Re: Re: LOTR (was Siegfried)

[Guest guest]

HI , Bruce, all,

It's very strange. I never received this message from Bruce. Glad,

, you picked it up and repeated some of it here.

Re: LOTR (was Siegfried)

" Bruce " writes:

--- wrote:

>> The phenomena of the Entwives is interesting.

>> Apparently they just went away because their

>> interests were different from the Ents.

>I always found the story of the Ents and Entwives fascinating. Is

>this what happens between male and female when imagining a life span

>of centuries instead of decades?

N: That seems to me a sad thought for it seems to imply an insurmountable

intrensice gender difference leading to the conclusion that male and female

could never be true friends and companions on the road of life.

: It's what happens between male and female in more than a few primitive

tribes of ordinary mortals, actually. There are a fair number of cases

recorded of the men and women of tropical or subtropical peoples living very

different lifestyles and so living apart most of the time. (although, ok,

they don't completely seperate because they have to continue their people...

I take this as a 'hint' of what the Ents represent in Tolkien's mind. They

seem to be the 'masculine unconscious' in contrast to the 'feminine

unconscious' of the Entwives. It fits perfectly into Jung's description of

anima/animus. Men tend to have a 'logos' oriented thinking function

(organized, systematic), but an 'eros' oriented (not organized) feeling

function. Women tend to be the reverse. And what do we see with the Ents?

They wander around making little effort to control the physical world, but

keeping long elaborate history in their memory and seeming to especially

enjoy language. Very 'logos' oriented internally but very chaotic and

unorganized externally. Treebeard doesn't say if the Entwives are

'scatter-brained' by Ent standards and don't keep the same sort of internal

history but they certainly seem to be 'opposite' (and complementary) to Ents

in their obsessive need to control and manage the physical world they live

in.

N: As in dream character's speak on must 'consider the source'. From

Treebeard's viewpoint the Entwives love 'order' while the Ents love the

'wild wood'. And yet I find Treebeard rather controlling. Everyone who

doesn't do 'his way' is 'hasty' as if that were always a bad thing. I'd

type Treebeard as XSTJ as they are the ones with the slowest speach. And

with the X also have become the Western ideal or is it just the most

prevalent? I'm reminded of the human transition from Hunters to Farmers.

The Entwives seem drawn to cultivation, one might say a more civilized way,

while the Ents chose to remain in a wilder state. Treebeard says of the

wives, " . . . for the Entvives desired order, and plenty, and peace (by

which they meant thing should remain where they had set them.) This is such

a common male statement at least in patriarchy. Somehow woman are always

trying to 'domesticate' men while the men avow allegence to their wild

youth, while enjoying the comfort of the more settled way. I feel a great

deal of this is projection. There seems to be less patience and acceptance

for the woman's 'I gave it all up for you.' The latter is a 'whine' while

the former somehow 'noble.' And yet Treebeard speak of the Entwives with

sadness and almost longing. He says, " We believe we may meet again in a

time to come, and perhaps we may find a land where we can live together

and both be content. " I'm reminded of the many couples I've known each of

whom has married their typal opposite. I wonder if there isn't a 'force' to

bring such together that children may have all the 'bases covered'. So

often it seems that such couples draw apart so that by midlife, when the

children are mostly grown, the bond doesn't hold and each tries to find

someone nearer to their own type with whom they have more in common.

P: Tolkien had something quite explicit to say about their origin in a

footnote

to one of the published Letters:

---

" Take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The

chapter called 'Treebeard'. from Treebeard's first remark on p. 66, was

written off more or less as it stands, with an effect on myself (except for

labour pains) almost like reading someone else's work. And I like Ents now

because they do not seem to have anything to do with me. I daresay something

had been going on in the 'unconscious' for some time, and that accounts for

my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but

reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till 'what really happened'

came through. But looking back analytically I should say that Ents are

composed of philology, literature, and life. They owe their name to the eald

enta geweorc of Anglo-Saxon, and their connexion with stone. Their part of

the story is due, I think, to my bitter disappointment and disgust from

schoolday with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of 'Great

Birnam wood to Dunsinane hill': I longed to devise a setting in which the

trees might really march to war. And into this has crept a mere piece of

experience, the difference of the 'male' and 'female' attitude to wild

things, the difference between unpossessive love and gardening. "

---

Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien,

Letter #163 (to W. H. Auden), footnote on page 211

N: Thanks for the above. I had not seen it before. It is of course one

viewpoint as to what is both good and true.

The final comment is most interesting. Is this not the difference between

'eros' and 'logos' in feeling?

N: is it? It seems to me they may both be organizing or ordering

principles. Both sides seem inclined to glorify their own way and want

others to 'cultivate' and adhere to it.

>The relationship in LOTR that most interested me was Tom Bombadil

>and Goldberry, who make only a brief appearance in THE FELLOWSHIP OF

>THE RING and appear not at all in the movies (except that Treebeard

>is given some of Bombadil's dialogue). Here's an image of male and

>female living removed entirely from conflict and in harmony with each

>other and with nature. I always wanted to know more about them...

N: So glad you brought this up, Bruce. I very much agree. They do seem to

be a 'conjunct' couple for all that they seem both human and yet beyond

human. They both seems to be 'forces of nature' and yet the way they live

is both cozy and homely in a comfortably hobbit/human way.

P: Bombadil is a huge problem for Middle-earth historians. He comes from

outside the mythology. Originally he was a doll bought for the Tolkien

children. Tolkien wrote some poems about him and these were actually

published years before either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. So it's

quite difficult to relate him to the otherwise internally related elements

of the mythology.

N: I wonder where the doll got the name 'Tom Bombadil'. Does anyone know?

Did the doll come with that name of was it given him by a member of the

Tolkien household?

P: I could say something about what he 'means' but this would be much more

involved than supplying some quotes from the author of the book since he is

an 'intrusion' from elsewhere. I think he is closely related to the Ents

though -- mythologically if not directly in Tolkien's own thinking. He seems

to be an instance of the 'original man' motif.

N: I relate him to the 'green man' and then to Geb - the originating earth

god of Egyptian mythology who also was most often portrayed as green. It

may even be that there is a temporal connection as the green man seemed to

have been first noted in the British Isles in the 2nd Century AD, well after

the Romans came. The religions of the Mediterranean seem to have borrowed

quite a lot from the older Egyptian traditions. The Geb/Nut pair seem to

be almost alone in the male being of earth and the female of sky.

Blessings,