Quote:
|
Perhaps in Tolkien's universe, like Milton's, the is no room for the Trickster only for the servant of, or the rebel against, The Authority...
|
I think there is considerable truth in these words.
I don't know quite how to put this but much of Tolkien's world is so "moral'. There are definite choices to be made, and these choices have consequences. Saruman, as you indicate, is a clear example of this. He is no Trickster.
I am not quite sure what to make of all this. Let me ramble for a minute. I don't think I have any answers, but I do have a lot of questions.
Many of the archetypes identified by Jung have a certain moral ambiguity about them. This is particularly true of the figure of the Trickster. He is a character who poses challenges that can't always be answered in moral terms (good or evil) but rather must be met with cleverness, wit, and sheer chance. Tolkien can't exclude such elements from his universe because these are definitely part of faerie and also of our own world, even if in a more veiled form. Indeed in the world of Faerie from which Tolkien draws so many of his motifs, archetypes are central. To exclude such elements would be to offer an "untrue" picture of the world to the reader. But was JRRT really comfortable with archetypes in their pure forms? I would say "no" but then the figure of Bombadil pops up. Whoever he was, it's hard to know what to do with him.
It's interesting that Bombadil is so unaffected by the moral choices posed by the Ring. Why is that so? Is his nature so innately good that he is "above" conscious moral decisions? Or, more likely, as some sort of reflection of nature, does he operate on another plane where "good" and "bad" are essentially meaningless? Yet we do know he can only exist in a world where goodness exists. Tolkien makes that very clear. He never sees his personal choices in those terms, but he can interact with beings who do. He can not interact with those who have chosen evil, because they would deny him the freedom he must have. Frodo and company, for example, have no trouble relating to him and appreciating the things he offers. A bit of Bombadil seems to rub off on them. I am always reminded of the picture when they are running naked through the grass. That is not typical hobbit or typical Shire. There is a different feeling about it than, say, the earlier bath scenes which presumably involved nudity as well. Only in the latter, the nudity was not stressed. I can not think of anywhere else in the books where nudity is portrayed with such joy. It stands in sharp contrast to Frodo's nakedness before the Orcs.
At the end of the tale, when the moral combat has ended at least temporarily, Gandalf feels compelled to go visit Bombadil, presumably because of something he can find there that he can get nowhere else. This has to be telling us something about ourselves and perhaps about archetypes or the natural world, but I can't quite lay my finger on it. Any help out there?
So much of myth is shot through with archetypes---to a far greater degree than Middle-earth. I am always struck by this when I read the Mabingion. Could this possibly be one reason that Tolkien calls Celtic myth "gross" in his Letters and confesses that they fail to have that cool and high air he is seeking? Is morality a requiremen opf that high air? Is Tolkien's attitude towards archetypes and the Trickster influenced by the views of the Church? I don't know if this is a fair depiction, but I've always felt traditional Protestantism (not the liberal variety) was highly suspicious of archetypes. Somehow the Catholics, although suspicious, were able to live with a bit more of that ambiguity, witness their historical readiness to draw in the "older" practices, albeit in a sanitized form. Is this one of the things that Tolkien is doing with Bombadil?