# Leaf by Niggle



## Glamdring (Dec 12, 2001)

It's my humble opinion that "Leaf by Niggle" is the most poignant book of JRRT and is, in effect, an autobiography. JRRT was obsessed with LOTR and ME (much to our benefit) and, like Niggle, couldn't leave it alone. The "leaf" that he drew became a tree within a field which had a background and mountains and people.

Anyone else out there care to share their thoughts on this theory ?


----------



## Valinorean (Dec 21, 2001)

I just re-read that a few days ago, and with the fresh perspective of having finished JRRT's biography,

I agree that he poured some of his frustrations into Niggle's character, as he often did with his writing (read The Mewlips.)

I truly hope that he is in his own version of Niggle's Parish now, and that he is walking in the mountains of Middle-Earth.

I wonder, though, who were the Voices?


----------



## Eonwe (Jan 6, 2002)

We had to read it as part of HS english class. I remember thinking that when he said he spent so much time on each leaf that he didn't have enough time for the whole tree, I felt like that was the attention to detail (like a leaf might be all of the details involved in writing the history of Numenor. Can you imagine trying to write all of that up and organize it and put get it published into a book, keeping all of the details to jive with all of the other material?).

It is a great story, although I was a bit uncomfortable with the talk about purgatory (the work he had to do to get into heaven), it hit too close to home


----------



## Dol Amroth (Jan 7, 2002)

I agree completely that Niggle is one of the most refreshing and thoughtful pieces of writing ever accomplished by JRR Tolkien. There is clearly a great deal in it which is autobiographical, but in a more general sense it is very relevent for us all. It's not only poignent, but I also happen to think that the writing is Tolkien at his scintillating best. it demonstrates his abilities as, fundamentally, a story teller. the narrative voice is incredible: light-hearted, yet tender and he deals with his material in gentle manner. The whole thing is in the style of a mock-epic, but unlike most pieces of the sort, it doesn't belittle it's subject matter. It recognises the smallness of the events with which it deals ( hence the name "Niggle"), but doesn't criticise or condemn them. In their own way, the characters and events are as important as anything else, and Tolkien treats them as that, whilst maintaining a sense of perspective.
Incidently, without wishing to turn to far from the subject, somebody mentioned Tolkien's biography. I'm not sure which one they were refering to, but I have to say that Humphrey Carpenters one is simply phenomenal. It reads like a story itself, and isn't caught up on tiny irrelevent details about where Tolkien went to dinner on the 23rd July 1924, but deals with the important matters in a style which makes it a pleasure to read. Deffinately to be recomended to anybody who hasn't already read it. A very fitting tribute to the man himself. And also very moving in places.


----------



## Turgon (Jul 20, 2002)

Leaf by Niggle is a beautiful little book - I've read it many times, and like it a lot. An allegory? By Tolkien? Gasp! But yes - I guess in someways it can be seen as autobiographical of Tolkien's unending work on the Silmarillion.


----------



## Aragorn*9 (Aug 10, 2002)

I've heard of it, but I havn't read it and don't really know what it's about.
Can someone shine some light on the subject without spoiling it for me?
Thanks.
Julie


----------



## FarahSlax (Aug 18, 2002)

I remember I thought it was his best non-ME story. That was
30 years ago, and had actually completely forgotten it til you
brought it up. Thanks!


----------



## gate7ole (Sep 17, 2002)

Can anybody describe in a few words what this book is about and if it is worth bying it?


----------



## menchu (Nov 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Turgon _
> *Leaf by Niggle is a beautiful little book - I've read it many times, and like it a lot. An allegory? By Tolkien? Gasp! But yes - I guess in someways it can be seen as autobiographical of Tolkien's unending work on the Silmarillion. *



Would you say Tolkien is just Niggle or...?


----------



## menchu (Dec 5, 2002)

Don't you see a part of him within Mr. Parrish? The inner fight that Tolkien could have had involving his artistic facet against his educational role at university forcing him to be in a continuos uneasiness until, at some stage of his life, these two parts of his person balance...

Is there any information on how long it took him to write it? Anybody knows... please?


----------



## menchu (Dec 7, 2002)

...And what your acquaintances do will become a part of you in time...  I suppose that's the way it all started, since it was Lewis who 
encouraged him to keep on writing.

Thanks for the quote.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 13, 2002)

*I haven't read leaf by niggle*

I'll go and get it out of the library and post my thoughts later.


----------



## tom_bombadil (Jan 15, 2003)

*Leaf by Niggle". In Tree and Leaf*

Has anyone else read this story i can't rember it much but from what i can rember I found ita brilliant story


----------



## redline2200 (Jan 16, 2003)

I have a copy of the story but I have not read because I never got around to it. Is it good? Do you recommend I read it?


----------



## tom_bombadil (Jan 17, 2003)

It is actually a very good story I would read it i think itsa good story which embodies all the charecteristics of a good book


----------



## Finduilas (Jan 17, 2003)

I have the book but I still haven't had time to read it.
Tell me what it is about?
Is it easy to read?


----------



## 33Peregrin (Jan 18, 2003)

I cannot find that book! I look wherever I go, but it's not there. It's not at any library, and I believe I even looked at Amazon and could not find it! I really want to read it.http://www.beastybunny.com/lotr/billy/misc/index.htm

oops... I don't know what that is..........


----------



## jallan (Jan 18, 2003)

The book _Tree and Leaf_ which contains the story "Leaf by Niggle" is currently out of print as a single book.

But it is all included in an anthology of shorter works by J.R.R. Tolkien called  _The Tolkien Reader_. In this form it is in print.

The anthology also contains _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_, the only inclusion that is part of Tolkien's Middle-earth tales.


----------



## 33Peregrin (Jan 19, 2003)

Thanks! I wanted to get The Tolkien Reader too... I mean I 've seen that before. I also wanted to get The Adventures of Tom Bombadill. Thanks!

I've been looking for Niggle for a while now, and finally found it in The Tolkien reader that I had had on hold for at least a month now. I found the story wonderful. It is not the kind you will remember very surely, but the kind of enchantment you can escape into, if only for a little while. I am looking forward to reading it again one day. It is still very fresh on my mind, having just read it today. While I read it, I really felt as if I was there, inside of Niggle's painting, and the image is in my mind.


----------



## 33Peregrin (Jan 29, 2003)

I read "Leaf by Niggle" today. I really liked it. It was one of those stories that you won't really remember till you read it again years later, but it is like a small enchanting escape, if only for a short while.


----------



## Frodorocks (Mar 1, 2003)

*Tree by Niggle*

Has anyone ever read Tree by Niggle? Do you think that the world Niggle created in his painting and later went to was really the afterlife? I think that whole journey that he knew was coming but never really was prepared for was really his death. And when he was held in that place with the voices he was in a kind of a limbo, kind of like the Greek underworld where they decide whether to put you into the Alesian Fields or Tartarus.


----------



## jallan (Mar 2, 2003)

The story is “Leaf by Niggle’'.

Considering Tolkien’s own religious beliefs, the afterlife realms are to be considered versions of purgatory and heaven (for the mountains).

This tale seems rather allegorical for a story by someone who claimed to dislike allegory.

However, in _Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, letter 98, we find:


> I woke up one morning (more than 2 years ago) with that odd thing virtually complete in my head. It took only a few hours to get down, and then copy out. I am not aware of ever ‘thinking’ of the story or composing it in the ordinary sense.


Apparently part of his mind had no problems with allegories.

But indeed, the allegory in this tale is so transparent that it is more a parable than an allegory.

It obviously expresses Tolkien’s fears that his vision, as expressed in his legendarium, and in _The Lord of the Rings_, will indeed never be completed, never be appreciated, and it is party his fault as he niggles at things too much, is not good a making organized use of his time.

In fact, however, Niggle in the story has it far worse than did Tolkien.

Tolkien’s _The Hobbit_ had achieved great critical and popular success (which meant a sequel ought to be publishable) and his _Farmer Giles of Ham_ was reasonably successful, while Niggle has aparently achieved no success at all with his paintings.

But then the tale, though derived from his own experience, need not exactly parallel to his own experience.


----------



## jallan (Mar 9, 2003)

I just saw it in a store today.

It seems it is indeed back in print again.


----------



## Aulë (Mar 22, 2003)

I just read _Leaf By Niggle_ the other day.
It was a part of a book called "Tales from the Perilous Realm" which also contains _Smith of Wootton Major_, _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_ and _Farmer Giles of Ham_.

LBN was by far the most confusing out of the four. Before I read this thread I had no idea what Tolkien was going on about when he wrote it. 

I loved FGOH though.


----------



## Halasían (Mar 25, 2003)

I saw this book in a bookstore Saturday, and I always wanted to read it. I will have to make a note to get it at the local library.


----------



## Aulë (Mar 25, 2003)

*wonders why this isn't in the other 'Leaf By Niggle' thread...*


----------



## Niniel (Apr 5, 2003)

I just read Leaf by Niggle yesterday, and I really loved it! After the first page I realized this was al about Tolkien himself; he was very anxious to get all his mythological works finished, but because he had too may other duties he could never get anything done. Read his Letters; how older JRRT gets, the more desperate he is that he will get it finished. I really hope he is satisfied by what Chris Tolkien did.


----------



## Aulë (Apr 5, 2003)

Niniel, did you buy the book, "Tales From the Perilous Realm"?


----------



## Niniel (Apr 6, 2003)

Yes- was it that obvious?


----------



## Aulë (Apr 6, 2003)

Well, I just put two and two together....

I bought it a month ago, and since you started threads about LBN and FGOH I just took a guess.

What did you think of _Smith of Wootton Major_ and _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_?


----------



## Niniel (Apr 6, 2003)

Smith of Wootton Major was beautiful, I think I liked it even better than Farmer Giles. Tom Bombadil was strange; he (or trolls for that matter) never interseted me very much in LOTR; and besides many of the poems were not about Bombadil at all. But there were some poems in it that I did like, e.g. The Hoard and The Sea-Bell, though I never have been a great fan of poetry.


----------



## Aulë (Apr 6, 2003)

Yes, I loved SOWM and FGOH. I rated them up with _The Hobbit_
TAOTB was rather confusing for me, as I am not a great fan of poetry. And LBN was very strange until I was told that it was based on Tolkien's life, and it all made sense suddenly.


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 9, 2003)

Hey, my mother brought me _Tales From the Perilous Realm_ from England only a week or two ago! I read the contents: and wow. Farmer Giles is very humorous and entertaining (see my signature ) and has some hints towards the larger worlds Tolkien was creating; but I really found the medieval English setting, with the Latin names, very refreshing and unexpected when you look at everything else Tolkien has written. (But I don't like how he kicks Dog around) 
Leaf by Niggle seems to be mostly symbolic, and especially the end gave me a very odd feeling, in a good way.. "They laughed." Wonderful stuff. 
And AoTB was marvelous! I didn't realize Tollers had written so much poetry.. And the Middle-earth red thread was eminent in most of the poems, with ELf-maidens and the like. And he sails up to the Hedge at one point, I think! 
But it's a wonderful collection; I recommend it to anybody who doesn't have it, and who hasn't (or has) read the stories inside.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 19, 2003)

I realised I had to read this story when I found out that Tolkien received it as a more or less complete download which he then copied out onto paper. Clearly it was inspired.

I finally got round to reading Leaf by Niggle today (I read it out loud to my daughter who wasn't feeling well). I immediately thought the large canvas was, as others have guessed, the middle earth story, continued in spite of constant interruptions - the wants and needs of others (including Parish = Academia). I see the picture as the Middle Earth stories in published order, not in the order Tolkien created ME. Hence, the leaf = The Hobbit; the tree = Lord of the Rings, then the background - forests, distant mountains - The Cosmogony and history that always seemed to need more work and never quite got finished.

The workhouse fits in with Tolkien's Catholicism as purgatory - the place where faults are purged. His guilt at never getting all those odd jobs finished or offering quite the amount of support he thought he owed to others (look at the number of apologies in his letters).

Finally, Niggle meets up with Parish in a more pleasant purgatorial resting place (Niggle's canvas realised, with Parish's cottage in it). There they apply what they learned in the workhouse and learn to appreciate one another properly (I suspect Tolkien was a little hurt by the dismissive attitude of some of his peers to his commercial success, the same way Parish never looked at the canvas).

After Niggle journeyed on to meet the guide who took him on to the farthest moutains (the blessed realm?), First and Second Voice discuss the merits of Niggle's canvas and how it turned out to be of benefit to so many others sent there. This is, to me, a picture of how Tolkien's writings, especially on Middle Earth, have helped and inspired others to gain a spiritual and ecological (I use that word for economy - I wish I could think of a better) perspective in their own lives. 

And how lovely that Niggle and Parish should laugh when they are told.


----------



## jallan (Apr 20, 2003)

If “Leaf by Niggle” is to be taken as partly allegorical, then the original leaf would more likely be something like Tolkien’s early Eärendel poem.

_The Hobbit_ fits better as one of the things of which it is said of Niggle that:


> ... he took them and tacked them on to the edges of his great picture.


Remember, at the time Tolkien wrote “Leaf by Niggle” he was only starting _The Lord of the Rings_ and still felt it and _The Hobbit_ to be peripheral addendums to his main legendarium.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 21, 2003)

Tolkien received Leaf by Niggle as a complete story. I believe it was a prophetic picture of Tolkien's own life. The reason I say the leaf is 'the Hobbit' is because it is 'home' (or the home square on a game board). Bilbo's surroundings were, by Tolkien's admission, village Warwickshire before it got spoiled.

Journeying on, we take in the whole tree - Middle Earth as at the Third Age. Bilbo (then Frodo) journeyed out from 'the leaf' and their knowledge spread out to the rest of the tree. From the tree, gaps between the branches showed the far trees of the wider forest and, glimpsed at a distance, the mountains. This speaks to me of Beleriand, and access to Valinor - which looked even more likely when he was met by the 'guide'.

This is just the impression I received as I was reading the book. I'm sure if I 'analysed' everything, I could arrive at a cleverer conclusion, but first impressions are lasting impressions, as the song goes...


----------



## jallan (Apr 21, 2003)

Yet “Leaf by Niggle”, though obviously echoing concerns that Tolkien had about his own artistic endeavors and his inability to complete them, is not especially an exact copy of Tolkien’s life.

If it were, Niggle would have had commerical success with a print made from one of the side-pictures attached to the canvas, would have painted another such side picture intended originally to be of the same type, but which grew almost of its own accord into a picture almost as large as the incompleted originally to which it was connected, and the prints of that new picture would have been even more successful, phenominally successful, making Niggle a wealthy man, free to concentrate almost entirely on his original main picture.

Niggle would then have discovered that he still _could_ not complete it to his satisfaction.

But when Niggle did go on his journey, he would have left behind a stupendously successful body of work and an enormous reputation.

In any case, though the “mountains” in the pictures are certainly Valinor, Tolkien wrote about Valinor and Beleriand and such long before he ever conceived such a thing as a hobbit. 

If you are searching for the influence of Tolkien’s Warwickshire upbringing in his work, then recall that the Lonely Isle in his earliest writings is the island of Great Britain and that the Elvish heart of that island is _Mindon Gwar_, Warwick.

Tolkien later painted over this English identification, but by the time he wrote _The Hobbit_, the structure of Tolkien ’s legendarium was strongly established and much of it never changed.

_The Hobbit_ was not square one, but a late tale which Tolkien only somewhat frivolously related to his main legendarium which proved useful in providing background. At the time that “Tree and Leaf” came to Tolkien, he had little inkling of what would become of the sequel to _The Hobbit_, and was seemingly resigned to his Elvish legendarium remaining unpublished, mostly unknown, except for such parts as might be used as background to more commercial work.

From letter 19 (December 1937):


> I did not think any of the stuff I dropped on you filled the bill. But I did want to know whether any of the stuff had any exterior non-personal value. I think it is plain that quite apart from it, a sequel or successor to _The Hobbit_ is called for. I promise to give this thought and attention. But I am sure you will sympathize when I say that the construction of elaborate and consistent mythology (and two languages) rather occupies the mind, and the Silmarils are in my heart. So that goodness knows what will happen. Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional and inconsistent Grimm’s fairy-tale dwarves, and got drawn into the edge of it – so that even Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge. And what more can hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental. But the real fun about orcs and dragons (to my mind) was before their time. Perhaps a new (if similar) line? Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story? Or is he, as I suspect, fully enshrined in the enclosed verses? Still I could enlarge the portrait.


Letter 257 gives a far more detailed statement by Tolkien of the genesis of his legendarium, in part:


> The germ of my attempt to write legends of my own to fit my private languages was the tragic tale of the hapless Kullervo in the Finnish _Kalevala_. It remains a major matter in the legends of the First Age (which I hope to publish as _The Silmarillion_), though as ‘The Children of ’ it is entirely changed except in the tragic ending. The second point was the writing, ‘out of my head’, of the ‘Fall of Gondolin’, the story of Idril and Earendel (III 314), during sickleave from the army in 1917; and by the original version of the ‘Tale of Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren’ later in the same year. That was founded on a small wood with a great undergrowth of ‘hemlock’ (no doubt many other related plants were also there) near Roos in Holderness, where I was for a while on the Humber Garrison.
> <snip>
> I returned to Oxford in Jan 1926, and by the time _The Hobbit_ appeared (1937) this ‘matter of the Elder Days’ was in coherent form. _The Hobbit_ was not intended to have anything to do with it. I had the habit while my children were still young of inventing and telling orally, sometimes of writing down, ‘children’s stories’ for their private amusement – according to the notions I then had, and many still have, of what these should be like in style and attitude. None of these have been published. _The Hobbit_ was intended to be one of them. It had no necessary connexion with the ‘mythology’, but naturally became attracted towards this dominant construction in my mind, causing the tale to become larger and more heroic as it proceeded. Even so it could really stand quite apart, except for the references (unnecessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin, Puffin 57 (hardback 63); the branches of the Elfkin, P. 161 (hardback 173 or 178), and the quarrel of King Thingol, Lúthien's father, with the Dwarves, P. 162.


Whatever Tolkien was thinking about in respect to Niggle’s original “leaf caught in the wind”, it far predates anything connected with _The Hobbit_.

Of course, _The Hobbit_ itself sprang unexpectedly from an original statement that came to Tolkien:


> In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.


But _The Hobbit_ became a finished work, unlike Niggle’s great picture.

The original “leaf caught in the wind” may have been something as simple, perhaps a particular etymology in Tolkien’s invented languages that seemed to call for full story to explain it.

(But when and why did these languages themselves emerge as _Elvish_?)


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 22, 2003)

Yes, true, jallan, other works well pre-date The Hobbit. Middle Earth was first mooted in discussions between the TCBS in Sarehole, and if we're going to look for the true 'first leaf' in time, we can even go back to the "green great dragon".

However, my impression was not based on the first seeds in _time_ but in the first fruits of publication. Your above post is well considered and valid, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. What I'm posting is the _impression I gained_ while reading the story, and it was of the published history, not the chronology of the birth of Tolkien's stories - a personal interpretation, but I readily admit that it is not the only valid one.

The _published_ success began with The Hobbit, then LotR. Other publications were of minor public interest, and would never have made much money (I would class these works as the small canvases, tacked on to the edge, being not of Middle Earth).

Tolkien said the Hobbit was never meant to fit, but he also admitted that it did, and became, in fact, a major cog in the story (making him ever regret the 'childish' language used in its writing). I call it the first leaf not because it was written first, but because it was published first - and thus became the appetiser for LotR - the clamoured-for sequel. These two books are the ones that became the world that spoke into the hearts of millions of people and (in the words of Voice one and Voice two) made their purgatorial experience so purging of life's negative influences. Tolkien's other writings had less effect, except for those who took the further walk into the Silmarillion (the distant mountains in LbN).

It is true that LotR was Tolkien's bread and butter after his retirement (though Merton took over after Edith died), but he never really had the leisure that a successful author might have hoped for. Before he retired, University work was ever snapping at his heels and poor health (his own or Ediths) was ever a problem. 

After retirement Tolkien still found life intruding on art - writing ever shorter letters to unknown correspondents so he could get on with the Silmarillion (the distant lands), with health and home problems ever present and, even then, never finishing it to his satisfaction.

In Leaf by Niggle, the success of the canvas was in its true realisation after Niggle's 'journey'. Tolkien's work, far from being ignored, has had pre-purgatorial success in _this_ world. I think it was tacked to Parish's roof (in particular) because he represents those people who ignore faerie and dismiss it as irrelevant. In LbN, this prevented the work from being appreciated by anyone else, but in real life, of course, Tolkien's works _were_ published, but the Parishes of this world still exist, and still ignore faerie to their spiritual poverty.

In the end, only the leaf remained, and even that passed, as all things must. We cannot envisage a time when Tolkien's work is not available, but we cannot see all things. The tales of destruction in ME's history show Tolkien's thinking on those things that appear to be permanent. The leaf may yet pass into forgotten history, along with Niggle.

I am viewing this story from a different viewpoint from you, jallan; and I hope I've finally managed to convey what I'm getting at (a gift that often evades me).


----------



## jallan (Apr 22, 2003)

I understand what you are getting at, I think Eledhwen. I think when I first read “Leaf by Niggle” I also thought of _The Hobbit_ in reference to the original leaf, in those days before it became clear how much writing preceded _The Hobbit_ and how central that writing was to Tolkien and the actual psychological state Tolkien was in when he wrote “Leaf by Niggle”.

Indeed, _The Lord of the Rings_, which he was just beginning, was to him almost another of those interruptions that kept him from working on what he then saw as the central track of his legendarium.

Of course authors often don’t know where they are going and are too undisinterested to be able to look at their work objectively, if there is such a thing as objectivity in such matters.

Another minor motif in “Leaf by Niggle”, not stressed, is that even what Niggle has accomplished is lost in the real world, even the single spray of leaves preserved by Atkins.

How little Old English literature has survived, or how little even of Greek and Roman literature (and how few at all care!)


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 23, 2003)

I thought about Leaf by Niggle when I saw all those ancient manuscripts in Iraq, lying in smouldering ashes, and all the people who care were deeply shocked and said what a tragic loss it all was. There were mountains of the stuff - it must have been like the records in Minas Tirith - it took Gandalf nine years to find the piece of paper he was looking for, and it is probable that only two people other than Isildur ever read it.

It also touches on reading 1 and 2 Kings in the Bible, where at the end of every king's life it says something like "...and all the other great deeds of his life, are they not written in the annals of the kings?" I think Tolkien enjoyed putting Niggle's imagination - the picture as he imagined it - in a permanent home away from the destructive ignorance of the fallen world.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> *Eledhwen: Ain't that sad, all these early documents of the Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, etc. cultures now destroyed or lost ... *


Did anyone make copies of any of them, I wonder, for safe keeping outside Iraq (no doubt if they were copied onto local computers, those have gone). I suspect not. Saddam would not have anticipated his downfall (and may have destroyed everything in his wake if he did ... remember the previous Gulf War?). Like Sauron's Ring, he would have thought Iraq was wrapped around his finger.

Much of the loss (of information, not actual parchment) is, I fear, down to professional greed. I remember the trouble academics had in getting access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, because of the risk of an outsider making a great discovery. I think I remember that someone had to illicitly photograph them.

Thinks... how do I tie this post in with Leaf By Niggle? 
Sidles off quietly...


----------



## jallan (Apr 24, 2003)

Walter posted:


> What is still nagging me, though, is that Christopher Tolkien dates the writing of tree and leaf 1938-9, _"when the Lord of the Rings was beginning to unroll itself"_, whereas Carpenter dates it around 1943, when Tolkien seemed stuck with his work on the LotR.


Those were J.R.R. Tolkien’s words at the beginning of _Tree and Leaf_, not Christopher Tolkien’s, so the discrepency is between to accounts given by J.R.R. Tolkien..

I suspect the 1945 letter that dates it to _more than two years ago_ is more accurate than Tolkien’s introduction written for republication of the work in 1964.

Eledhwen posted:


> Much of the loss (of information, not actual parchment) is, I fear, down to professional greed. I remember the trouble academics had in getting access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, because of the risk of an outsider making a great discovery. I think I remember that someone had to illicitly photograph them.


There is a good summary of the history of the scrolls at The Dead Sea Scrolls.

Scholarship is filled with such stories of non-publication and restriction of access to the materials. Fortunately the opposite occurs at least as often, partly because most ancient texts are are of no interest outside of very small circles of academics and enthusiasts.

How much commentary will you find on J.R.R. Tolkien’s edition of _Ancrene Wisse_, for example?

For an edition of the work on the web, not Tolkien’s, see Ancrene Wisse.

It is gratifying to note how many universities and special scholarly projects and individual initiatives have been set up to produce web editions of texts, providing a true wealth of information for _no_ commerical return. 

Of course, since published editions of most texts usually don’t make a profit ...., why not?

Also, whatever the actual case in law, there is a general perception that the contents of old documents ought to be the property of people in general, and it will be increasingly difficult to justify their not being made available on the web for anyone to consult.


----------



## Beorn (Nov 23, 2003)

I just finished Leaf by Niggle after about three nights reading (I don't get much time to read ). Anyhow, I can't help but wonder, what is it?

I concur with most people that it is an allegory. I believe that it is a man's journey through life, death, purgatory, and heaven.

His painting (in general, not specifically his opus -- as I shall call it) represents his life. His constant good deeds throughout life -- stopping to help Parish -- are what in the end brings him to the heaven.

The point of his opus was to make himself known and remembered. He seemed lonely. His painting was the story of his life, his autobiography. He wrote it just before the journey that he was supposed to go on.

Then suddenly, death turns up on his doorstep. He comes to take him away, without giving him a chance to pack and set things straight. 

He's put through hard work. He needs to prove that he belongs in heaven. His good deeds for Parish are mentioned. My only question is, who _are_ the Two Voices? Perhaps it's Tolkien's fictional representation of God. Instead, the setting is a ditheistic place...

Finally, he gets to heaven. He gets to what he worked on his whole life. His purpose has been fulfilled, and he gets to enjoy it...

I would have to (humbly) disagree with the insinuation that Leaf by Niggle is based on Tolkien's life. As I understand, it was written shortly before WWII, so he would have been in his mid 40s....This would be too early to base an allegorical biography on, don't you agree? He still had another 30 to 40 years in his life.

The point of the single leaf leftover was almost Niggle's headstone. It told what he was dedicated to. It was even marked with his name (put in a museum). Finally, the headstone disintegrated.

So...that's my opinion of Leaf by Niggle. What do you think of it? Who were the Two Voices?

- Mike


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 23, 2003)

I believe that the two Voices represent (perhaps among other things) Justice and Mercy. As usual with God, Mercy prevails.

Niggle's painting represents the life's work that God intended for him. He did not "finish" it or even get as far as he should have done not only because of his "good deeds" for his neighbor but because he was a rather disorganized man who did not put the time allowed him to good use, nor did he "prepare" for the journey that he knew he would have to take. You see, Niggle (as a "religious" man) knew that there _would_ be a journey with a destination. People know that they are going to die, but unless they have some belief system, many assume that there is no need to prepare for it other than their obligations on "this side" of the journey. Niggle knew better, yet he did not prepare and so found himself in the "hospital" in which he was being "healed" of his former character failures - none of which was severe enough to prevent his reaching a good end in his journey. However, until his term in this "hospital of the soul", he would not have been able to successfully continue his journey because he was, in fact, "ill".

Interestingly enough, in the end Tolkien has the remnants of Niggle's life's work reduced to one leaf from his huge painting and even that is eventually destroyed in a "fire". In this, the author is saying that however powerful and important we are on earth, it will all turn to dust in the end. Preparation for the "journey" is all important and that includes the "kindnesses" that we do for even our most annoying "neighbors".


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> *Mike, I don't think Leaf by Niggle was ever meant as an "autobiography" when Tolkien wrote that story. Rather, he was stuck during the writing of "The new Hobbit" and probably wondering if he ever would be able to find the time and energy to finish what evenually became The Lord of the Rings and to complete and revise The Silmarillion. Humphrey Carpenter describes this in his Tolkien biography: *


But then, in a way, Niggle _is_ autobiographical. Certainly, it is Tolkien's reflection on "Everyman", his "here and now" life and its effects upon his "ultimate journey" - and that, perforce, must include the author himself.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> *Of course it is "autobiographical" in an allegorical way, I think, but not an "autobiography" in the sense that it would give a more or less detailed account of his life, works, etc. *


Not unless Tolkien had more friendly neighbors than is suggested in his biography! Somehow, I can't see him climbing about fixing anyone's roof, can you?


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 4, 2003)

If only Tolkien had the royalties of, say, JK Rowling. Would the 'painting' ever have got finished, even if he didn't have to mend tyres or mark exam papers I wonder? Can a mythology (Legendarium) ever be finished?


----------



## jallan (Dec 5, 2003)

Walter posted:


> In either case, Tolkien probably would have finished his legendarium one way or the other, but as it was, he seemed rather frustrated at first, ...


Possibly.

But _The Lord of the Rings_ already has in its background a “Myths Transformed” legendarium in which Durin awakes under Sun and Moon (though unstained Moon) and Treebeard gives an account of the Elder Days that doesn’t fit with anything Tolkien wrote elsewhere.

Perhaps, especially with his academic load, Tolkien would have been equally bogged down then as he became latter, simply unable to adapt what his younger self wrote in a more freely imaginative mode without constraints that the later Tolkien felt were necessary. Eventually his proposed publishers might have given up on him and _The Lord of the Rings_ might have been set aside in a closet and been forgotten.


> Another important point is, that many of the European "mythological" tales seem to have been deliberately changed - in the process of being put to paper - by the Christian monks, who were not pleased with the heathen contents and their possible influence on the peoples reading those tales.


This is very pertinent. And it was not only Christian monks who had problems with older material. 

It is probably not accidental that almost none of the earliest Greek mythological tales survive outside of Homer and the Homeric hymns and Hesiod though we get odd references here and there to material that the later Greeks were uncomfortable with and generally didn’t repeat.

There is a tendency later not to speak about Zeus’s rise to power over his father Kronos and sometimes to deny that any such thing could have occurred. But too much had been written down for that mythology easily denied. Instead it had to be misinterpreted as poetic allegory, with Kronos taken to be Khronos ‘Time’ who devours all. 

It became rather impious to recall such tales that originally redounded to the god’s glory. Philosophers mostly believed in the gods in general and in following customs but decried the traditional tales as scandalous lies of the poets.

In the Hindu Vedas Indra is obviously the greatest and highest of the gods. Yet even the _Mahabharata_ contains references to the fact that Indra is no longer worshipped. He has sunk to being an icompetent trickster, lord of the lesser gods of this world, dependant on the more powerful super-gods Vishnu and Shiva to maintain his power. Yet in some sense Indra _had_ to remain king of the gods because it was so written.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 8, 2003)

Niggle fiddled with and altered the great painting all through his life in his attempt to capture the imaginings of his mind. Like Niggle, Tolkien's work was his alone; the rest of the world unaware of its existence until, little by little (hobbit by hobbit) it was unfolded before the world. If Tolkien's tale had been written years ago, no doubt the Chritianity would have been interwoven with it, and we would have had a much diluted tale. Thankfully that can not happen for another thirty years (I'm glad that I'm unlikely to be around for the Disney version!).

I like to think of Tolkien arriving at the equivalent of Niggle Parish and finding himself in his own 'last homely house' - a place of rest and healing, with the final journey through his own imagined mountains laid out before him. Maybe C S Lewis would be waiting, Bilbo-style by the tale fire.


----------



## Oromedur (Mar 13, 2021)

Glamdring said:


> It's my humble opinion that "Leaf by Niggle" is the most poignant book of JRRT and is, in effect, an autobiography. JRRT was obsessed with LOTR and ME (much to our benefit) and, like Niggle, couldn't leave it alone. The "leaf" that he drew became a tree within a field which had a background and mountains and people.
> 
> Anyone else out there care to share their thoughts on this theory ?


Yes, an incredibly poignant and personal metaphor for himself, this was Tolkien expressing so much.

Written completely in one sitting, it tells the story of Niggle who only wants to work on his masterpiece and resents and neglects other parts of his life because of it, then the associated regret and the period of consequence before the assured redemption.

I understood completely and I felt closer to Tolkien the man upon reading this. I would recommend reading or particularly even experiencing in audiobook format. Leaf By Niggle is an experience.


----------



## 1stvermont (Mar 13, 2021)

Glamdring said:


> It's my humble opinion that "Leaf by Niggle" is the most poignant book of JRRT and is, in effect, an autobiography. JRRT was obsessed with LOTR and ME (much to our benefit) and, like Niggle, couldn't leave it alone. The "leaf" that he drew became a tree within a field which had a background and mountains and people.
> 
> Anyone else out there care to share their thoughts on this theory ?



I loved leaf by niggle and I fully agree it appeared to be an autobiography. And i think if anyone has read Tolkiens letters and carpenter, then there can be no doubt to that fact.


----------



## The Void (Oct 9, 2022)

*It's really a story about his 'smoking addiction' - his little niggling distraction from time to time.
Seems that most fans prefer to make his story more complex than it really is, because they need Tolkien's Leaf by Niggle to appear more sophisticated than it really is.*


----------



## HALETH✒🗡 (Oct 9, 2022)

The Void said:


> It's really a story about his 'smoking addiction' - his little niggling distraction from time to time.
> Seems that most fans prefer to make his story more complex than it really is, because they need Tolkien's Leaf by Niggle to appear more sophisticated than it really is.


Do you really think so? Or is it a joke?
Maybe I wouldn't call Leaf by Niggle allegorical (as Tolkien didn't like allegory) but I would call it symbolic and mythical. IMO, the story has nothing to do with smoking.


----------



## The Void (Oct 9, 2022)

No joke. Sorry to say. But Tolkien was a heavy 'piper' and even comments in LOTR about Pippen 'smoking too much'.
Leaf by Niggle is basically about his 'vice'. Surely as The Old Man of the Sea is about Hemingway's own 'addiction' to alcohol and Silence (song) by Delerium (ft Sarah McLachlan) is about the vice of addiction. Read it again, with this in thought and you'll see how everything 'simply' makes sense of the short work.


----------



## HALETH✒🗡 (Oct 9, 2022)

The Void said:


> No joke. Sorry to say. But Tolkien was a heavy 'piper' and even comments in LOTR about Pippen 'smoking too much'.
> Leaf by Niggle is basically about his 'vice'. Surely as The Old Man of the Sea is about Hemingway's own 'addiction' to alcohol and Silence (song) by Delerium (ft Sarah McLachlan) is about the vice of addiction. Read it again, with this in thought and you'll see how everything 'simply' makes sense of the short work.


This interpretation is new to me. And it's interesting to hear of something new. Thanks for sharing. However, what about these qoutes (especially the last one)?


----------



## The Void (Oct 11, 2022)

So he 'dislikes' allegory, but doesn't really say he didn't use it and sublimely says "its not really or properly..." (an allegory) as if it was in a way. He also says "I tried to show allegorically...". Guess the old pipe smoking compromised his scruple against allegory?


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 11, 2022)

The Void said:


> So he 'dislikes' allegory, but doesn't really say he didn't use it and sublimely says "its not really or properly..." (an allegory) as if it was in a way. He also says "I tried to show allegorically...". Guess the old pipe smoking compromised his scruple against allegory?


Just read his 1936 lecture to the British Academy, "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics", published by Christopher Tolkien in the collection of essays "The Monsters & the Critics and other Essays" in 1983 by George Allen & Unwin (I have a 1997 paperback by Harper Collins). JRRT without the slightest doubt uses allegory here - *strict* allegory! What he was allergic to was the all-too-widespread *sloppy* allegory (as he was allergic to sloppiness in anything that pretended to be philology).

He may have grown ever more allergic to *any* attempt to read anything he published starting with LoTR as allegory as the huge majority perpetrated was the allegorical slush he so detested - so occasionally overreacting. He did not deny that parts of what he wrote might be open to allegorical interpretations, but unless these complied with his strict view on the use of allegory, his reply was likely to be a snort of derision.

And as was the case on other matters, he occasionally - in writing! - had a "running argument with himself" (Tom Shippey quoting Verly Flieger in the former's 2003 third edition of his "The Road to Middle-earth"), not necessarily arriving at a conclusion ...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 11, 2022)

I seriously doubt the man who said this:

Would write a story -- "allegorical" or not -- about being bothered by it. And his friend was of like mind.


----------



## Ent (Oct 21, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> What he was allergic to was the all-too-widespread *sloppy* allegory (as he was allergic to sloppiness in anything that pretended to be philology).


I think we begin to edge up against JRRT's feeling here. I've also read his distaste was for "intentional" allegory - adding my own words, 'the blatant kind that hits you upside the head whether it's necessary to be used or not.' 

I'm looking out for where I ran across that reference so I can set it aside when I find it again. The issue seems to resurface with a certain unpredictable regularity.

Is there a reference at hand sir Olorgando, regarding his distaste being for 'sloppy' allegory? If so can you provide it? (Or is it to be found in _The Monsters and the Critics_ you spoke of? I've just added that book to my library recently, and can be on the lookout for it if so. 

(This may be one I DO choose to write an essay on to pull things together regarding his viewpoint. I had set the concept of writing my own book and essays aside in favor of other things, but I may change my mind. Essays may become a matter of WHAT the subjects are about rather than whether or not to do them. Everything is worth an essay. But only some things are REALLY worth an essay.)


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 22, 2022)

The Enting said:


> I've also read his distaste was for "intentional" allegory -
> ...
> Is there a reference at hand sir Olorgando, regarding his distaste being for 'sloppy' allegory? If so can you provide it? (Or is it to be found in _The Monsters and the Critics_ you spoke of? I've just added that book to my library recently, and can be on the lookout for it if so.


The only direct statement on allegory by JRRT that I can think of off the cuff is that in the foreword to the Second Edition, where he states his "cordial dislike" for it. There might be more comments in "Letters", but none come to mind spontaneously.
What you will find in "The Monsters ...", in the first essay with gives the book its title, is precisely *intentional* allegory (pointed out by Tom Shippey in his books), about the state of _Beowulf_ criticism at the time he held the lecture in 1936 that is the basis for this essay.


----------

