Tolkien class Sept. 13: Class is cancelled. Get the 3 handouts from my office door or from Mr. Harden in class, and then go to the course blog for our “discussion” this week. I am requiring each of you to make at least one comment on this post. Take one of the following topics as your starting point (or ask your own interpretive question). I’d also really like it if you started responding to each other in the comments!
SGGK:
- This is the description of the Green Knight, whom critics often say is supposed to be a “green man” or Nature figure.
- How does he compare to Tom Bombadill, Tolkien’s Nature figure? What do the differences suggest about the author’s attitudes toward the natural world? Are there any similarities between the Green Knight and Bombadill/Goldberry?
Dream of Scipio
- Macrobius was the medieval authority on dreams. As you read, list out for yourself the various types of dreams he explains (you can just do this in the margins).
- Notice all the dreams and visions that appear in this section of The Fellowship of the Ring (Frodo in Buckland, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin in Bombadill’s house, Merry outside the barrow, hobbits while Bombadill speaks, Frodo in Bree. . . ) How does Tolkien draw on Macrobius for his notions of what dreams can do? Where do you think he might differ from Macrobius? What do these differences (if any) signify?
7 comments:
Fearlessness, near immortality, and joviality seem to be the dominant characteristics of these “Nature figures.” The Green Knight is described as fearing no peril, and appears before Arthur’s court bearing no armor and no weapon save the huge axe that is the means of the challenge he issues. He is also described repeatedly as being gay, but he seems to have an air of grimness and purpose about him.
Tom Bombadil likewise wanders around his woods with impunity unmatched by its other dwellers. Goldberry in describing him says “He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master” “He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.” The merriment that dominates wherever he is present is impossible to deny; “The guests became suddenly aware that they were singing merrily, as if it were more natural than talking.”
While the Green Knight is described as gay, the effect that he brings upon the court seems opposite that of Bombadil upon the Hobbits. Arthur’s court stops its business at his entrance, but the hobbits almost forget their mission under Bombadil’s spell.
From the likenesses, I would conclude that Tolkien’s view of Nature is one of awe. If taken as Nature Characters, the air of almost unnecessary power in the aura of these two seems to proclaim that Nature doesn’t care what it does and challenges the workings of man simply because it can. The Green Knight challenges the honor and chivalry of Arthur and his court, Bombadil plays with the ring like a humorous trinket. Tolkien also seems to see nature as a thing of joy and wonder, to be protected and dwelt with rather than overpowered.
I don’t see either character as being a Nature Figure, though. Bombadil is master of the wood, he may be closely tied to nature, but above it. He simply sings and everything in the woods obeys him. The Green Knight is seen as ”fay.” He approaches entirely green and barefoot, which does present images of being akin to nature, yet it seems to me more of a mockery of the court’s gallantry. Both beings seem to me more supernatural than natural.
The types of dreams listed in the handout called the “Dreams of Scipio” were: Enigmatic, Oracular, Nightmare and Apparition.
When trying to determine which type of dream that each of the dreams of Tolkien's fit into, there is a slight problem. It is hard to determine whether Frodo and the others dreams are Nightmare/Apparition or Prophetic, without reading through the entire trilogy. For example, the dream of Frodo's on page 106 may be revealing what is to come. The white tower and the sea with the creatures all around, may have a greater importance later on. Or it could be that the mental and physical distress has caused Frodo to have a nightmare. Thus, it is hard to determine the true type of these dreams without knowing whether they play a part later on in the trilogy.
The dreams of the Hobbits on 125 are in my opinion the most interesting of the dreams. Frodo’s dream is of a man on a tower who is carried of by an eagle as the sound of galloping and wolves are heard below. I do not wish to reveal anything for Tuesdays reading, but this dream does prove to have a prophetic quality, as we discover in Book 2, Chapter 2. The other Hobbits dreams seem to be nothing more than nightmare and are quickly soothed when they recount the words of Tom.
Macrobius lists five types of dreams:
1. enigmatic- conceals with strange shapes, true meanings are vague, and understanding requires interpretation
2. prophetic vision- actually comes true
3. oracular- an authority figure like a parent, priest, or God that warns what will happen and steps to take, as a result
4. nightmare- caused by mental or physical stress or even a bad meal
5. apparition- specter-like figure(s) seen moving about that can be pleasant or unsettling, that occurs during a moment between sleep and wakefulness
Tolkien seems to draw on Macrobius for how his characters dream. At the end of chap.5 (p. 106) Frodo appears to have a nightmare, dreaming of a dark sea of tangled trees and of creatures sniffing him out. This may also prove to be a type of prophecy later on.
In chap. 7, (p.125) Frodo, Pippin, and Merry all dream in the house of Bombadil. Frodo sees a detailed scene that sounds a lot like the way to Mordor, with wolves, eagles, and black riders. He also hears a noise that is like the sound of a strong wind. Pippin dreams of the sounds of the willow trees, and that he is back inside the willow again. Merry dozes to the sound of falling water and dreams he is drowning in a bog. All three of them awake to find they are not in danger at the present time, much to their relief.
In chap.11 (p.173) Frodo once again dreams of the noisy wind and the sound of hoofs. In chap. 12 (p.197) Frodo is wounded and restless. He hears noises in the rocks and dreams he is back in the Shire, walking in the grass. The sight appears dim, as if life is fading before his eyes. The only thing that is clear are the black shadows looking over the hedge.
These examples can be interpreted in a variety of ways, from nightmares to meaningful and prophetic dreams. I believe that Tolkien differs from Macrobius in that he (Tolkien) misleads the reader with these dreams. He is merely using the dreams as a literary device to move the story forward, to add suspense, and to foreshadow the next series of events.
Throughout this portion of the text, Tolkien’s language conveys a sense of awe in regard to the natural world. He appears to have possessed a great respect for nature and thus granted it with a significant role in his world. One could read chapter VI to get a sense of his affection for the natural world through his use of language and the amount of time spent describing the intricate features of the landscape.
When I read the description of Goldberry, I envisioned a type of Earth Mother figure through her sense of grace and her ability to enchant others. Tom also possesses this ability of enchantment, which links to Tolkien's sense of awe of the natural world. He describes nature as if he is enchanted by it.
Both Tom and the Green Knight can be somewhat viewed as Nature figures since each character demonstrates control over the natural world. For example, Goldberry refers to Tom as "the Master", and he appears to possess control of things such as the weather. He and The Green Knight also exhibit a sense of fearlessness within the natural environment, and they each don the color green. The Green Knight is described as being covered in green. And although a specific reference to Tom wearing the color green is not present in the text, he does wear a blue coat and a pair of yellow boots, which will combine to create the color green.
When reading the translation of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" I don't see a correlation between the Green Knight and Bombadill. The Knight is swaddled in green, true, but how does this make him the supreme nature figure? Bombadill has a relationship with nature; he speaks to trees (and they listen), he can control the weather, etc. Of the two characters, Bombadill exudes the earthy feel of nature. He doesn't require gold embroidery on his clothing, all he needs is to be free to walk in the forest. There seems to be emphasis put on the fact that the Knight isn't wearing shoes - it must mean he's nature oriented.. But he's riding a horse, why would he need footwear when he isn't actually touching the ground? The feel of the Knight is one of arrogance and distain, especially for the "beardless children" around him. Bombadill saves Frodo (and friends), feeds them, shelters them, saves them again.. Never showing contempt for their actions. The only similarity between these two characters is that they are surrounded in green: the Knight and his clothes and horse, Bombadill in the forest.
According to the article by Macrobius, he seems to think that dreams are not that important and that they are not even worth interpreting because they have "no prophetic significance. Tolkien shows a much differnt view of dreams in The Fellowship of the Ring. Dreams to the characters in this book are very important, and are worth looking into deeper. Dreams show them what they may and may not need to do, or what will be the best thing for them at that time. Marcrobius sees dreams as silly things that we do while we slumber just to worry over them, where as to Tolkien they are the reason his characters to some of the things they do, because they dreamed it.
While it’s true that Tom Bombadil and the Green Knight are both magically invincible nature characters with a penchant for bright colors and dramatic entrances (and what stage presence!), it is the differences between these characters that interest me most. The most pronounced contrast between Bombadil and the Green Knight is demonstrated by their respective demeanors and the effects that they have upon the characters around them.
Bombadil is a merry little guy who sings silly songs and befriends the hobbits. When they are within the borders of his forest, he is always available to help them out of a jam. They feel so safe and content at his home that they regret having to leave. In contrast, the Green Knight creates a sobering presence when he enters King Arthur’s court. He isn’t there to offer assistance, but to demand that someone play a sinister life-and-death game with him. Sir Gawain steps up because no one else was willing to do so, and if no one else had volunteered, that would mean that Arthur himself would be honor-bound to step forward. The tone of the story lacks the light-hearted and friendly nature that is displayed in “Fellowship” scenes involving Bombadil.
I can’t help but wonder to what extent these differences reflect the time periods in which the stories were written. Perhaps the sinister persona of the Green Knight, to some extent, arises from life in a less-technologically advanced era in which human beings were much more at the mercy of natural forces. It seems possible that Tolkien’s benign version of nature is influenced by experiencing life in a technological age in which people feel a sense of control over nature. The circumstances of one’s environment can have a profound effect on perception, often unconsciously and despite personal politics.
Post a Comment