LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 07 - In the House of Tom Bombadil

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Firefoot,
I would like to expand on what you said about Tom's attitude towards everything. You said;

he takes everything so lightly. I think it would be good for him to have some fears, or something that could overcome him... but nothing really can. Because the Ring has no effect on him, he doesn't really take it seriously. He takes everything lightly.

I find that this is similar to the attitude Tree Beard has about everything. My first thought was that they lived such LONG lives and saw every thing as if from a distance and only a small part in the whole of everything. Tree Beard's attitude at first to "wreathing the storm as they have weathered all others" sort of summarises this. However when he is informed of the treachery of Saruman his mind is changed. I think that Tom may have not felt threatened by Sauron, may be he knew the limits of Sauron's power and so knew that he would not succeed.

My theory of them seeing all as a whole and not really caring for that reason was stricken down when I considered Gandalf.
He, a mair spirit, had an absurdly long life and still had cares for all matters "Weather they belonged to him or not."
So my theory is this; Tom and Tree Beard are sort of separated from the rest of the world. A lot like the hobbits were in the shire, almost ignorant to all goings on outside their borders. Tree beard having cares for the trees had a vice that broke and so lead him to action and to stop seeing all as a whole and for the first time he was hasty, as an Ent would see it.

Tom, on the other hand, cared for the trees, but did not fear dominion by sauron, he possibly knew or saw that his downfall would come and so was not worried. Who or what ever Tom was, I think we can agree that he had some power that let him know or feel that his land would be safe for many years and ages to come.
Well that’s what I think anyway.

[Bêthberry]

It seems I'm alone in preferring an empowered, dangerous, feminine force of nature, while everyone else is wanting a safe nurturing housewifely type!

Now that statement is one which likely would make SaucepanMan's day, being almost a recognition that we see what we desire to see.

Actually, davem, I don't think I have said I want a "safe, nurturing housewifey type" but then you could be speaking to others besides me.

Another thing I don't get is this desire for the young Goldberry to be 'nice' & playful.

Is there "a desire to see" a nice and safe Goldberry? I rather think that my observations about how Tolkien domesticated the older mythologies and
legends suggests that I cannot see such a dangerous character in the text rather than that I don't want to see such a character. I can appreciate the legendary precursors, but in Tolkien's text I don't see the fearfulness, perhaps because this house, the House of Bombadil, is a sanctuary. The Hobbits are delayed by a "washing day", an ordinary rain , rather than a fearful storm with lightning and thunder and violent winds. What sort dangerous empowered feminine nature would say, "Heed no nightly noises"? The dangerous female figures of legend and myth come at night to disturb sleep, not to banish fear.

When I used the word 'play' I did not mean mere frivolity. I meant the very serious, profound kind of play which is the most important aspect of human existence. "Play" is the crucible of children's learning and the keystone in adult mental health. It does not have to be 'nice'. It merely has to be a game.

This is the reason why, I would argue, Bombadil "takes everything so lightly", as Firefoot has complained. For some, the world falls so heavily and so seriously that the only way to stay sane is to deal with it "lightly" in play. I would suggest again that if Frodo had more "play" in him, he might possibly not be so wounded. Or might have been able to resist the Ring better.

Aiwendil, I think it is good to bring that list of past debates and discussions here. And I think you are right to couch the questions this way: "But it is incredibly uncharacteristic of Tolkien to violate the reality of his own creation in such a way." He almost seems to invert his stricure in 'On Fairy Stories" that the one thing that must not be satirised is fairy itself.

But I think you have omitted some other possibilities in the discussion. If I may be so outrageous, let me refer to that rather light-hearted interpretation known as Revenge of the Entish Bow.

Ricky and Gucyberry

And

Being Ilúminated

Hey ho, merry dol, is this allowed, oh mighty mistress Moderator?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Hey ho, merry dol, is this allowed, oh mighty mistress Moderator?

Now how could I possibly be against an opportunity for a well-placed, shameless plug for my own RPG, Bb?!

davem, I can't see anything safely domesticated in Goldberry - she is powerful in her femininity, and though she is united with Tom (he is not complete without her either! - it's a two-way relationship), she can stand on her own. This is the kind of ideal marriage I was talking about; two people united, not because they need each other to fill their own lack, but because they voluntarily choose to be together.

The more I think about Goldberry in this chapter, and I'm thankful to davem for getting the discussion focussed more on her than on Tom, the more I see her as a very positive feminine role model. This is the first time I've read this chapter with a greater awareness of her importance in it!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I can appreciate the legendary precursors, but in Tolkien's text I don't see the fearfulness, perhaps because this house, the House of Bombadil, is a sanctuary. The Hobbits are delayed by a "washing day", an ordinary rain , rather than a fearful storm with lightning and thunder and violent winds. What sort dangerous empowered feminine nature would say, "Heed no nightly noises"? The dangerous female figures of legend and myth come at night to disturb sleep, not to banish fear.

Well, the fact that she's protective to the hobbits, doesn't mean she's not dangerous - in fact, I'd propose it means she is dangerous - to enemies. Dangerous doesn't mean 'evil' - later on Gandalf will point out to Gimli that he (Gimli) is pretty dangerous himself! I don't think Tom is the only one who could protect the hobbits from harm. I suspect Goldberry could do a pretty effective job on her own, if it came to it.

As far as the 'ordinary rain' of her 'washing day' goes, I don't think we can conclude from that that she couldn't do much more. A nature 'goddess' would be able to control her power. She did what was necessary - any more would have been simply showing off, & potentially destructive, rather than protective.

Oh, back to the Adventures of Tom Bombadil, does anyone find any significance in the fact that Tom's first 'opponent' is Goldberry (=water), his second is OMW (=plants), his third is the family of badgers (=animals), his last is the Barrow Wight (= supernatural being). Its almost like an 'initiation' sequence.

Lastly, for now, why the name 'Goldberry' - isn't that too much of a plant name for a water-lady? Am I pushing etymology too far to speculate its from 'gold-bearer', which could be a kenning, referring to the river water carrying the fallen autumn leaves, or even the reflected glints of sunlight on its surface. (Please tell me if that's a really stupid suggestion!)

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

Is there "a desire to see" a nice and safe Goldberry?

Excellently put. Analysis of the text need have nothing whatsoever to do with one's own wishes. I for one don't desire to see Goldberry as nice and safe, but I tend to view her this way nonetheless. The whole tone of the chapter is one of safety and comedy, not of danger. Davem does have something of a point here:

Well, the fact that she's protective to the hobbits, doesn't mean she's not dangerous - in fact, I'd propose it means she is dangerous - to enemies. Dangerous doesn't mean 'evil' - later on Gandalf will point out to Gimli that he (Gimli) is pretty dangerous himself!

But the mythological and folkloric river women are not dangerous only in this sense; they are dangerous to travellers and to good people. And they certainly never offer the kind of safety offered by Goldberry. Nor indeed are they ever put in such, literally, domestic settings. I have to agree with Bethberry that Goldberry is a "tamed" version of the old river woman archetype.

Estelyn wrote:

The more I think about Goldberry in this chapter, and I'm thankful to davem for getting the discussion focussed more on her than on Tom, the more I see her as a very positive feminine role model.

I'm afraid I must disagree with this. I don't think Tolkien was consciously sexist, but I simply can't see Goldberry as a positive female role model. She is perhaps somewhat independent of Tom, but I would not say she comes across as being Tom's equal. It is after all "The House of Tom Bombadil" not "The House of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry". It is Tom that has adventures outdoors; it is Tom with whom the Hobbits spend hours talking; it is Tom that twice rescues them. Also, there is the fact that at her first appearance (in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil) she is presented more or less as a prize to be caught.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Allow me to add my voice to that of Esty in praise of davem for getting us off on a Goldberry foot for this chapter. She is badly overlooked far too often, and I am as guilty as anyone in this.

So far it seems that the major bone of contention in this chapter’s discussion is the depiction of Goldberry as tamed/domesticated or wild/fey in respect to her relationship with Tom. I would like to suggest that there’s another way to approach their relationship: rather than locking ourselves into a relatively simple either/or version of their ‘marriage’ we can regard it from within an older version of relations between men and women, one that I think held a lot of appeal to Tolkien.

It’s an ideal that I’m most familiar with in, of all things, the plays of Shakespeare. It’s the idea that men and women are ‘best’ or ideally suited to be joined in a relationship of mutuality, with the man still clearly ‘in charge’ of a hierarchy, but still dependent upon and completed by the woman. This is more than just each needs the other, and stems from a way of seeing the world in terms of feminine and masculine ‘energies’ or tendencies. In this view of things, and I’m more and more convinced that this is Tolkien’s own view, everyone is possessed of both masculine and feminine natures; not just people are like this, but all other beings, all actions, all of the created world. In this respect, there is no clear and finite division between the genders, as everyone participates to some measure in the intermingling of both. I think that this sort of a view is palpable in the description of Tom and Goldberry working together:

Then Tom and Goldberry set the table; and the hobbits sat half in wonder and half in laughter: so fair was the grace of Goldberry and so merry and odd the caperings of Tom. Yet in some fashion they seemed to weave a single dance, neither hindering the other, in and out of the room and round about the table

The image of the dance is an old and a good one for this – in a traditional dance one partner may lead and the other follow (although we don’t see that here!) but it’s still a mutual effort, with both parties contributing evenly. I think this dancing pair of Tom and Goldberry is the best representation of their mutually conjoined natures – I said it in the last thread, and I reiterate here: I think we are forced by the book to see Tom and Goldberry as single ‘character’ in terms of their function in the narrative.

So they are ‘the same’ in that they are locked in a mutual relationship, but they remain distinct in their effect on the hobbits. When Frodo first encounters Goldberry his reaction is telling:

‘Fair lady Goldberry!’ said Frodo at last, feeling his heart moved with a joy that he did not understand. He stood as he had at time stood enchanted by fair elven-voices; but the spell that was now laid upon him was different: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange.

The difference between Goldberry and Elves is here summed up by the difference between “enchantment” and “spell”; I think this is really important, for the effect of the Elves is one that is reminiscent of Sauron insofar as it tends toward dominion and over-awing the weaker hobbits, whereas Goldberry (like the Old Forest) works a “spell” – she’s more magical, pure and simple. I love the phrase “marvellous and yet not strange”: I can’t think of a better way to describe hobbits!

‘But I see that you are an elf-friend; the light in your eyes and the ring in your voice tells it.’

Here Goldberry reveals that she is more than ordinarily perceptive. She sees the full Frodo in her first glance: the good (elf-friend) and the evil (the ring in his voice). She sees him fully without apparently judging him; this is not some kind of nurturing earth-mother goddess, but a feminised manifestation of the created world itself: she sees all, knows all, accepts all; lies close to the mortal heart of the hobbits – what could be more magical, in the purest sense, than a rainy day?

Then there’s Tom. For my money, his most important moment comes at:

‘Who are you, Master?’ [Frodo] asked.
‘Eh, what?’ said Tom sitting up, and his eyes glinting in the gloom. ‘Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?’

Right here is where I think we can see Tolkien himself speaking to us right through the mask of his creation. For Tolkien everything begins with language – his works were all undertaken for the sake of the languages he invented, and to go even further, his own Catholicism was one that highly venerated John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Tom is not God or Eru or any such figure – he’s the masculine manifestation of the created world that is the counterpart to Goldberry – but he is here expressing the full creativity of the divine word/language: for Tom the word is the thing, name is identity. This is another way of looking at the magic that fills this realm: Goldberry’s song doesn’t just cause the rain, it is the rain – the true magician says “rain” and water falls from the sky: the reality of the world is begun by language.

So Tom and Goldberry mutually express and embody the truly magical nature of reality in their own ways. They also respond to the Ring in a mutual manner. Goldberry simply accepts the Ring as part of Frodo’s makeup without condemning him or, apparently, seeing any split, while Tom (quite famously for most readers) demonstrates the irrelevance of the Ring to him by putting it on:

‘Show me the precious Ring!’ he said suddenly in the midst of the story: and Frodo, to his own astonishment, drew out the chain from his pocket, and unfastening the Ring handed it at once to Tom.
…For a second the hobbits had a vision, both comical and alarming, of his bright blue eye gleaming through a circle of gold.

His action here is more than just to show how the Ring does not have power over him, but to demonstrate that he, like Goldberry, is fully aware of the nature of the Ring (it is “precious”) and of its maker (he mocks the Eye with his own). This is where I think their mutual relationship becomes clearer, insofar as Goldberry responds to the Ring at the individual level (that is, insofar as it has effected Frodo) whereas Tom responds to it at a more ‘historical’ level. Each aspect of the Ring is a necessary part of its truth – how many threads are there in the Downs arguing over whether the Ring operates internally (swaying Frodo’s “voice”) or as an external source of compulsion (brining Frodo under the ‘Eye’)? The split nature of the Ring is here summed up by Tom and Goldberry working together just as in the dance they undertake.

This post is already too long and too pedantic to continue so I shall leave off with just two more quotes. The first is the description of Tom’s songs:

A shadow came out of dark places far away, and the bones were stirred in the mounds. Barrow-wights walked in the hollow places with a clink of rings on cold fingers, and gold chains in the wind. Stone rings grinned out of the ground like broken teeth in the moonlight.

And the second is the description of Goldberry’s songs:

Goldberry sang songs for them, songs that began merrily in the hills and fell softly down into silence; and in the silences they saw in their minds pools and waters wider than any they had known, and looking into them, they saw the sky below them and the stars like jewels in the depths.

I would suggest that these two songs taken together – perhaps sung in harmony? – are as good a summation of the world created by Tolkien as have ever been written.

[mark12_30]

Esty, thanks again for that article. Its effects are farther-reaching than one might suppose.

Goldberry dangerous: to whom? I would argue that if pressed, she would be dangerous, as would Galadriel, and Arwen. Would the Barrow-Wight prefer her song to Tom's? I doubt it; though I have no proof, I think if Goldberry had sung to the Wight, he would have been rendered powerless.

But that wasn't Tolkien's point. Rather than in arms, we see her shimmering. For me that is enough.

Goldberry gives the hobbits the merry laughter and the feast and the comfort and safe refuge that they tried to make for themselves at Crickhollow. The sleep is refreshing; though they dream, they are comforted upon waking; the baths (and the washing) is more real because more magical; the songs are deeper, yet bring more joy; the comfort, though temporary, takes root in their hearts.

‘Come dear folk!’ she said, taking Frodo by the hand. ‘Laugh and be merry! I am Goldberry, daughter of the River.’ Then lightly she passed them and closing the door she turned her back to it, with her white arms spread out across it. ‘Let us shut out the night!’ she said. ‘For you are still afraid, perhaps, of mist and tree-shadows and deep water, and untame things. Fear nothing! For tonight you are under the roof of Tom Bombadil.’

Tolkien pulls this off when others could not. To fear nothing! To shut out the night! Incredible. I wept when I read this.

[Lalwendë]

I have to say that I find Tom Bombadil fascinating. To me he symbolises the Green Man, the spirit of nature, and in particular of the woodlands. Possible evidence of this can be found when Tom says that he was making his last trip of the year to gather the lillies, which to me mirrors the yearly hibernation of the Green Man. He is also described as 'Master' of the woodlands, and he has a power over the trees and animals who live there.

Tom is an enigma, and an ancient being living in an undisturbed place, and I like to think that Tolkien was linking some of the oldest and most enigmatic of our folklore into his own creation of Middle Earth. There are the Valar and Maiar, the Elves and Men, all with their own structured histories, yet Tolkien still included this strange figure who cannot be defined by these structures. This mirrors actual mythology, in that we have the Celtic and Norse stories with gods, goddesses and heroes who all have their 'place', alongside older, all-encompassing and more intangible figures who we can only speculate upon.

Intriguingly, Goldberry is also an ancient figure herself, the Goddess - who is at once equal to and different from the god. As Fordim puts it, they are

joined in a relationship of mutuality

Tom and Goldberry are complementary to one another, as the ancient figures of the God and Goddess are. They are joined in the 'sacred marriage'. Goldberry is also the river-daughter, another representation of the goddess, and her treachery/trickery when she first meets Tom demonstrates the vividly dangerous side to the goddess figure.

So, not entirely objective thoughts, and possibly not that new, either, but when I read chapters 6 to 8, everything I have read about ancient beliefs and myths immediately springs to mind. Maybe Tolkien had in mind to stir in the possibility that we might start to suspect that Middle Earth was older than its own 'established' mythology? Or just to add in something of the enigmatic aspects of our own ancient past?