[Mister Underhill]

Though your current theories seem to have had a better reception than others previously devised by synergistic conversation, Sharkey, I offer backup, as requested.

I can only applaud your very comprehensive analysis of the pocket-symbolism which underlies and pervades the Legendarium; you’ve left me scarcely anything to add, and I can only bring up a few points and examples to strengthen and amplify what you’ve already discovered.

Your reading of the pocket as a womb/fertility symbol is very sharply perceived, as is your observation that the presence of the Ring in a pocket foreshadows a disrupted connection with the feminine and a resulting childlessness. The symbolism here is clear – the Ring blocks access to natural feminine sources and prevents maturation and the normal progression from child to parent – the endlessly repeated cycle of life.

This is represented by another side-effect of the Ring – its preservative power. The possessor is locked into a state of nearly unchanging agelessness (Bilbo’s remarkable preservation, for instance). While this side-effect may seem attractive at first, it’s a false lure – how can we expect seed to take root and grow when the pocket (i.e., fertility) of the Ring’s possessor is held in a state of sterile, unnatural stasis? Look at what Gollum, who as you mention had long abandoned natural human and Hobbit ways, kept in his pockets: “fishbones, goblins' teeth, wet shells, a bit of bat-wing, a sharp stone to sharpen his fangs on, and other nasty things.” All death symbols; all signs of anti-fertility and barrenness.

This fertility-blocking power of the Ring is shown quite clearly in Bilbo’s innocuous dialogue: “I found I couldn’t rest without it in my pocket.” With the Ring-blockage removed, Bilbo’s latent urge towards procreation and fertility stirs. Gollum clearly senses Bilbo’s Ring-potential in their encounter under the Misty Mountains. "What has it got in its pocketses?" he asks over and over again, knowing all too well that empty pockets are a foreboding sign.

I’m also struck by Tolkien’s use of pocket symbolism to represent a desire to return to the safe, warm, and uncomplicated environment of the womb – a desire for regression and retreat from the cares, worries, and responsibilities that accompany mature adulthood.

This symbolic desire to return to a childlike state is mirrored in the power of the Ring itself, which elevates the selfish, childish ego of the wearer to the exclusion of all other considerations. With the Ring’s power at its wearer’s command, the wearer has no cares or responsibilities. The world is ordered according to the wearer’s slightest whim, and others become his (or her) playthings, mere objects who only have meaning insofar as they please or displease the guiding ego. The Ring is the ultimate childish wish realized, even in its most mundane effect – invisibility. Notice how the wearer usually gets a perverse delight out of the “I can see you but you can’t see me” feeling imparted by the experience of being invisible – and Frodo’s displeased reaction when he realizes that Bombadil can see him even with the Ring on.

These two regression symbols combined make for a powerful pair, and it’s no mistake that in times of stress and danger, Frodo’s automatic impulse is to grope for his pocket and the Ring it contains. The chain that Bilbo, and then Frodo, use to secure the Ring in the pocket has clear umbilical connotations in this context, and it's an important step in Frodo’s maturation process when, following the symbolic death of his young, immature self from the Morgul-knife wound and his rebirth/recovery in Rivendell, the Ring moves out of his pocket and onto a new chain around his neck.

Your linking of the pocket/lembas symbolism to foreshadowing in the tale of Túrin is outstanding. I’ll add another example of its use: Gimli’s gobbling of the cake in Lothlórien and Pippin and Merry’s indulgence near the eaves of Fangorn are sure signs of the fecundity of their respective races, whereas the Elves, a dwindling and less fertile race, are content with much smaller portions: `No more, no more!' cried the Elves laughing [to Gimli]. `You have eaten enough already for a long day's march.' Dwarves and Hobbits clearly have much more lusty appetites than the more staid Eldar.

I’ll only note in closing that the pocket-fertility symbolism is further demonstrated by the lack of pockets elsewhere. Creatures like Smaug and the Balrog have none; surely Sauron, as well, never wore anything so mundane as trousers with pockets. These evil beings are, despite their potency (or perhaps there’s a more complex relationship between sheer physical potency and fertility – what are those wall-to-wall Balrog wings compensating for, anyway?), sterile, unnatural, and barren.

Hats off, Sharkey!

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]