|
Post by Greenleaf on Jul 4, 2004 5:44:04 GMT -6
This has unfolded to a very interesting discussion. Andorinha, I was certain there would be many counter-arguments concerning the "Tom Bombadil being a nature spirit" theory. Thanks for pointing them out. Still, I can't deny I would like it if this theory could be proved correct, but I suppose this is just wishful thinking. I suspect that none of the existing theories is the right one and that we'll never find the answer Tolkien had in his mind. However, his statetement, "especially if an explanation actually exists", makes me think that the explanation is right under our nose and we just can't see it. It would be wonderful if one day someone stumbled upon a lost manuscript, explaining Tom's nature, as Lanhail said. Another wishful thinking, lol. Heril and Lanhail, I've been following your interaction with great interest. I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to make any comments but I'll put here two extracts from Tolkien's Letters that seem relevant to your debate, in the hope of triggering further discussion. (Although I guess you both have seen these extracts before.) Letter #144: "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. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron." Letter #153: "I do not mean him [Bombadil] to be an allegory -- or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name -- but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the inquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Even the Elves hardly show this: they are primarily artists. Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental -- and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion -- but it is not the whole picture, even of the state and content of that part of the Universe." Heril, As for the Frodo-Sam pairing you mentioned, I'd like to point out that contrary to Frodo, Sam carried the Ring only for a little time, consequently he was not subjected to its evil power for long. We don't know whether he'd be able to part with it had he carried it for as long a time as Frodo. It seems to me the Ring was like a "drug". The longer you carried or used it, the harder it was to give it up. So maybe we should not be so strict towards Frodo. Fangorn, Another option for the poll could be the reader, a theory mentioned by McDLT. From what I once read somewhere, it must be quite a popular theory. Another option should certainly be "I agree with none of the above" or something like that. I can't think of a 7th and 8th option right now.
|
|
|
Post by FIUT on Jul 4, 2004 7:04:54 GMT -6
You bring up some excellent points here Greenleaf, I'll just address one inpassing this morning.
RE: Greenleaf's - "Heril, As for the Frodo-Sam pairing you mentioned, I'd like to point out that contrary to Frodo, Sam carried the Ring only for a little time, consequently he was not subjected to its evil power for long. We don't know whether he'd be able to part with it had he carried it for as long a time as Frodo. It seems to me the Ring was like a "drug". The longer you carried or used it, the harder it was to give it up. So maybe we should not be so strict towards Frodo."
Yes, precisely, as I mentioned, Tolkien himself admits that there were "mitigating" circumstances, "reasons" why Frodo would fall lower in this task than Sam. Frodo was already long under the influence of the Ring, Frodo was marred by the Morgul blade, Frodo was poisoned by Shelob's sting. But it does not affect the fact that the two Hobbits still made opposing choices at the end, and that Frodo "failed" in his mission, Sam did not. The formal "pairing" does not ask for excuses for Frodo's behaviour, it merely asks whether his behaviour was strongly contrastive with or opposite to Sam's in a very similar situation. Sam resisted the Ring and denied it - Frodo failed in his resistance and claimed it. QED
I think JRRT's staunch comittment to the absolute principles of his RC faith made it necessary for him to place fault where it "belonged;" Frodo might be forgiven his very understandable failure, but it could not be washed away as if it had never happened. Indeed Tolkien points out that Frodo so desperately needed to find the healing peace of Valinor, not just because he was poisoned and marred by tooth, sting and knife, but also because he was burdened with the ever present knowledge of his own failure, his guilt in choosing to claim the Ring. Additionally, Frodo still desired to possess the Ring, even after its destruction - an addiction that apparently haunted him for the rest of his stay in Middle-earth. (see quotes from Letter # 246 below)
Personally I do not regard Frodo as a failure at this point, but Tolkien did, perhaps holding Frodo to a stricter standard of judgment than either you or I would.
Letter # 181, especially page 234 is relevant to this issue:
"The quest therefore was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' - and I have had one letter, crying out that he should have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I had myself any idea how topical such a situation might appear."
Letter # 191, pp 251 - 252 re-iterates the failure of Frodo's mission:
"No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is NOT finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'..." (p. 252)
Letter #246, pp 325 - 333 gives us even more information on "Frodo's failure."
"Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted." (p. 326)
Tolkien, talking for Gandalf and Aragorn, says that "all who learned the full story of [Frodo's] journey" would forgive the Hobbit for his failure - but "what Frodo himself felt about the events is quite another matter. He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt (III 224-5) ... but ... one can observe the disquiet growing in him. ... And it was mixed with another temptation, blacker and yet (in a sense) more merited, for however that may be explained, he had not in fact cast away the Ring by a voluntary act: he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still desire it." (Letter #246, pp 328 - 329).
|
|
|
Post by Greenleaf on Jul 4, 2004 17:45:44 GMT -6
Heril, you are right about Frodo's guilt. No matter how willing we (or all the people in Middle-earth) are to find reasons for his failure and forgive him, Frodo could and would never have forgiven himself. He was fully aware that his success or failure would decide the future of Middle-earth and he knew that in the crucial moment he let down all those people who depended on him. How could anyone live with such a guilt on their conscience? However, we'll never know whether Sam would succumb or not to the Ring's evil influence at the end had he carried it all the way from Rivendell to Mordor. But since this never happened, the question is rather rhetorical. Now, getting back to the Tom Bombadil topic, this "compairing" of Bombadil and Sauron sounded interesting to me and it was something I had never thought of before. But when I read those two extracts I posted above, I got the impression that Tolkien never had in mind to pair Bombadil with Sauron. It seemed to me that Bombadil was above and beyond all those pairings Tolkien mentioned: good side/bad side; beauty/ugliness; kingship/tyranny; freedom/compulsion. So, maybe the right thing to say would be that Bombadil is not the opposite of Sauron but something entirely different (and thus incomparable), which is not exactly the same. (I hope I'm making sense here.) Plus, the last part of the second extract (Letter #153) gave me a feeling like when we say see the tree and miss the forest. (Bombadil being the forest.) Like, Middle-earth is not the whole universe, and whatever happens in this little corner of the world won't change the course of the rest of the universe. On the other hand, the end of the Letter #144 extract gave me the impression that there are circumstances when you can't afford being a "pure pacifist", denying to take sides, and keeping a neutral stance. These last two appear kind of contradictory to me, but it's most likely I've got it all wrong. Bottom line: I think I'm totally confused. Perhaps I should go get some sleep instead of sitting in front of my screen at this ungodly hour, trying to understand what the great professor wanted to say. I would appreciate it a lot if someone could make these points clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by Lanhail on Jul 5, 2004 3:52:04 GMT -6
Though I "should" be responding to Heril and/or Greenleaf, I'm going to side-step for the moment to a previous post by Andorinha who wrote: "Even as late as1937 - 38, we still have no direct connection between Bombadil and Middle-earth, in fact, we get no glimpse of Bombadil at all in "The Hobbit." Bombadil is first reliably connected to Middle-earth only in the LotR that Tolkien started seriously writing in the 1940s. Tolkien was quite well aware that Bombadil was only imperfectly joined up with the story line of the Hobbits in Middle-earth, and in a 1962 Letter to Rayner Unwin he specifically states that a new poem (1962 composition) is supposed to "perform the service of further 'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. [LotR] into which he was inserted."
I believe that poem would be "Bombadil goes Boating" found in the book "Adventures of Tom Bombadil". I'd be interested in hearing your opinion. I find it very similar in subject matter to the poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil". It doesn't seem to me that there was a philosophical shift in Tolkien's mind from the 30's to the 60's. Lanhail
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jul 5, 2004 16:31:58 GMT -6
There are now (keeping in mind that we might find additional staves relevant to this issue) four poems in the Tom Bombadil corpus that I would like to include for any discussion that centers on how the Bombadil verses may be useful in helping us determine who Tom might be, and how Tolkien's "use" of this character altered through time: 1. The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (TATB) - 1934 2. The Stone Troll (ST) - 1954 3. Bombadil Goes Boating (BGB) -1961-62 4. Once Upon a Time (OUT) - 1962
Lanhail, I think you are correct in assuming that the "newly created" Bombadil poem, "Tom Bombadil Goes Boating," is the one referred to in Tolkien's Letter #237 even though the title does not appear in the text of this communication. "Once Upon a Time," written in the same year might also fit here as well, but I am certain BGB is the one that best fits the context of this letter.
In this context, if I am following your drift successfully, Lanhail, you are comparing the "subject matters" of just TABT and BGB, in which essay you find no significant "philosophical shift in Tolkien's mind from the 30's to the 60s." Here I am not certain that I know what you mean "subject matters" to include, nor am I secure with the import of your phrase "philosophical shift." Consequently I may find that my initial reaction statements might not exactly address the issues you are presenting. Rather than producing another series of rambles that do not seem on point, I'll ask you first to clarify what you mean by "subject matters" and "philosophical shift" so that, if necessary, I can adjust my thinking!
If I compare TABT with TGB, I think I would use several categories rather than just the one you seem to be proposing, subject matter. (But maybe by "subject matters" you mean more than I see in this term?) I certainly would include this category, but I would like to define it more specifically -- subject matter = the types of action that occur as "discrete episodes" within the poems, the res gestae of the verses, the "things done" in the several courses of the various poems. I would also suggest we compare the cast of characters found in each; the characteristic traits of the various protagonists/ antagonists; the style of writing used (type of verse form, rhyme schemes, etc); the mood of the poems (light-hearted or serious); and (where it can be deduced/ induced/ or seduced) the author's intent in writing these poems. There may be many more fruitful categories that we might want to add later as this discussion demands or allows.
Additionally, I would look at the other two poems that expressly mention Tom Bombadil and analyze them according to the same categories, to see how they re-inforce or contradict my stated thesis that Tolkien's original Tom Bombadil was an independent creation with no direct Middle-earth connection. Please note that in my original statement I do not think I addressed the existence of a "philosophical shift" between Tolkien's early and late drawn versions of Tom Bombadil -- I referred to a shift in utilization, an adaptation of Bombadil to the new environment of the LotR's Middle-earth. So, I assume your initiation of this specific matter (philosophy shift) represents a new turn (and I think a very important and intersting turn) in the overall discussion? If this is the case, I do need to know more specifically what you mean by "philosophical shift" before I go off hunting for evidences in the poems that might suggest or deny such a shift.
THANKS!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jul 5, 2004 17:15:35 GMT -6
Greenleaf: But if we did find some definitive, holographic statement by Tolkien that laid out precisely and fully just who and what Tom Bombadil MUST be, what ever would we have to write about!? As matters stand now, there is just enough evidence available in JRRT's texts to engage our attentions and imaginations. Tom, as Enigma, is far more attractive, I would say, than a tidy Tom all properly defined! *Big Grin*
I think the Prof understood this quite well when he challenged us to find out for ourselves ("IF an explanation actually exists" Letter # 173 p. 174) just who Tom might be.
|
|
|
Post by Greenleaf on Jul 5, 2004 18:18:30 GMT -6
Andorinha: Perhaps you're right that Tom is much more attractive as an enigma but, well... it's just that I've always been one of those people who never stop asking whys and never rest until they find the answers. In the case of Tom, I think I'll never rest... lol. But in this respect at least - that Tom is not the only unanswerable why of Tolkien's universe but just one among too many others - Middle-earth is very similar to the real world, and therefore this might be one of the reasons why it feels so "real" to all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jul 9, 2004 5:59:59 GMT -6
A matter of some urgency: have I caught Gandalf in a mistake!? Or is this just part of the Bombadil Enigma? If Bombadil is "First and Fatherless," and by his own admission was tramping about the primeval lands of Middle-earth "before the river and the trees" and if he truly "remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn" (FotR, chpt 7, p. 146 Omnibus Ed.) then he would certainly be the oldest sapient, speaking, living entity in residence. Right?
So what does Gandalf mean in The Two Towers, Book III, chpt. 5, p. 520 when he states: "Treebeard is Fangorn, the guardian of the forest; he is the oldest of the Ents, the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the Sun upon this Middle-earth."? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Jul 9, 2004 6:51:19 GMT -6
If I remember correctly...The Ents didn't know how to talk until the Elves taught them. So Fangorn can be the oldest non-speaking, living thing and Tom can be the oldest speaking, living thing....
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jul 9, 2004 15:52:58 GMT -6
LOL! A clever move, Desi Baggins, but it will avail you little! "Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!" (villainous music accompanies this)
We must assume, mustn't we, that Tom Bombadil learned to speak only when there were languages available to be spoken. If the Elves "began it all" by teaching all things the use of language, then they must have taught Bombadil how to couch his own thoughts within a grammatical context. For all we know, Tom was merely "babble-singing" in the earliest of ME days (pre-lingual, pre-Elven), and had to enroll in the same "learn to talk school" as that attended by a younish Master Treebeard. Of course Treebeard was the teacher's pet, cause he could give the school marms so many bright, fresh apples -- while Tom was regularly "disciplined" for cutting capers, and dancing all about the classroom. ( Possibly the first attention deficit disorder? Certainly Gandalf thought Tom too scatter-brained to be a good keeper of the Ring, opining that Tom might just forget about it, and lose it, or even throw it away! see FotR, "Council of Elrond").
|
|
|
Post by Lanhail on Jul 11, 2004 8:24:58 GMT -6
I apologize for not being around. I had one of those nasty summer colds that turned my brain into....lets just say "I was blowing my brains out". Anorinha, Shippey makes the suggestion in Road to Middle Earth (3rd edition, p. 107) that it isn't inconsistent that Tom is the "first" and the Ents are the "oldest living". He argues that Tom is not living, just like the Nazgul are not dead. Personally, I don't care for this argument, though I don't have an alternative. As I was looking for this section in Road, I stumbled upon the fact that "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" though published in 1934, was rewritten in 1962. (p. 105) Our comparison will not be accurate unless we can find the original 1934 poem. I was speaking in a very general way that the two poems, "Adv. of T.B." and B. Goes Boating", seemed similar in subject matter, basically in that there are numerous characters that have interactions with Tom in which he tends to get the upperhand. I was curious to hear what you thought. Please, don't complicate it overly much. By, the "philosophical shift", I meant that you saw a possible difference in Tom's purpose or category of being pre-LotR to post-LotR within these poems. I didn't see any change in Tolkien's thinking. So, I think our definition is the same on that. I, also, think you are stretching it a bit, thinking that the Tom in "The Stone Troll" has anything to do with Tom B. The language is different. I don't know the word for it but the Tom in "Stone Troll" cuts some of his words short o', lyin' for example, whereas he does not within LotR (only a-, like in a-hunting) nor the other poems in Adventures of Tom Bombadil. The only similarity with our Tom, that I can fathom, is that they both have boots. You could argue that this one was "written" by Sam, therefore of a different style. But, in the few days that Sam had known Tom, he witnessed Tom's power over Old Man Willow and the Barrow-wight. The Tom in "Stone Troll" resorted to kicking the troll and still didn't get the bone. Besides, this Tom had a father. ----------------------------------------------- Greenleaf, thank you for all of your research and quotes that you provide throughout the whole board, let alone this thread. I am such a slow typist and I get overwhelmed whenever I have to provide long quotes. I really appreciate the effort you put into every post. I'm with you in that I want the answer to the "Who is Tom?" question. I'll volunteer to go through all of the boxes at Marquette, and in Oxford for that matter. When I read the quote you provided from Letter #144, I see that Tolkien did spend time considering the contrasts between "good/bad" and Tom may not fit. That he also, considered the contrast between "control/non-control" and "pacifism/non-pacifism" may mean that though I was sorta, kinda on the right track with my "pairing", my criteria was wrong. I'm not feeling well enough right now to even try to have a go in this direction. ------------------------------------------------------- Heril, you are quite right that I was not using the "Lit criticism" definition of pairing, though if I was feeling up to it, I would try to defend my position using your explanation of "Pairing". Believe me, I've put some thought into the argument and hopefully in a few days when my brain comes back, I 'll be able to put it in a coherent form. Of course, I am assuming that my brain will come back..... --------------------------------------------- Back to Andorinha: I was reading the Introduction (p. xix) to the 1998 edition of Roverandom, in which the editors, C. Scull and W. G. Hammond suggest that "nearly all of his writings are interrelated.... Roverandom illustrates once again how the ledgendarium that was Tolkien's life-work influenced his storytelling." They also, mention (p. xv) that the character, Tom Bombadil of Dutch doll fame, started as a story for his children. He later found his way into poems and LotR. If this is true, then he predates 1934 when the original "Adv. of T.B." poem was written/published. I wonder if there are any manuscripts of these earliest stories about Tom and if within them there are bits of Tolkien's earlier versions of "Middle-earth" seeping through. Lanhail...who hopes to have not made too many grammatical errors, but is too tired to check.
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Jul 11, 2004 9:30:58 GMT -6
This makes me think that maybe Tom B. is a guardian angel. Tom is the first angel sent to ME and angels would not be living...The only thing with that is angels are usually believed to be living at one time...
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jul 12, 2004 12:26:06 GMT -6
It is a peculiar thing, to me at any rate, the lengths we readers of Tolkien will traverse in our search for a "final answer!" Tom is an Enigma, and that piece of author-supplied intelligence should be sufficient, it does cover all the bases -- but, it still fails to satisfy...
So we go to extremes sometimes in our attempts to find a certitude that is probably chimerical. Tom B. as a "non-living" entity (as Lanhail presents it from Shippey) would, I suppose, allow us to paper over the contradictions inherent in the question of just who is the older, Tom or Fangorn, but like you, Lanhail, I find Shippey's* answer here a bit uncomfortable, even if I cannot find a direct quote from JRRT to refute this Shippey construct. I think there is no such Tolkien statement simply because he could never have forseen that any one would ever suspect Tom as being numbered among the "unliving," or the "not living." In Tolkien's own thought, Tom seems VERY MUCH alive, a living being in the "normal" fashion, just as alive as Gandalf, or the Hobbits -- maybe even more alive.
I really do think that JRRT, who was not infallible (he says as much several times in his Letters) simply made a trifling error in his consistencies, and used the same general concept -- "oldest" -- twice: once in reference to Tom Bombadil, and again, years later, and hundreds of pages further on, in regard to Fangorn.
As for "Guardian Angel," Desi? Well, Bombadil does "act" in that fashion with the Hobbits in a limited sense. So long as they are in his "realm" he protects them, advises them, even goes out of his way to rescue them after they mis-apply his guiding information and stay too long, too carelessly in the Barrow fields. The important thing here, would be to find some statement of JRRT's that would support this notion. Did Tolkien think of Tom B. as a guardian angel, or is this just another point of reader applicability? The other issue of course, is a guardian angel (in a Christian sense I assume you mean this?) a living, or post-living entity, and would this have any relevance for the original question regarding Tom as Oldest, while Fangorn is Oldest Living being?
Some readers (in pursuing the general question of Tom B.'s identity, and more specifically trying to explain how Tom and Fangorn can "simultaneously" be "Oldest") have even latched upon an obscure statement in The Book of Lost Tales that refers to the initial coming of Aule and Yavanna into Arda:
"About them fared a great host who are the sprites of trees and woods, of dale and forest and mountain-side, or those that sing amid the grass at morning and chant among the standing corn at eve. These are the Nemir and the Tavari, Nandini and Orossi, brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns, ... born before the world and are older than its oldest, and are not of it, but laugh at it much... "
(Part I, "The Coming of the Valar," p. 66 and see explanatory note, p. 80)
Reducing Tom to the status of a pixie, or a brownie, or a "leprechaun" might allow him to be the oldest resident in ME, without actually being a creature born or made there, (allowing Fangorn to be the oldest "native" inhabitant) but then one would expect there would be thousands of little Tom B.s all over the place, as the numbers of these "pixies" etc, is stated to be legion...
So, I guess, such concepts as Tom is "not living," or he is a "guardian angel," or a "pixie-brownie" seem (to my way of thinking) to be "uneconomical," violating the principle of "Occam's Razor;" indeed they seem to be almost "desperate" attempts by readers to avoid the most likely conclusion here: Tolkien goofed! LOL!
______________
* I do not have Shippey's book so I am not certain of the context here, or his explanation of just what "non-living" means to him.
|
|
|
Post by Lanhail on Jul 18, 2004 8:10:19 GMT -6
Anhorina, in my search for relevant material for another thread, I have come upon some information that, in my mind, further excludes The Stone Troll from consideration as a "Tom Bombadil" poem. The Return of the Shadow contains a version of the poem (pg. 143) published in 1936 and contains the "Tom" character. It is called "The Root of The Boot". It is a revision of an even earlier poem called "Pero & Podex" (Boot and Bottom) which though not reprinted in full does have a verse (pg. 144) that includes "Tom". According to C. Tolkien the original date of the material is the 1920's (pretty broad timing but until we can narrow that down we'll have to live with it). Of course, you could say that this "Tom with a boot", is our pre-LotR Tom Bombadil. But, I'd have to say that without a clearer tie other than "boots", I can't give in...perhaps if the boots were yellow.....
Also, in Carpenter's "Biography", (pg. 165), there was this tidbit about the early Tom Bombadil, "Among other stories begun but soon abandoned was the tale of Tom Bombadil, which is set in 'the days of King Bonhedig' and describes a character who is clearly the hero of the tale: 'Tom Bombadil was the name of one of the oldest inhabitants of the kingdom: but he was a hale and hearty fellow...his boots were yellow.'" Interesting that he was one of the oldest... I am still planning to get back to this thread.... Lanhail
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jul 19, 2004 1:26:28 GMT -6
Grand, Lanhail!
Yes, I was aware of the long pedigree of "The Stone Troll" and was going to obtain, if possible the original poem, (Pero et Podex) to compare it with the 1936 version, and then the 1954 LotR version, hoping for more data concerning its Tom. It should also (I do hope!) be possible to find some note, somewhere -- referring to one or another of the three versions of ST -- that allows us to finally validate or deny the proposed association of this particular "Tom" (nephew of Tim*) with our Mr. Bombadil.
In my post above, "Reply #19," I unfortunately did not signal my own smallish concern that ST may not be as soldidly within the Bombadil corpus as the other three poems -- where I think it is conclusive that TATB, BGB, and OUT refer specifically, precisely, and exclusively to Bombadil. You are very correct to point out this omission on my part. But, I will say that I find it no very great stretch at all, to view the Tom of ST as a "legitimate" Bombadil.
I do find that "popular" opinion seems fairly evenly divided over the ST Tom, the excellent "Bromwell School Site" that Greenleaf introduced here, does accept the identification of "Nephew Tom" with Bombadil; but, in your favor, the careful, prudent "Encyclopaedia of Arda" does not seem to accept this connection, though it does not offer an explicit denial.
"Although he is never seen again by Frodo or his friends, Tom is not forgotten. He is particularly remembered by Sam Gamgee, who composes a poem in Tom's honor. The poem is The Stone Troll, of which Sam says, 'It ain't what I call proper poetry, if you understand me: just a bit of nonsense.' It was later included in the collection The Adventures of Tom Bombadil."
(cf "The True Story of Tom Bombadil," Bromwell School)
From my own searches (incomplete just now, and inconclusive) I have found no definitive statement that JRRT meant this ST Tom to be Bombadil, and you are correct to point out that only circumstantial evidence supports such a conclusion, so far.
I suppose my own argument here, is equally suspect, but runs like this:
1) Tom's signatures are a blue feather in a cap, and big boots (yellow). The ST Tom has big boots (color indeterminant) but, alas, there is no mention of a feather. Neither of us would be, I think, persuaded that the simple presence of "boots" can allow us to determine this is Bombadil, but when other evidence is added here, it becomes more "persuasive." (BUT NOT YET CONCLUSIVE!)
2. Tolkien uses the name "Tom" infrequently, I know of only two in the Middle-earth related works, Troll Tom, and Mr. Bombadil. ST's Tom is definitely NOT the troll.
3. Character portrayal and events of action similarities:
The ST Tom is someone who is willing to grapple with a Troll. Someone fully confident in his abilities to at least encounter, and then escape from a Troll, if not outright best the lumpish fellow. The Tom in TATB (definitely identifiable as an early version, 1934 Bombadil in the precursor poem THoTB) has much the same "rough-and-tumble" attitude, the same "brawling personality" as that which we find for our "mystery" Tom in ST.
The Tom of TATB also resembles "Mystery Tom" in that he gets into scrapes that are not always to his advantage, though he does consistently escape any fatal consequences for his bellicose recklessness. Bombadil in TATB can even be "rough-handled" by some of the creatures he encounters, as when he is attacked, and dragged underground by the Badgers (can't quote verses here, but see The Tolkien Reader, TATB, pp. 12 - 13). ST's Tom, seems remarkably similar to the TATB Tom.
Circumstanial evidence indeed, Lanhail, and no doubt my standards of "convincement" are weaker than your own here, (BIG GRIN!) and I find it persuasive, but not absolutely conclusive, that ST's Tom is Bombadil.
4. Not so circumstantial, is the long history of "The Stone Troll," dating back to 1936, the same period in which we know Tolkien was writing quite a lot about Bombadil (1934 "The History of Tom Bombadil"). When we add all the "circumstantial" similarities to this chronological fact, I am convinced that ST belongs in the Bombadil corpus, but I cannot yet "prove" it in a final manner.
______________
* Lanhail, in discrediting "Tom-of-the-ST's" Bombadil nature, you ask: Could Bombadil be "Fatherless" and yet have an Uncle Tim? YES, because the 1930s Tom is NOT the same Tom we find in LotR. I know of no statement -- from the poetries/ stories that pre-date LotR -- where the attribution "Fatherless" is even hinted, let alone "First."** Tom does not originally have this role, and even in The Return of the Shadow, an early version of LotR (where Strider is a Hobbit) Tolkien, as late as the 1940s, was playing with the idea of having Farmer Maggot be a blood relation of Bombadil's.
**Just a passing thought: could Tom as "First" refer to the chronological precedence of Tom Bombadil and the 1920's stories he told his children about their doll? In this sense, as a later joke made in the 40s - 50s, Tom would be First; and he would -- as a foreign element not originally related to Middle-earth -- have no Father there...
****************************************************************************************
Now, down to the other "main topic" here (and briefly too!).
When I compare the Toms of TABT (1954 and also its 1934 version THoTB); ST (and its 1936 version and the PP); BGB (1962 - 65); OUT (1962) with the Tom of LotR (1954) do I see a "philosophical shift" in the portrayals? YES!
The Bombadil of LotR would, I think, have no need, nor even interest in engaging a Troll in "fisticuffs" or "bootings," he has grown vastly more powerful by 1954. Nor would he, I think, be grappled by Badgers, dragged underground, and threatened with dire dooms. The 1954 LotR Bombadil can fully triumph over Willows, and Barrow Wights (at one time associated with the Nazgul as a more sedentary form of Wraith, but still presumably of equal potency). But the 1930's Badger wrestling, Troll kicking Bombadil (who can be defeated, can be captured -- though he talks his way out of Willow and Badger Brock both!) is apparently no "Maia/ Vala," no "Eru," no "Master of the Woods," and no "Enigma." Tom, in the 30s, is still, I think, proving himself through his adventures, finding out his own limitations. He can cow the willow, and wrangle an apology from the Badgers -- but he still was assaulted by them! And if we accept the Stone Troll (PP) as a valid Bombadil poem (and I do), the early Tom can even be defeated.
This 1930s Tom is quite a different character from the Tom we find in Frodo's 1954 LotR adventure. Here, then, is where I see a significant change in the "philosophy" of Bombadil -- "philosophy" is your word, Lanhail; I prefer "utilization," my word. Tom has, I opine, vastly changed in purpose and function from the 30s to the LotR version.
But does this mean that we should expect a visble, significant difference in the "poetic" Toms when we contrast/ compare the 1930s verses with those newly minted in the 1960s for the publication of the slender volume The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? NO!
RE Lanhail's: "I believe that poem would be 'Bombadil goes Boating' found in the book "Adventures of Tom Bombadil". I'd be interested in hearing your opinion. I find it very similar in subject matter to the poem 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil'."
I would further argue from evidence in the Letters (#237,#238) that the Tom found in BGB and OUT (both of 1960s origin) is a bridging version of Bombadil, deliberately written up in the archaic 1930's style to maintain continuity with the "themes," "events," "attitudes," and "subject matter," found in TATB, and ST -- but, with direct references to Middle-earth, The Shire, and some of its inhabitants inserted among the newer verses. So, no, I do not see much change in poetic content, or style when we compare ALL four of these poems. That was never a point of mine, in fact I would expect style and subject matters to be very concordant in all four poems. Tolkien (the scholar) was fully capable of writing a 1930s style poem in the 1960s, especially when he wanted to create a sense of unity (a unity that was not there originally!) between the 1930s Tom and the later LotR.
BUT -- the Tom of the 1930s, is still NOT, the Tom we find in LotR, and maybe, this is why you (and many other intelligent readers) have trouble seeing the ST Tom as Bombadil? The ST Tom fits in nicely with all the other "poetic" Toms, I think, but being from 1936, he just does not look like the LotR, prose version Tom of 1954 -- beacuse, originally, he wasn't!
LOL! My head hurts - bad. I quit.
|
|