Bombadil’s Green Girdle

[Ivriniel]

@Morthoron

I thought Balrogs took ski holidays in the Misty Mountains when travelling in subterreanean vaults to place a Silmaril (Arkestone) in The Lonely Mountain.

@ reader - more responding to prior post....

I posted to the thread because I don't like seeing '0' posts on a lonely topic. So, in the syncretic tradition (the attempt to juxtapose on terms), let's see how much agreement we have so far. Hello Mmorthoron, great to see you.

Okay, merely using the word, 'girdle' implies presence by absence. Girdle is not appreciably central in Tolkienian casting of Bombadil, as has been rightly pointed out, the lunacy of the attempt to 'make it work' is nonetheless likened to 'a blue moon' where 'luna' and 'madness or otherwise - rarity' can be a term to apply to the analysis.

So, whilst the Arthurian Sir what's his name, of Morgan Le Fay's feminine manipulations was a ploy in two then Folklore Traditions (Exchange and Winnings), do we see those in Bombadil? I argue YES

yes when drawing a log bow, but one like in the hands of an Elf, Legolas. Bombadil's Withywindle is a Girdle - whether or not it is 'territorially disposed TO Bombadil', nonetheless, Bombadil evidences immunity to it (if it is not his Territory) or alternatively, it is Goldberry's or else, some mischief of prose and mendacity that Bombadil feigns to disown legacy and ownership of it.

We see Gawain and treachery interspersed in the Green Night, with Morgan Le Fay as master manipulator, although concurrently, the Green Knight bears connotations to a Chrisitian and almost Christ like sensibility in self sacrifice (he did lose his head from Gawain's bow, then, did naught but humiliate Gawain in non-equivalence of blow in the climax).

So, back to the Barrow Downs: the Exchange and Winnings adaptation of a Medieval motif (rather not squarely onto Tolkienian mythology), what do we have.

Carn Dum violating Barrows within Bombadil's Girdle, that he leaves alone. It's all very odd. He lets the Northern Line of Numenor falter, and fails to cleanse the Mounts, yet, overruns one after Tom puts on the Ring. He grants passage to Frodo with the Ring, which of course is Master power to the Nine and of the linked 'energy' to the Witchking.

Girdle of Melian to Girdle of Witchking (I suspect the Witchking was a cross dresser?) to Girdle of Bombadil, and thus in honour of the Syncretic tradition, we have a delightful reconciliation of the Opening Post. with No deviations or areas of concern.



I'm checking myself into therapy after writing the post

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

@Morthoron

I thought Balrogs took ski holidays in the Misty Mountains when travelling in subterreanean vaults to place a Silmaril (Arkestone) in The Lonely Mountain.

@ reader - more responding to prior post....

I posted to the thread because I don't like seeing '0' posts on a lonely topic. So, in the syncretic tradition (the attempt to juxtapose on terms), let's see how much agreement we have so far. Hello Mmorthoron, great to see you.

Okay, merely using the word, 'girdle' implies presence by absence. Girdle is not appreciably central in Tolkienian casting of Bombadil, as has been rightly pointed out, the lunacy of the attempt to 'make it work' is nonetheless likened to 'a blue moon' where 'luna' and 'madness or otherwise - rarity' can be a term to apply to the analysis.

So, whilst the Arthurian Sir what's his name, of Morgan Le Fay's feminine manipulations was a ploy in two then Folklore Traditions (Exchange and Winnings), do we see those in Bombadil? I argue YES

yes when drawing a log bow, but one like in the hands of an Elf, Legolas. Bombadil's Withywindle is a Girdle - whether or not it is 'territorially disposed TO Bombadil', nonetheless, Bombadil evidences immunity to it (if it is not his Territory) or alternatively, it is Goldberry's or else, some mischief of prose and mendacity that Bombadil feigns to disown legacy and ownership of it.

We see Gawain and treachery interspersed in the Green Night, with Morgan Le Fay as master manipulator, although concurrently, the Green Knight bears connotations to a Chrisitian and almost Christ like sensibility in self sacrifice (he did lose his head from Gawain's bow, then, did naught but humiliate Gawain in non-equivalence of blow in the climax).

So, back to the Barrow Downs: the Exchange and Winnings adaptation of a Medieval motif (rather not squarely onto Tolkienian mythology), what do we have.

Carn Dum violating Barrows within Bombadil's Girdle, that he leaves alone. It's all very odd. He lets the Northern Line of Numenor falter, and fails to cleanse the Mounts, yet, overruns one after Tom puts on the Ring. He grants passage to Frodo with the Ring, which of course is Master power to the Nine and of the linked 'energy' to the Witchking.

Girdle of Melian to Girdle of Witchking (I suspect the Witchking was a cross dresser?) to Girdle of Bombadil, and thus in honour of the Syncretic tradition, we have a delightful reconciliation of the Opening Post. with No deviations or areas of concern.



I'm checking myself into therapy after writing the post

As am I, after reading it.

In answer to all of you: could the green girdle be a reference to "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"? I think it is possible. Must it, then, necessarily bear the entire weight of symbolism ascribed to it by a.) Priya Seth, b.) Morth or c.) Ivriniel?
I think not. It is only a girdle, after all, and I fear it would snap under so tremendous a strain!

Btw, Ivrin, do come back to the "Password" thread. Pervinca and I have no-one to play with.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

As am I, after reading it.

In answer to all of you: could the green girdle be a reference to "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"? I think it is possible. Must it, then, necessarily bear the entire weight of symbolism ascribed to it by a.) Priya Seth, b.) Morth or c.) Ivriniel?
I think not. It is only a girdle, after all, and I fear it would snap under so tremendous a strain!

Btw, Ivrin, do come back to the "Password" thread. Pervinca and I have no-one to play with.

hahaha well said

[Balfrog]

Ivriniel, Inziladun, Nerwen, Morthoron

So here we have a situation where the good Professor decides to alter an existing published piece of work just for kicks? Just so he can put in a random piece of colored clothing for the hell of it?

Doesn’t make any sense to me. Particularly when an admitted objective for the 1962 booklet was to better integrate T.B. into the world of The Lord of the Rings and where numerous bits of pseudo-concealed poetry are provided linking back to England and its early documented history. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude there’s a strong possibility of a medieval English originating ‘green girdle’ being slipped in for much the same reason.

I don’t believe that there is a reputable Tolkien scholar alive who honestly believes that a ‘green girdle’ would have held no particular importance to Tolkien. Nor that Tolkien was lax or casual in his choice of words for material to be published. He was undoubtedly a very careful pedant – and a self-admitted one.

When it comes to the choices behind including a waistband of a particular color – it is the combination of the two that arouses most curiosity. After all if he had written ‘orange were his girdle’ or ‘green were his cummerbund’ the impact would be far less. As I am sure you well know, there are several alternates available for the word ‘girdle’. For example he could have described the article as a ‘belt’ or ‘sash’ or many other ways. As for hue – he could have given the waistband any number of the myriad of colors within his vocabulary. Yet he didn’t.

Statistically if we limit ourselves to just considering the number of poetic choices of waistband to three – namely: girdle, belt & sash; and if we conservatively limit color choice to the seven of the traditionally described rainbow (R,O,Y,G,B,I,V), there is only a one in twenty one chance of the green/girdle combination being arrived at on a purely random basis. Roughly that’s 5%.

So yes there is a chance that Tolkien momentarily suffered acute memory loss (and forgot all about SGGK) and decided that for some inexplicable reason that he would change his prior published poetry to include a randomly chosen article of clothing of random coloring – whose significance was entirely overlooked. But the odds of such a coincidence are extremely small.

At the very best I think that one might argue that it boils down to Tolkien either did it by accident or he didn’t. Still a 50% probability – and one high enough not to be dismissed at a whim. In reality the odds of deliberate contrivance are much higher. There is after all only one 'green girdle' of any known significance in this world.





Morthoron

Your last post is not particularly well thought out and lacks balance. I don't see the “stray words out of a hat” comment as at all appropriate. Just like any medievalist would react, if one were to air out the phrase 'green girdle' there is, certainly to my mind, only one possible way Tolkien would have connected it. Unless you can prove otherwise?

As for its significance – much scholarly work has been published on the matter. Significance has been conjectured to exist on multiple fronts. So when it comes to Tolkien's own translation:

“For whoever goes girdled with this green riband,
while he keeps it well clasped closely about him,
there is none so hardy under heaven that to hew him were able;
for he could not be killed by any cunning of hand.”

it's this 'invincibility' significance that Ms. Seth has focused on as a parallel – which you seem to want to ignore. I don’t recall the Professor ever called Lady Bertilak a liar? Nor to my knowledge did he ever imply the poet lied? Nor did he doubt whether it truly possessed magical qualities. Do you?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

Your last post is not particularly well thought out and lacks balance. I don't see the “stray words out of a hat” comment as at all appropriate. Just like any medievalist would react, if one were to air out the phrase 'green girdle' there is, certainly to my mind, only one possible way Tolkien would have connected it. Unless you can prove otherwise?

As for its significance – much scholarly work has been published on the matter. Significance has been conjectured to exist on multiple fronts. So when it comes to Tolkien's own translation:

“For whoever goes girdled with this green riband,
while he keeps it well clasped closely about him,
there is none so hardy under heaven that to hew him were able;
for he could not be killed by any cunning of hand.”

it's this 'invincibility' significance that Ms. Seth has focused on as a parallel – which you seem to want to ignore. I don’t recall the Professor ever called Lady Bertilak a liar? Nor to my knowledge did he ever imply the poet lied? Nor did he doubt whether it truly possessed magical qualities. Do you?

Saying my "last post was not particularly well thought out and lacks balance" is as laughable as the premise you started with. Because I am not required to do public relations work for a semi-pseudo-Tolkien scholar, I simply use common sense, and do not need to grasp at straws to get the gullible to read tripe and increase a site's click count.

Does Bombadil have a girdle of invincibility? No. As Glorfindel noted, "I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First, and then Night will come." Tolkien never implied Bombadil was invincible, that is not the character's raison d'être.

Does Bombadil need a girdle of invincibility? No. Upon whom exactly does he wish to exert his invincibility, since a girdle of invincibility implies a martial stance that Bombadil in no way has an interest in. He is not bellicose; in fact, he allows Old Man Willow his space, and does not even attack the Barrow Wights in a conventional sense.

Does Bombadil wear a girdle of invincibility? Oh, of course, right along with his yellow boots of uber trajectory and his ever-expanding blue jacket of excessive caloric-intake. Because Goldberry sews nuclear-powered clothes.

The more realistic, less specious consideration is that the colors of Bombadil's clothing match his environment. He is, after all, a metaphor for the old Oxfordshire countryside. And Tolkien's love of alliteration would certainly allow for a green girdle in much the same way as a "great green dragon".

Again, you've missed the symbolism of the green girdle in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" completely (not surprising, considering the Snark hunts you engage in).

Does the original author ever have Gawain actually use the green girdle of invincibility in battle against the Green Knight? No, because it is a badge of shame for Gawain to seek to cheat in order to defeat the Green Knight. He dons the girdle out of fear. In essence, the minute he puts it on he loses the valour and honour that were quintessential to the code of a chivalrous knight (and the tale itself is invested with that code of chivalry). Gawain wears it ever afterward as an act of atonement for his deceit.

Why would the scholar Tolkien equate a badge of shame to Bombadil, who neither cares for invincibility nor wants dominion over others? The symbolism does not in any way equate. Your house of cards is blown over by your own flatulence.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

It's probably worthwhile you taking a look or re-look at Tolkien's essay: Sir Gawain and The Green Knight, and his book with E.V. Gordon. It would also be useful for you to peruse H&S Chronology and understand how often Tolkien taught the subject. Once digested, you'll understand that a balanced view would have been something like:

'Wow – Tolkien really had a great deal of expertise on this medieval text. There's a good chance a 'green girdle' would have meant a great deal to him.'

You're argument that it's just two words puts a fallacious spin on the matter: So 'One Ring' or an 'Otter's whiskers' would have meant nothing to him either, eh?

Slinking into a corner and being unable to admit the above is disappointing – yet not unexpected. As usual you side-step most of my responses. Sure you can keep kidding yourself … randomly chosen color, associated to a random piece of clothing, all inserted into an existing text in a moment of amnesia, huh. However if you were truly honest with yourself - using your own words:

“The more realistic, less specious consideration is”

Ms. Seth's viewpoint. Funny how you only want to use that argument when it suits you!


I simply use common sense

On this matter – I'm still waiting!

Does Bombadil have a girdle of invincibility? No. As Glorfindel noted, "I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First, and then Night will come." Tolkien never implied Bombadil was invincible, that is not the character's raison d'être.

Oh dear – you've failed to perceive magical items can have their limitations. Within the only specified bounds we know:

“For whoever goes girdled with this green riband, while he keeps it well clasped closely about him, there is none so hardy under heaven that to hew him were able; for he could not be killed by any cunning of hand.”
Tolkien's translation of SGGK

even wearing a green girdle Tom may be slain. One way which does not involve 'hands' could be through song. Perhaps Sauron's songs of power might be more powerful than Tom's. And there again – I'm sure Sauron would have had evil creatures at his command capable of slaying fleshly folk that needn't employ, or indeed didn't have, 'hands'.

Again, you've missed the symbolism of the green girdle in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" completely (not surprising, considering the Snark hunts you engage in).

Regardless of what your own perception is of the symbolic significance of the 'green girdle' in Sir Gawain & The Green Knight, let's be clear it is not the only one in the world. Or do you deem yourself to be an expert on SGGK? Sorry – I don't agree with 'it's my way or the highway' approach.

Does Bombadil need a girdle of invincibility? No.

Nonsense – how do you know what he does or does not need? Has M-e been free of danger throughout Tom's existence in Arda? Answer yes or no? Bet you won't be able to bring yourself to say no.

Upon whom exactly does he wish to exert his invincibility, since a girdle of invincibility implies a martial stance that Bombadil in no way has an interest in. He is not bellicose; in fact, he allows Old Man Willow his space, and does not even attack the Barrow Wights in a conventional sense.

More nonsense – in the space of a few days he deals with OMW and obliterates the Wight. How do you know what evil threats TB has had to deal with over the Ages. It's not as if there have been no wars on his borders.

Does Bombadil wear a girdle of invincibility? Oh, of course, right along with his yellow boots of uber trajectory and his ever-expanding blue jacket of excessive caloric-intake. Because Goldberry sews nuclear-powered clothes.

Adds nothing. You've yet to realize how much involvement Tolkien had with classic fairy tale. Try reading and digesting Tolkien On Fairy-stories by Flieger and Anderson, and then the light bulb might go on.

Does the original author ever have Gawain actually use the green girdle of invincibility in battle against the Green Knight?

This statement makes no sense. There was no battle. There was a beheading match agreed to in an oral contract. Are you questioning why the author didn't include a battle? You might try asking him, but you won't get an answer.

Why would the scholar Tolkien equate a badge of shame to Bombadil, who neither cares for invincibility nor wants dominion over others?

Yes, yes – we all know the 'badge of shame' thing. But what was the girdle's significance before it came to Gawain? Did Lady Bertilak wear it as a 'badge of shame'? And who had it before Lady Bertilak? What would have been more important to Tolkien – what the green girdle started out as or ended up as? Neither you or I can say for sure. So my suggestion is keep an open mind.

And Morthoron – please keep your objections coming. I look forward to opening your mind up to other vistas, and correcting you - always.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

While I am very much taken with the idea of Tom Bombadil using an ultra-powerful magical item simply to hold up his trousers, I can see some problems with identifying his belt with the girdle of Bertilak.

Firstly there is the question of description. The girdle that the lady of Hautdesert bestows on Gawain is made of silk, embroidered with gold:

Gered hit watʒ with grene silk and with golde schaped,
Noʒt bot arounde brayden, beten with fyngreʒ
(Tolkien & Gordon, ll. 1832-3)

Fashioned it was of green silk, and with gold finished,
though only braided round about, embroidered by hand
(Translation by JRRT)

Although Tolkien's poem says little about Tom's belt beyond its colour, the green trousers that he wears with it are made of leather. Tom's sartorial choices are unconventional, but his otherwise homely clothes would seem all the more outlandish for the addition of a gold-edged silk belt, particularly as pendants are mentioned in Gawain's exchange with Bertilak at the Green Chapel. It is also possible to read "Green were his girdle and his breeches all of leather" to mean not only that both Tom's trousers and his belt are green, but also that they are both made of leather. I note that Tolkien's poem makes no mention of Tom's belt being woven with gold.

More significant is that the article suggests that the girdle originally came from Goldberry. The description of Tom's clothes in the first stanza includes his swan-wing feather because one of the outcomes of the story is his acquisition of the blue feather that he wears in his hat in LR. Therefore we can presume that this description is intended as a portrait of its protagonist before the events of the poem. Tom's apparent first meeting with Goldberry is described in the third stanza, and their encounter is not one much conducive to gift-giving.

Is Tom invulnerable because of a magic belt? I doubt it, and I think that a more interesting question is whether or not Gawain is invulnerable wearing his, since the entire episode of his being offered it, accepting the gift and using it to protect himself against Bertilak's strokes has been planned in advance by Bertilak, his lady and Morgan Le Fay (the crone who accompanies the lady of the castle and is unflatteringly described in ll. 948-69). Bertilak's stroke cuts Gawain's neck, and Bertilak confidently announces that he could have done Gawain more harm had his failure been greater. We only have the word of Bertilak's lady that the belt is one that grants invulnerability against cuts from weapons, and she has become ever more desperate in her temptations throughout her last encounter with Gawain, and could simply be lying. I find the hunting scenes very significant in their juxtaposition with Gawain's temptations, and the wily fox Reynard is the last victim of Bertilak's wildlife holocaust, dying possibly the most gruesome death.
Given the strong Christian message of Gawain and the Green Knight and the Pearl manuscript in general, it is possible that faith alone would have been a greater protection against the Green Knight's axe than a fancy belt.

Added to these problems, we have the far simpler explanation offered by Morthoron that green completes a palate of colours that represent the natural world of which Tom Bombadil is the spirit, and that girdle simply works better in the poem's structure than does its humble synonym belt. If we apply Occam's razor (another historical Bill, incidentally), that symbolism wins out. I should add the further note that there is a certain hubris implicit in assuming that one has spotted something in Tolkien that nobody has ever pointed out before, given the number of medievalists who have applied themselves to Tolkien's sources. Gawain is a pretty obvious place to start looking, given JRRT's history with the poem and its dialect, and Tom Shippey at least can probably quote the original line for line. It might not be well known to the general public, but in the field of medieval English studies, Gawain is a staple piece.