The Egg

Discussions in Middle-earth lore, language and books.
Post Reply
Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
My thread today is on one of Tolkien's sources, not on Tolkien's own writings as such. Is it a valid lore post? I am talking about Chapter 6 of Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty. Tolkien does reference Humpty directly at his very moment of fantastic definition in the white hot heart of 'On Fairy-stories':
For my present purpose I require a word which shall embrace both the Sub-creative Art in itself and a quality of strangeness and wonder in the Expression, derived from the Image: a quality essential to fairy-story. I propose, therefore, to arrogate to myself the powers of Humpty-Dumpty, and to use Fantasy for this purpose...
But as i've recently clocked while in the Shire, humpty is also winking at us in Gollum's cave, and maybe throughout The Hobbit. And I will confess that prior to posting my humpty riddle i had not fully fathomed how this was so.

So the first thing i want to suggest is that it seems to me, peering at this, that it is thanks to Lewis Carroll that we see so clearly that humpty dumpty = an egg. Looking up Humpty on Wiki you find a general sense that the nursery rhyme is a riddle for an egg, but nobody is quite sure and lots of other explanations of the rhyme are proposed. But when we follow Alice we discover Carroll's ruminations on the riddle. Let's start with @Drifa's helpful definition:
A riddle is a statement, question or phrase having a double or veiled meaning, put forth as a puzzle to be solved. Riddles are of two types: enigmas, which are problems generally expressed in metaphorical or allegorical language that requires ingenuity and careful thinking for their solution, and conundra, which are questions relying on their effects on punning in either the question or the answer. :googly:
So a box without hinges, key or lid with golden treasure inside hid = the enigma type. And the nursery rhyme = another engima with the same solution. Tolkien frames the egg in its simplest, purest form. Carroll's play on the egg begins:
HOWEVER, the egg only got larger and larger, and more and more human: when she had come within a few yards of it, she saw that it had eyes and a nose and mouth; and, when she had come close to it, she saw clearly that it was HUMPTY DUMPTY himself. 'It can't be anybody else!' she said to herself. 'I'm as certain of it, as if his name were written all over his face!'

It might have been written a hundred times, easily, on that enormous face. Humpty Dumpty was sitting, with his legs crossed like a Turk, on the top of a high wall — such a narrow one that Alice quite wondered how he could keep his balance — and, as his eyes were steadily fixed in the opposite direction, and he didn't take the least notice of her, she thought he must be a stuffed figure, after all.

'And how exactly like an egg he is!' she said aloud, standing with her hands ready to catch him, for she was every moment expecting him to fall.

'It's very provoking,' Humpty Dumpty said after a long silence, looking away from Alice as he spoke, 'to be called an egg — very!'

'I said you looked like an egg, Sir,' Alice gently explained.
So, that very first bit - the egg gets larger and larger as Alice sees what/who it is. This is a picture of 'getting' a riddle, no? Only, as we are 'through the looking glass' Alice gets it backwards - she starts with the egg and arrives at the nursery rhyme! And then we get a key indication of the relationship between the answer and a real egg - 'like' and 'looked like', as if a name was written on a face. I think something here is vital for the way the minds of both Oxford scholars worked - this use of 'seeing' for something queer happening with words. With both riddles - the nursery rhyme and the hingeless box - one 'gets' the riddle when one 'sees' that the words enigmatically describe an egg; but on the other hand, appearances are recognized as deceptive, it is all about looking, appearing, seeming like...

And a second thing. On my thread on Proper Names for @Romeran, i discuss the logicians John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell. I do believe that Mill gives us the royal road to The Hobbit. But obviously, to the extent that J.R.R. Tolkien was engaging with a logician it was Charles Dodgson aka Lewis Carroll (incidentally, Carroll's The Game of Logic was by far and away the best pandemic home education book i set my kids). We can indeed frame the question of proper names in the dry terms of debate between Mill and Russell - 'Does a proper name have meaning?' - but to seek the tradition in which Tolkien's imagination worked we would do much better dwelling on this chapter.
'My name is Alice, but —'

'It's a stupid name enough!' Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. 'What does it mean?'

'Must a name mean something?' Alice asked doubtfully.

'Of course it must,' Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: 'my name means the shape I am — and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.'
And there is so much more... :) But you gotta read the Humpty Dumpty for yourselves before we can make an omelet. I'll leave you with some more...
'Why do you sit out here all alone?' said Alice, not wishing to begin an argument.

'Why, because there's nobody with me!' cried Humpty Dumpty. 'Did you think I didn't know the answer to that? Ask another.'

'Don't you think you'd be safer down on the ground?' Alice went on, not with any idea of making another riddle, but simply in her good-natured anxiety for the queer creature. 'That wall is so very narrow!'

'What tremendously easy riddles you ask!' Humpty Dumpty growled out. 'Of course I don't think so! Why, if ever I did fall off — which there's no chance of — but if I did —' Here he pursed up his lips, and looked so solemn and grand that Alice could hardly help laughing. 'If I did fall,' he went on, 'the King has promised me — ah, you may turn pale, if you like! You didn't think I was going to say that, did you? The King has promised me — with his very own mouth — to — to —'
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Loremaster of the Herd
Points: 1 564 
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:18 am
I really like your tracking of this element. I had a cohesive thought when I first saw it ... but after a couple of hours at work, it's totally escaped me.

I'll come back if it comes back to me, but for now ... this is very interesting. I like the idea of tracking one connection like this.
In the deeps of Time, amidst the Innumerable Stars

Mahal
Mahal
Points: 3 819 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:32 pm
I really can't remember but, did Alice meet the egg (Humpty Dumpty) before or after she ate the mushroom?

Image
The world was fair in Durin's Day.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
@Drifa, the mushroom is in Wonderland and the egg in Looking Glass. However, i feel you are laughing at me and suggest that the order of Alice's acts might go: meet the egg; eat the mushroom; pose a riddle with an unbreakable lock, eh?

@Androthelm, thanks! the post was a bit of a Eureka moment. identifying a source is not always easy, but here there were three or four strands of thread that all came together. i did a follow up on the inspiration for hobbits thread, picking only one strand. to others the continuity of this one strand may appear opaque but i have no doubt that Humpty's account of an "unbirthday present" is discernible both in the (original) Riddles in the Dark and in the Long-expected party: the first time the magic ring, which Gollum received as a birthday present, is 'gifted' by him to Bilbo as an unbirthday present (the ring is Gollum's stake in the game),* and in the sequel the passing on of the magic ring follows a mass giving of unbirthday presents - which have now become birthday presents with the synthesis achieved by the inspired idea that hobbits give gifts to others on their birthday.

Also, of course, the very idea of 'What have i got in my pocket?' as a riddle seems to pick up Humpty's notion that all of Alice's questions are riddles.

PS. *Reading this post over after I posted I saw that all I have done here, in some way, is introduce another banana skin because it seems almost impossible for anyone today to actually 'read' the 1937 story of the Riddle Game - i don't mean literally read the first edition so much as properly picture it to oneself and allow it to eclipse the version that is seared into our brains - when the magic ring is the One Ring. This 'Riddles in the Dark' chapter is indeed a great part of LOTR but it is an alien element in The Hobbit, an act of literary vandalism that has almost utterly obscured the original conception of the story. So, I've spent half a decade entering the 1937 story (and deeming LOTR and the 2nd edition Hobbit 'uncanonical'), and from where I stand, at least, the riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum fits nicely with Humpty and Alice.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Newborn of Imladris
Points: 792 
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 10:25 am
:rofl:
Remembering halfir by learning something new each day

Loremaster of the Herd
Points: 1 564 
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:18 am
Chrysophylax Dives wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:22 am
PS. *Reading this post over after I posted I saw that all I have done here, in some way, is introduce another banana skin because it seems almost impossible for anyone today to actually 'read' the 1937 story of the Riddle Game...
Amen to that. I've been listening to a tolkien podcast recently and their..... tendency, lets call it, to read greater connection into the structure of the Legendarium than is really present in-Hobbit text is... frustrating, to say the least.
In the deeps of Time, amidst the Innumerable Stars

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Hmm, i see from the replies of @Drifa and @Saranna that i rather shot myself in the foot posting this on April Fools Day. And now you too @Androthelm. So a brief statement and then i think i will shut up about The Hobbit.

The Hobbit (1937) is not part of the legendarium; it becomes so when its heart (the riddle game) is cut out and replaced by the text that you know. I am not interested in this desecration; my concern for over five years has been to understand the original story. Around a year ago I worked out most of what was going on by way of identifying two key but overlooked sources. Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty is a third source, the identification of which i think completes my inquiry (though i still need to check it all hangs together). However, i have been banging on about The Hobbit on here for so long to absolutely zero effect and so will now draw a curtain on this side of my Tolkien interests.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 2 817 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:24 am
To make a short remark, I have no interest in Humpty at all. The story never interested me. I won't imply it is a bad tale or so, but things as talking eggs don't play in my imagination. I love Tolkien's stories for what they are.
Just call me Aiks or Aikári. Notify is off.
Find me stuff in Gondolin.
And let us embark to Valinor!

Newborn of Imladris
Points: 792 
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 10:25 am
Posted by @Chrysophylax Dives

The Hobbit (1937) is not part of the legendarium; it becomes so when its heart (the riddle game) is cut out and replaced by the text that you know. I am not interested in this desecration; my concern for over five years has been to understand the original story. Around a year ago I worked out most of what was going on by way of identifying two key but overlooked sources. Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty is a third source, the identification of which i think completes my inquiry (though i still need to check it all hangs together). However, i have been banging on about The Hobbit on here for so long to absolutely zero effect and so will now draw a curtain on this side of my Tolkien interests.

Saranna's reply:
I had no idea it was April Fool's day, my life at the moment is clouding the most basic things. And this shows the dangers of responding by emoticon alone, I was trying to express sympathy with your view in a not very effective way.

To be clear - I agree with what your paragraph above says - obviously the hobbit was altered to fit the needs of the Lord of the Rings, and although only one chapter was affected, the two versions do fall apart from one another so that the original is not part of the Legendarium and the second edition is only made so by the willed acceptance of the reader. If I haven't grasped your elucidation of the sources you propose for 1937 I apologise; life is fraught this year.
Remembering halfir by learning something new each day

Mahal
Mahal
Points: 3 819 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:32 pm
@Saranna :smooch: Sending good vibes your way..

@Chrysophylax Dives I was not making fun of you or your post. Although, my post is somewhat humorous. :smile: It is all way above my head, and I have never read Through The Looking Glass, so I was unaware that Humpty Dumpty was even a character in Alice and Wonderland. :embarrassed:

In the 1937 1st edition, were the riddles similar to the revised version of The Hobbit? I have read some facts on why the Riddles In The Dark chapter was altered but have not found any other writings on the original version. Gollum was not a deranged creature, and the ring was the prize for winning the game. But were the riddles the same?
The world was fair in Durin's Day.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
@Saranna and @Drifa, i apologize for my grumpiness. I get grumpy sometimes because of the culture whereby if you post a story that you penned in five minutes everyone gushes at how wonderful it is whereas if you post an idea that took you five years to work out people either ignore it or attack it.

Drifa, the riddles were the same, including the comment on the egg riddle that Bilbo "had not asked it in the usual words."

To atone for my grumpiness, here is a passage from the original:
I don't know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo's pardon. He kept on saying: "We are ssory; we didn't mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only pressent, if it won the competition." He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

New Soul
Points: 2 817 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:24 am
Saranna: I am sorry to learn real life is not going that well for you as you would be wishing for. I missed the whole 1st April joke as well, so you're not alone there. Life is neither real easy for me, but I hope it is nothing majorly serious with you, and that all settle for you in better ways, hopefully. (I don't know and you're not obligued to share :smooch: ). Take care though and echoing Drifa's words, some good vibes as well. :heart:
Just call me Aiks or Aikári. Notify is off.
Find me stuff in Gondolin.
And let us embark to Valinor!

Newborn of Imladris
Points: 792 
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 10:25 am
@Chrysophylax Dives @Drifa @Aikári Salmarinian

I hope we now all understand our own misconceptions about who was saying what - it's still the case that a thread on a website really doesn't work like a conversation and it's easy to 'lose the thread' of the points made as the thing gets longer. I shall never again use a laughter emoticon without checking to be sure it's not April Fool's Day! And although we always mean to read every previous post, we all know there are times when we don't, which can also be irritating to whoever started the thread.

Grumpy!? I bet I can outgrump you any day, @Chrysophylax Dives - you should hear me slating quiz show contestants who don't know nuffin!
Remembering halfir by learning something new each day

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Saranna wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 9:10 am To be clear - I agree with what your paragraph above says - obviously the hobbit was altered to fit the needs of the Lord of the Rings, and although only one chapter was affected, the two versions do fall apart from one another so that the original is not part of the Legendarium and the second edition is only made so by the willed acceptance of the reader. If I haven't grasped your elucidation of the sources you propose for 1937 I apologise; life is fraught this year.
That is perfectly framed. Oddly, the hiding of the original story in the second edition in some way complements the 'riddle' nature of the original story, the 'solution' of which is now hid so cunningly that subsequent readers will walk over it without noticing...

@Saranna, I am truly sorry for my grumpy response. Life at my end has also its ups and downs. I had a :brickwall: moment when i read @Androthelm's comment, which was stupid, on my part, because posting the Egg, which is a riddle, on April 1, is obviously a riddle in the dark - and as such, as I have learned from @Drifa, master riddler of the plaza, intended in part to distract and send readers off in partly wrong directions.

Still, I think Humpty is a solution, of sorts, to that element of Middle-earth that is born in The Hobbit, as I'll try to point out in a reply to Androthelm on his Tom Bombadil essay thread.

In the meanwhile, I've dedicated some idle moments to searching Google books for Humpty and riddle, which has been more of an eye-opener and no mistake. Here is a quotation:
Alice... neatly evades Humpty Dumpty's attempt to engage her in a riddling contest. Her instincts are wise enough to know that you are better off keeping right outside a riddler's terms and frame of thought. The inside-outside trope of enigma can be its most dangerous. The best riddle-answers turn the question back on the questioner. They resemble the well-known Zen Buddhist dialogue:

Disciple: Can a dog have a Buddha-nature?
Master: Bow-wow.
So, you see, response by single emoticon or by referencing a mushroom are correct, at least from a hobbit point of view (the Dwarf has the instincts of a Bilbo Baggins).
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Hi @Saranna, in my Google books reading I came upon a riddle composed by Queen Victoria and thought of you :) Its not exactly a riddle, at least half a crossword puzzle. Anyone is welcome to guess (though you can no doubt obtain the answer by googling Queen Vic's riddle).

The INITIALS of the following places form the name of a town in England, and the FINALS (read upwards) what that town is famous for.

A city in Italy.
A river in Germany.
A town in the United States.
A town in North America.
A town in Holland.
The Turkish name for Constantinople.
A town in Bothnia.
A city in Greece.
A circle on the globe.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
From the Introduction to Patrick J. Murphy, Unriddling the Exeter Riddles (2011):
The very shortest text of the Exeter Book, Riddle 69, is a mere one-liner. It reads:
Wundor wearð on wege—wæter wearð to bane!

[There was a wonder along the way—water became bone!]
What is the answer? No one can say with certainty, for the Exeter riddles, unlike most of their Latin counterparts, come to us without supplied solutions. This circumstance has shaped their reception, for scholars have been racking their wits to solve these texts for nearly two hundred years, rarely agreeing on anything.

Let us agree in this case, however, that the answer to Riddle 69 must involve ice. We might then ask what this solution does. Among other things, the solution snaps the text into sudden focus and reveals the great wonder of a commonplace thing. This sense of the miraculous in the mundane is at the heart of Old English riddling. Many Exeter riddles begin with the formulaic observation:
Is þes middangeard missenlicum / wisum gewlitegad, wrættum gefrætwad

[This middle earth is beautified in a variety of ways, decked out with ornaments]
- a lavish preface for texts describing the features of a common rake, bell, well, or book. Often animated or lent a voice to speak its own story—in accordance with long-standing conventions of riddling—each of these uninspiring items is defined as a wunderlicu wiht, a wondrous creature, something rich and strange.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Dialogue with Pippin

What is a wonder? I saw a man standing; a dead man walking who never existed. How could this be?

- A reflection in water.


Pippin is the son of Charlemagne; the dialogue is composed in the 8th century by Alcuin (master at York) and teacher of Pippin. The scholar questions and the boy answers.

EDIT: I wonder if there is a shade of this riddle when the gaze of the hobbit Pippin is caught in the Stone of Orthanc?
Last edited by Chrysophylax Dives on Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
In riddles where egg yolks are described as 'golden treasure,' the eaters of the eggs become 'thieves' who 'break in and steal the gold'... (Murphy, Unriddling the Exeter Riddles, p. 46)
This presents a nice way of framing the transformation of The Hobbit between editions one and two. In the second story, Smeagol teaching his grandmother to sucks eggs is the thief; but Bilbo Baggins actually steals the property of Gollum - a suitable passing of the One Ring and reason for the hobbit to invent an elaborate "lie". The new riddle games fits the sequel nicely; it just upsets the whole balance of the original story!

In the first edition, all is quite different in Gollum's doorless cave. Gollum is indeed a monster, and means what he says when he proposes to eat Bilbo if he loses the riddle game. But as we sit and watch and begin to grasp that "the present" that Gollum offers as his stake is the ring already in the hobbit's pocket, it is Bilbo Baggins who is fingered as the thief and yet walks free out of the goblin tunnels without a blemish on his good name.

From Gollum's perspective, a strange creature armed with a sword has stepped into his home and, unbeknown to Gollum, has his only present in its pocket - a burglar! But because of the intricate set up of the scene, when Gollum fails to guess that the hobbit is an armed burglar he gifts his property to Bilbo and the hobbit is not a thief - though it was a close thing, he wins the ring from Gollum and does not burgle him.

The original focus on the hobbit as the thief who is stealing the golden treasure (already in his pocket) rescues the coherency of the story, with the queer sign on the door that means 'burglar' and the misadventure with the trolls and the dwarves subsequent recognition of a 'first-class burglar' fitting snugly into place with the riddles in the dark.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Tree
Points: 4 777 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
@Saranna, and @Troelsfo next time you are back with us, so distinguishing between first and second editions of The Hobbit brings us to the argument over The Hobbit, Verlyn Flieger, and OFS that began last summer.

Troelsfo and Flieger do not like the story of Bilbo Baggins and read OFS as Tolkien's meditations on how to improve his telling of a fairy story, so he gets it right in LOTR. Both pinpoint various ways that the story prior to Lake Town does not read well. Troeslfo, for example, has said that he skips over the chapter 'Roast Mutton' with the trolls.

On the surface it might appear that I am disagreeing with their complaints. Actually, I believe their complaints arise naturally from the damage done to the story by the second edition revisions. So my complaint is rather that they think Tolkien capable of writing the incoherent story they complain about and do not stop to consider what the story originally was.

I get passionate about this because I see it, no doubt a bit hysterically, as victim shaming. Take a story, rip out its guts and stuff it, and then put the spotlight on the ruin and describe all the ways it is maimed. And this attitude to the ruined Hobbit story, rather than prompt inquiry into the original, invariably spurs dismissal of The Hobbit per se, a mere children's story from which we should not expect very much. Gah!
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Newborn of Imladris
Points: 792 
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 10:25 am
@Chrysophylax Dives I have read the last five posts with great interest and wish I had time to go into the whole thing further; sadly at the moment I can't, but will continue to monitor :smile:
Remembering halfir by learning something new each day

High Lord of Imladris
Points: 5 256 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:53 am
I do like that there are visual cues in terms of the riddles and eggs I have to admit I've only ever read through the Looking glass and it was quite some time ago and I'll admit most of it is completely gone now and I've not in the year I've lived here managed to get a library card (very sad I know) so I will need to reread it as well as get my hands on Wonderland if it exists here.

I find riddles especially in the hobbit to be quite fun tongue in cheek and if anything childish (the sort admittedly I'd throw at my DnD party and they'd have to take an insite/wisdom roll and get a hint from me as a GM because of course those would be the riddles to stump them) where as the riddles in LOTR I find are more, hints or play on words than true riddles like in the Hobbit though there are far more (at least to me as has been pointed out by others plays on words in terms of people being thieves and it's not the person describing themself a thief doing the main thieving!

Anyways I wanted to add something more meaning full than this next bit because I quite disliked that in the other egg hunt:

Found an egg.
Sereg a Dîn

Post Reply