton’s Poly-Olbion allegorically describes the marriage of the rivers Thame and Isis, from whose union is born the Thames*:

“Now Fame had through this Isle divulged in every ear

The long expected day of marriage to be near,

That Isis, Cotswold’s heir,
long woo’d was lastly won,

And instantly should wed with Thame, old Chiltern’s son.”

In Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene, the Isis is the female partner, and she is a “weak and crooked creature” requiring the support of her attendants – the rivers Churne and Cherwell. This is quite apparent in the meandering, windy path the Isis takes in the map below.








All of the rivers flowing through Oxfordshire are assigned female water-entities by Drayton. Thus, it is no surprise that the Cherwell, being a lesser feeder-river is assigned a young water-nymph in his Poly-Olbion, while the greater Isis is depicted as more senior (see zoom frames below taken from Poly-Olbion map above). So as I wish to remind readers, English mythology has rivers possessing older and younger female water-spirits.
 



 




Tolkien studied both Drayton and Spenser as part of his undergraduate course material at the University of Oxford. Later on it appears he took an interest in the etymology of ‘Thame’ per his amusing fairy tale Farmer Giles of Ham – while giving his own spin (derived from ‘Ham’ and ‘Tame’ – and Tame, one might note, is the river’s source name on this Poly-Olbion map). Assigned to a mythical period a thousand years earlier than Drayton’s poetry, the story was set in the valley of the Thames.

Tolkien proffered up a “true explanation of the names”, thus showing interest in English rivers. Thus, we have a tenuous link that Tolkien** indeed took note of Drayton’s Poly-Olbion river maps. If so, it would have been natural for him to review those of Oxfordshire. In which case he might have concluded, that from a mythological standpoint, water-deities are not out of place as river-residents in a region meant to mimic Oxfordshire in an epoch long ago. Goldberry’s presence as an English water-being is very apt don’t you think?

… to be continued



* The union of the Tame and Isis becoming the Tameisis - eventually resulting in a shortening to ‘Thames’.

** There is no doubt that the Professor knew of the Poly-Olbion, as he references it as a quote source for three of the words (‘waist’, ‘wild’ & ’wold’) he was assigned to look into while employed at the New English Dictionary.

… continued from my previous post


Was the Oxfordshire Isis (as well as the Cherwell) a river that Tolkien based the Withywindle on? Perhaps a reasonable clue lies in poetry. In The Adventures of Tom Bombadil Tolkien declared of the habitat in which the merry couple dwelt:

“ ‘… the flora & fauna are meant to be strictly Oxford & Berks’ …”.

– The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide 2006 Edition, Chronology, 8 May 1962, C. Scull & W. Hammond   (my underlined emphasis)

Yet if so, the Isis being a major river of Oxfordshire, and virtually on Tolkien’s doorstep, would surely have attracted his attention. For one thing, its name is both synonymous and has etymological linkage to an Egyptian deity.

Hmm … not very English; nor even European. And thus a bit out of place don’t you think? Might he have wondered how its naming arose?

In fact the river’s title is a relatively recent one. Its emergence is dated to around 1540, placing it in the English Renaissance era. Even Shakespeare referred to London’s main river as the ‘Isis’.

It’s curious that Isis was a goddess that pre-Christian Romans venerated. Such was the extent of the Roman Empire - that knowledge of the goddess was carried to ancient England. And indeed in the city of Londonium (now London) a temple has been uncovered bearing her name.

As her name spread via the Roman Empire to the westernmost region of Europe, she somehow gained the Latin epithet of ‘Stella Maris’ - Star of the Sea; the deity became the divine protector of all sea-going folk. In addition, images of Isis and her child Horus led to her worship as a goddess of motherhood.










The title ‘Stella Maris’ that once belonged to Isis subsequently underwent transference to the Virgin Mary during the outgrowth of early Christianity. Such a symbolic connection between two divinities - Isis and Mary (both associated with motherhood, protection and healing) ensured the goddess Isis’s name survived despite the expansion of Christianity.

What is interesting for us, as readers of these posts on Goldberry, is how here we have a link to the Mary Morgan of Breton Lore (see post of 17 January 2025 - a water-being who was also a protector of sailors and sea-faring fishermen) and again to the Virgin. Then once again, we have local associations (this time specifically Oxfordshire) to Mary mother of Jesus present in Anglo-European history. And thus it is possible, the River-woman of Tolkien’s mythology had some historical basis in her make-up through ‘Isis’- faint though the connection might be.

So Goldberry, the River-woman’s child, possessing some intentional paralleling linkage to Isis and Horus and then Mary and Jesus might well have been Tolkien’s plan. Especially as the Professor seems to have followed a line of thought that ‘history repeats itself’:

“… I believe legends and myths are largely made of ‘truth’, … and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.”
- The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #131 - late 1951, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (my underlined emphasis)



… to be continued

Goldberry’s Genus

Despite all the analysis presented in this thread, the astute reader will have noticed a failure to address that all important question: ‘What type of creature does Goldberry represent in Tolkien’s mythology?’

No, an answer of ‘elemental’ simply won’t cut it. Because Tolkien never explicitly referred to such a category in The Lord of the Rings. Nor did it appear among his many papers comprising the Silmarillion myths. So unfortunately, my answer has to be gleaned from what little we have. The good news, especially for scholars, is that the proposal entails a judicious connection to one of Tolkien’s written works. And like it or not – to complete our understanding of Tolkien’s fabulous invention, a mythological genus must be provided. For it is inconceivable that Tolkien assimilated Goldberry into The Lord of the Rings without giving thought to her race.

No Goldberry wasn’t of elvish stock per Frodo’s first impression of being:

“… answered by a fair young elf-queen …”.

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

Through the ages much confusion had arisen in the folklore of Europe. Elves* and fays had interchangeably been termed ‘fairies’ by men resulting in bafflement and muddled accounts. In such sightings and reports – distinctions were seldom clear cut. Though to be fair – one should acknowledge that both elves and fays were creatures of Faërie and thus technically ‘fairy folk’ or even ‘fairies’. Nevertheless, if not an elf, shouldn’t we consider the possibility of Goldberry being a fay?

So if we peer back to the beginnings of this thread – we must acknowledge how Tolkien desired water-lilies along with their pool setting to play a decently large part in both The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and The Lord of the Rings. Even earlier he had decided to include them in a very limited Elven vocabulary called Qenya. Only one species was singled out: 

“… nénu ‘yellow water-lily’, and nénuvar ‘pool of lilies’ …”.

– The Book of Lost Tales I, Appendix – pg. 248

And so as we have also seen, despite all of Goldberry’s interesting makeup and character sourcing – her later Lord of the Rings imaginative resemblance to the yellow water-lily along with themes of an aquatic habitat – remain dominant. Even in Tolkien’s last writings of her in the poem Once upon a Time – she is depicted next to a ‘lily-pool’:

“Goldberry was there in a lady-smock

blowing away a dandelion clock,

stooping over a lily-pool

and twiddling the water green and cool …”.

– Winter’s Tales for Children 1, Once Upon a Time, C. Hillier, 1965

Thus, I must conclude, for The Lord of the Rings** she is a water-fay (what we might term a ‘water-fairy’). More specifically, per Christopher Gilson and Patrick Wynne’s detailed study of different types*** of fay listed in Tolkien’s The Creatures of the Earth****, Goldberry is of the ‘nenuvar’ – a Water-fay of lily-ponds!

“Among the Water-fays, the nenuvar***** are probably fays of lily-ponds …”.

– The Creatures of the Earth, J.R.R. Tolkien, see Parma Eldalamberon XIV   (my underlined emphasis)

Of course, with what we know today, once again I reiterate that absolute proof remains elusive. However, I’m positive this thread has meaningfully added to our understanding of Tolkien’s very mysterious little water-lady.





* Tolkien titled his Elves the:

“Fair Folk. The beautiful people (based on Welsh Tylwyth teg ‘the beautiful kindred’ = fairies). Title of the Elves.”,

– Nomenclature of the Lord of the Rings, Names of Persons or Peoples, J.R.R. Tolkien

and not the Sidhe (Tuatha de Dannan) of Ireland as some have suggested. Neither were his noble race representative of the creatures told about in household tales common across European folklore:

“The Elves of the ‘mythology’ of The Lord of the Rings are not actually equatable with the folklore traditions about ‘fairies’, …”.

– Nomenclature of the Lord of the Rings, Names of Persons or Peoples, J.R.R. Tolkien

** Tolkien proclaimed The Lord of the Rings story (excluding appendices and maps) as finished in December 1949 (Letter #122 from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981). It was then set aside for essentially three years before earnest interest in publication re-arose. There is no evidence that ‘fays’ as a mythological entity grouping was superseded (or discarded as obsolete) before 1949. In the early 1950’s evidence exists in Morgoth’s Ring that Tolkien absorbed some fays into a newly named mythological class termed ‘Maiar’; again creatures of divine status. Yet it cannot be proven that this occurred across the board.

As far as The Lord of the Rings, ‘fays’ are the valid default. Especially as Goldberry’s genera ought to have been established back in 1938 at the first point of her being firmly cast into the mythology. Moreover, it can be proven that in 1939 ‘fays’ was terminology still very much in use:

“Faërie contains many things besides elves and fays, and besides dwarfs, witches, trolls, giants, or dragons: …”.

– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, On Fairy-stories – pg. 113, HarperCollins, 1983   (my underlined emphasis)

As far as the ‘Maiar’ (helpers of the Valar) – this term could be viewed as a general grouping encompassing a wide variety of mythological entities. However, even if so, it is still possible Tolkien preferred to keep sub-categorization of some of these creatures into different kinds of ‘fays’. Particularly as he declined to update The Creatures of the Earth. 

We must also note that Tolkien did not explain the Istari using the words ‘Maia’ or ‘Maiar’ in the Appendices of the 1955 released The Return of the King – though he had the opportunity to do so. Neither was such vocabulary used in any writings authorized for publication by the Professor himself post The Lord of the Rings. Whereas the term ‘fay’ was not completely discarded – appearing twice in Smith of Wootton Major released in 1967. 

*** The four types of water-fay listed/glossed in Parma Eldalamberon XIV under The Creatures of the Earth are: ‘nenuvar’: fays of lily-ponds; ‘aïlior’: fays of lakes and pools; ‘ekterlarni’: fays of fountains & ‘capalini’: fays of springs. Chronologically, in Tolkien’s creation of the Qenya vocabulary, they supersede the ‘waterfay’ entity category termed ‘nendil’ or ‘nennil’ in The Grammar and Lexicon of the Gnomish Tongue (see Parma Eldalamberon XI, by Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith & Christopher Gilson).

Although the word ‘nindaríli’ – glossed as ‘river-maid’ or ‘nymph’ – appears in The New Q(u)enya Lexicon (see Parma Eldalamberon XXI, by Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith & Christopher Gilson), which was produced after The Creatures of the Earth, these glosses are unlikely to refer to a racial entity-category. Rather, they may be deemed as more casual terms of address for such a creature as Goldberry:

“… He sang like a starling,
hummed like a honey-bee, lilted to the fiddle,
clasping his river-maid round her slender middle.”

– The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, 1934 (& 1962) poem   (my underlined emphasis)

For example, a woman may be termed a lady, girl, maid, etc. – but technically, in terms of race, she is of ‘human’ kind.

**** Despite nearly two decades having passed between the production of The Creatures of the Earth and the inception of The Lord of the Rings, no records exist in this time-span of any alternate categories of ‘inland’ water-fays, or humanoid water-beings. 

Necessarily then, Tolkien must have envisaged Goldberry (and presumably Tom) to have been loosely connected to a developing mythology in 1934 – having then released The Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

***** Christopher Gilson and Patrick Wynne note that ‘nénuvar’ with a diacritic mark defines ‘pool of lilies’.

Hello Aiks,

I’m sad and a little upset to hear you’ve had a bit of a trying time recently; I’ve missed you.

Hopefully, things will get better.

Well, to be honest - I’ve come to the end of my look into Goldberry. But I will update the thread if new relevant material comes along. I think it’s a fairly comprehensive study of her - so it deserves a summary - which I will get round to doing sometime, but not probably not immediately.

Thank you, @Priya - I’ve greatly enjoyed this!

I will just add though - when we talk of river spirits and the like - you’ve mentioned positive influences there; whereas when you mention an English water-spirit, for example, my first thought is actually of the less-benevolent Jenny Greenteeth