The first two books of the Lord of the Rings,
commonly called The Fellowship of the Ring, contain two very
different portraits of the pastoral ideal: the Shire and Lothlórien.
While they differ in a number of remarkable ways, they nonetheless share
something in common--a connection of the inhabitants to the land and a
kind of power present in place and people that is somewhat, if not
entirely, inseparable one from the other. (Something similar by extension
can be said of Tom Bombadill and perhaps Bree.) As Sam observes:
Now these folks aren't wanderers or homeless, and
seem a bit nearer to the likes of us: they seem to belong here, more
even than Hobbits do in the Shire. Whether they've made the land, or the
land's made them, it's hard to say, if you take my meaning. If there's
any magic about, it's right down deep, where I can't lay my hands on it,
in a manner of speaking. . . . I've never heard of a better land than
this. It's like being at home and on the holiday at the same time, if
you understand me. (447-448/II.vii)
Strangely enough, the Elves of the Golden Land and
the hobbits of the Shire also share a kind of inward-turning parochialism
that makes them unaware or less than interested in the things of the
outside world, and both are realms protected (by Galadriel and the
Rangers) destined to change in the coming world--the Elvish realm to fade
away and the Shire to assume more of its own defenses.
Why would these two very different realms carry such
emotional and imaginative freight for Tolkien? A detailed study of this
question would need to examine Tolkien's long-standing attitudes towards
nature, the village, and technology, as well as nineteenth and
twentieth-century uses of the pastoral in general. But a good start can
begin by asking what Tolkien's portraits of these bucolic settings
idealizes.
The Pastoral Tradition
We should keep in mind that the typical conventions
of the pastoral tradition, begun in the classical period by the Sicilian
Theocritus and carried on by the Roman Virgil and emblematic of such works
as Phillip Sidney's Arcadia and Matthew Arnold’s Thyrsis,
are rather formal in nature:
- Idealized rural life of shepherds and
shepherdesses.
- Rustic innocence, idleness, little actual
shepherd-like work.
- Stresses the loves and sorrows of the shepherds.
- Individuals speak in courtly rather than natural
language.
- Nature or natural objects may personify the
shepherd's emotions.
- It tends to express the complex through the
medium of the simple.
This last characteristic was most notably formulated
by William Empson in his Some Versions of the Pastoral, and it
suggests that the pastoral setting can move beyond the specific
conventions of the tradition, yet still hold onto a certain idealization
of the human condition or at least an examination of that condition within
a genre that stresses stock conventions and that trades in these types as
a way both to reflect and endear its readers to certain moral and
aesthetic virtues.
There are other conventions that the pastoral may
absorb, as well. The pastoral romance can also be seen to borrow in some
versions another ancient habit of playing off the country and the city,
with the country as a garden of peace, innocence, simplicity, and
community over against the corrupt, hypocritical, back-stabbing urban
world. 2) Ironically, the comic tradition of playing up the rustic
bumpkin's ignorance and poor taste, ever gawking at the higher culture,
can also be joined with this tradition of admirable innocence, yet 3) the
theme of rural wisdom and skill in farming can also play a role in the
pastoral setting, as does 4) the divinization of nature through the
neo-pagan revival of the nineteenth-century.
It would seem, then, that the high and low, the holy
and the comic, the perilous and the home-spun can be found in the pastoral
tradition, and Tolkien willingly combined its broad conventions and
attitudes. What do the following examples reveal about the importance of
landscape and geography?
- First Journey (88-93/ I.iii)
- The Walking Song (96-97/ I.iii)
- The Mound of Amroth (434/ II.ii)
Consider how the following characters and
locales represent different
mixtures of these qualities:
- Shire folk (27-29, 35-36, 46-47, 82-83)
- Shire songs (112-113, 126)
- Sam (55-56, 79-80, 226, 254, 258-260, 336,
347-348)
- Butterbur (I.ix, also 326-327/ II.ii)
- Farmer Maggot (114ff., 128, 165, also "Bombadil
Goes Boating")
- Haldir (II.vi)
- Galadriel (452-455/ II.vii)
Tom Bombadil
"Tom Bombadill is not an important
person--to the narrative. I suppose has has some importance as a
'comment'. . . .[I]f 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 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
war."
--Letter to Naomi Mitchison, 25 April 1954
"I don't think Tom needs
philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. . . . I do not mean him
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 enquiring mind, a
spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with
'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not
Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Even the Elves hardly show this: they are
primarily artists."
--Draft of letter to Peter Hastings, September 1954
Another interesting test-case for this pastoral
combination is Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. Goldberry is clearly some kind
of naiad, as poem like "Adventures of Tom Bombadil" would
suggest--in that poem Tom follows the medieval pastorale troubadour
tradition of the singer catching and seducing the shepherdess. Bombadill,
on the other hand, is a figure of great mystery. Readers and critics have
suggested any number of options for what he represents:
- Eru (an option Tolkien found appalling);
- The Vala Aulë
- Another, otherwise unnamed Valar
- A Maia "gone native"
- An Ishtari (like Radagast the Brown)
- A personification of a geographic region
- An Earth principle
- An archetypal trickster figure
- An example of the unaccountable anomaly in the
system
- A singular being without species
- An unaligned spirit
- A power in service to knowledge instead of
knowledge advancing power.
Discussion Questions
- How can Bombadil--his
character, life, and manner--represent a certain combination of the
pastoral?
- How would Tolkien's account of him as an expression of
"natural science" fit into this? (I. vi-vii, also 328-329/ II.ii)
- Which explanation for Bombadil do you find most
attractive?
|