Adonc, je ne spéculerai pas plus sur la nature ou l'origine de Tom Bombadil. Sur le plan interne au roman, je crois avoir déjà donné mon opinion ailleurs et n'ai pas vu d'argument susceptible de m'en faire changer. Sur le plan externe, je trouve Tolkien suffisamment explicite (y compris dans la variété de ses explications) pour n'avoir pas grand-chose à rajouter.
Néanmoins, puisque je parcours actuellement les lettres non collectées de Tolkien pour d'autres raisons, linguistiques, comme souvent, je signalerai ici une nouvelle référence à Tom dans une lettre envoyée à Nevill Coghill le 21 août 1954 , au cas où elle n'ait pas été connue de Hyarion ou des autres membres du forum :
[citation=Cité sur le site de Hammond & Scull]But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making, Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists. But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can ‘fall’, and that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy the whole earth, and Bombadil and all.[/citation]
Pas franchement différent de ce que Tolkien en dit par ailleurs, mais peut-être un peu plus explicite.
[séparation]
On trouvera une formulation encore un peu différente et peut-être plus explicite encore dans un extrait d'une lettre à Christopher Fettes écrite en 1961 et citée dans The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, où il répond une fois encore à un questionnement portant sur le fait que Bombadil et Treebeard semblent tous les deux être considérés comme les plus vieilles créatures vivantes :
[citation]I think there are two answers; (i) External (ii) Internal; according to (i) Bombadil just came into my mind independently and got swept up into the growing stream of The Lord of the Rings. The original poem about him, in the curious rhythm which characterizes him, appeared in the Oxford Magazine at some time not long before the war. According to (ii), I have left him where he is and not attempted to clarify his position, first of all because I like him and he has at any rate a satisfyingly geographical home in the lands of The Lord of the Rings; but more seriously because in any world or universe devised imaginatively (or imposed simply upon the actual world) there is always some element that does not fit and opens as it were a window into some other system. You will notice that though the Ring is a serious matter and has great power for all the inhabitants of the world of The Lord of the Rings, even the best and most holy, it does not touch Tom Bombadil at all. So Bombadil is ‘fatherless’, he has no historical origin in the world described in The Lord of the Rings.[/citation]
On notera qu'ici Tolkien n'aborde pas la question de l'ancienneté de Treebeard, contrairement à la lettre que j'avais précédemment citée, mais bien la nature de Bombadil, du point de vue interne et externe.
E.
Néanmoins, puisque je parcours actuellement les lettres non collectées de Tolkien pour d'autres raisons, linguistiques, comme souvent, je signalerai ici une nouvelle référence à Tom dans une lettre envoyée à Nevill Coghill le 21 août 1954 , au cas où elle n'ait pas été connue de Hyarion ou des autres membres du forum :
[citation=Cité sur le site de Hammond & Scull]But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making, Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists. But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can ‘fall’, and that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy the whole earth, and Bombadil and all.[/citation]
Pas franchement différent de ce que Tolkien en dit par ailleurs, mais peut-être un peu plus explicite.
[séparation]
On trouvera une formulation encore un peu différente et peut-être plus explicite encore dans un extrait d'une lettre à Christopher Fettes écrite en 1961 et citée dans The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, où il répond une fois encore à un questionnement portant sur le fait que Bombadil et Treebeard semblent tous les deux être considérés comme les plus vieilles créatures vivantes :
[citation]I think there are two answers; (i) External (ii) Internal; according to (i) Bombadil just came into my mind independently and got swept up into the growing stream of The Lord of the Rings. The original poem about him, in the curious rhythm which characterizes him, appeared in the Oxford Magazine at some time not long before the war. According to (ii), I have left him where he is and not attempted to clarify his position, first of all because I like him and he has at any rate a satisfyingly geographical home in the lands of The Lord of the Rings; but more seriously because in any world or universe devised imaginatively (or imposed simply upon the actual world) there is always some element that does not fit and opens as it were a window into some other system. You will notice that though the Ring is a serious matter and has great power for all the inhabitants of the world of The Lord of the Rings, even the best and most holy, it does not touch Tom Bombadil at all. So Bombadil is ‘fatherless’, he has no historical origin in the world described in The Lord of the Rings.[/citation]
On notera qu'ici Tolkien n'aborde pas la question de l'ancienneté de Treebeard, contrairement à la lettre que j'avais précédemment citée, mais bien la nature de Bombadil, du point de vue interne et externe.
E.