Tom Bombadil

[Maverick]

Hey, I've been reading stuff in the books and on the internet about Tom Bombadil and I was wanting to see what some other people thought about what he was. He had to have some importants to the history of Middle-Earth baecause he was known among the Elves and by Gandalf. After the Ring was destroyed Gandalf really wanted to talk to him. (Gandalf) I believe I shall go and talk to Tom Bombadil. I shall have a very long talk with him. Such a long talk as I have never had befor. Any ideas on what he was and if he had any real importance in the history of Middle-Earth?

[Thengal]

Tom Bombadil is a guardian and caretaker of the forest and a friend of Gandalf.(Hence the quote) I don't think he has any real important part in any way, but he does help along Frodo with the ring and has Frodo tell him about it. Gandalf maybe going to tell Tom about the great war and the fate of the hobbit's and the ring, since he would be curious to know what happened the hobbit's after the stories they shared.

[Elassar 516]

I personaly think he was a Maia or poosibly somthing more like the ents.

[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome to the Downs, Maverick. smilies/smile.gif

You may not be surprised to hear that the issue of Tom's identity is one which has come up many times. This is one of my favourite threads on this question: Derry Dol, Indeed (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001272).

There are many others. If you want to find them, its best to try using the search (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=search&search_forum=1) function.

Happy reading. smilies/smile.gif

[Armetiel]

http://tolkien.cro.net/else/bbeier.html

I encourage you all to read this essay, and please tell me what you think about it.

The arguments brought up seem valid to me, and yet I'm not sure if it makes sense in a whole, but it puts a whold new perspective to me on who Tom and Goldberry are.

[The Saucepan Man]

I have seen that essay before, or at least a similar one by the same author.

In my view, it puts forward a good arguable theory as to Tom Bombadil's function within the story, but it doesn't tell us who he is within the fictional world created by Tolkien. After all, the reader doesn't exist within Middle-earth.

[Armetiel]

^but that's part of the point of the article, to say that Tom's only in Middle-earth as he is reading the book, but he doesn't LIVE there, which is why he can be oldest, but the Ents are the oldest living IN middle earth... but as you read the book you are kind of taken into that world in your mind, I guess you could say.

Not that I'm saying the article is right, it's just an interesting POV. I don't think we'll ever find out Who or What he really is, so IMO there is no "right" answer (however there are some decidely wrong ones)

[The Saucepan Man]

Tom's only in Middle-earth as he is reading the book

Which goes against the fiction that Middle-earth is a world that actually existed many ages ago. It rather destroys the assumed reality of the world if we, as readers, feature in it ourselves courtesy of Tom.

And anyway, I could never identify with Tom. All those "Derry Dols" rather put me off. smilies/biggrin.gif

[juhsstin]

Which goes against the fiction that Middle-earth is a world that actually existed many ages ago. It rather destroys the assumed reality of the world if we, as readers, feature in it ourselves courtesy of Tom.


perhaps that's why he conveyed this notion in "riddle form". sort of an indirect "quip" if you will... smilies/wink.gif

[Osse]

I also have read the above essay... and frankly it dosen't seem conceivable to me.
It seems very un-tolkien, and though on some points it is almost convincing, the theory as a whole is uncompelling.

[juhsstin]

would you mind explaining what is so "un-tolkien" about it? i am not a well-seasoned veteran reader of Tolkien, but i have red the hobbit, the sil and lotr in the past year...so maybe i can better understand what you mean by it.

[master_of_puppets]

i found that essay extremely interesting. admittedly at first i wasnt sure if there was much fact on which to base us as readers as Goldberry and Tom but having read the essay through i feel if it not being a the definate answers its definately a plausable one, as there is a very strong argument for it. how many people believe thats the case? i certainly agree Tolkienw went to great length to keep us secure as readers, and to reassure us though.

[camomile]

Tom Bombalil is an enigma. you are not supose to know what or who he is.

The Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien: pg 174, (not shure you guyse reed books any more, or if you are just reading everthing of the internet these days. but if you do read that is were to find the Quote, that goes as follows And even in a mythical age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionaly)

I belive Tolkien speculated himself on who Bombladil was, I fond it unlikely that he had eny clear idea of his identity when he dreamed him up. however he does refur to him as the spirit of the (vanishing) oxford and Berkshire countryside. this is of corse the area he modled the shire after, so I find it likely that was where he got a good portion of his insperation for the much debated Tom Bombadil

[Lotrelf]

Tom Bombadil has always been a fascinating character to me. I haven't read the article(does the link work?). As said previously-- he was an enigma. Something that has no clear answer. But I don't think he was a Maia. Though he Did have much more effect on the story than we realize. Gandalf's conversation with him may be like his meeting with Treebeard. Like how the War ended and the Ring got destroyed. There was another article saying he is evil(only opinionated article). It was flawed but intersting. -!-

[tom the eldest]

I read in the lotr wikia that tom maybe THE first thing that was created by the creation music,and thus he dont,or even cannot,know death,suffering,etc.he dont know all things that bad,and that why the ring dont have influence over him,and why he cant influence the ring in return.

[Erestor]

I read in the lotr wikia that tom maybe THE first thing that was created by the creation music,and thus he dont,or even cannot,know death,suffering,etc.he dont know all things that bad,and that why the ring dont have influence over him,and why he cant influence the ring in return.

The reason that the Ring doesn't affect Bombadil is not because of all this, it is because of the characteristics of Bombadil and the way the Ring works. Remember how Sam was influenced by the Ring, how the Ring tried to play in on his own desires for power. This is why the Ring has power over others: they want to change the world according to their own views.

Bombadil is the opposite of both the good guys as the bad guys: Bombadil doesn't care for power, he doesn't want to have control over others. Changing the world isn't his ambition either: he feels that everything has its place in it, someone who's perfectly happy with how the world is. And he doesn't care how the world evolves: he would even forget about the Ring if he was its guardian, as Gandalf said. Because of this mindset, the Ring is totally unable to get a grip on him, to be on his mind. Let alone corrupt him. Tolkien explained it in the Letters (I think 144), but I don't have my copy at hand so I'm not able to quote him.

I once read an article arguing that many people dislike Bombadil because they feel he's an anomaly - contradicting the rules of the world - while he is an enigma - which is a mystery that actually fits the world and its logic.

[FerniesApple]

I think Tom is a Genius loci, a spirit of place, he only seems to have power within his boundaries, he is as interested in the Ring as a Sunbeam would be, ie its something that is alien to his very being.

[Tar-Jêx]

It's basically a formality to say that we will never know for certain about it.

I personally think he was an Ainu, an especially powerful one, but apathetic to all of the political issues going around. I think he's comparable to one of the Ainur, the one of time, who stayed behind with Eru. He is essentially above such issues, and is content with living his life happily and peacefully, knowing that whatever evil may come towards him, he could probably get out of the situation.

The ring didn't have any hold over him because he didn't really want to change anything, and, as Zigur said, the ring caters towards an individual's desires, of which Tom had none.

[Inziladun]

I personally think he was an Ainu, an especially powerful one, but apathetic to all of the political issues going around. I think he's comparable to one of the Ainur, the one of time, who stayed behind with Eru. He is essentially above such issues, and is content with living his life happily and peacefully, knowing that whatever evil may come towards him, he could probably get out of the situation.

I like to put Bombadil in the same boat as Ungoliant. Both were seemingly immortal, 'divine' beings who were truly embodied and bound to Arda of their own volition. Neither seems to have had an interest in overtly fighting in the conflict between the Valar and Morgoth/Sauron, but had their own purpose.

The ring didn't have any hold over him because he didn't really want to change anything, and, as Zigur said, the ring caters towards an individual's desires, of which Tom had none.

Like Ungoliant's offspring, Shelob. She had no interest in the Ring, only wanting to kill Frodo and Sam.

[Tar-Jêx]

I like to put Bombadil in the same boat as Ungoliant. Both were seemingly immortal, 'divine' beings who were truly embodied and bound to Arda of their own volition. Neither seems to have had an interest in overtly fighting in the conflict between the Valar and Morgoth/Sauron, but had their own purpose.



Like Ungoliant's offspring, Shelob. She had no interest in the Ring, only wanting to kill Frodo and Sam.

For some reason, the mystery around such beings, including the cats of Queen Beruthiel, is so intriguing.

[Inziladun]

For some reason, the mystery around such beings, including the cats of Queen Beruthiel, is so intriguing.

I agree. Bombadil was an intentional enigma, but that doesn't stop me trying to make him fit in the mythos.

[Marlowe221]

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that Tom is the physical manifestation of the Music of the Ainur.

And although Tolkien might not have used quite the same words, I also think he is the manifestation of the Tao, in a literary sense.

[tom the eldest]

im thinking that tom maybe a rogue maia that contend to live on middle earth.probably get tired/afraid of morgoth and then run to middle earth.maybe immediately after the music finish even.then he isolate himself,and so never knew the conditions of the world outside his little realm

[jallanite]

Cirdan’s essay at http://tolkien.cro.net/else/bbeier.html seems to me to be totally nonsense, typical of the many enthusiastic essays I have read which all provide contradictory explanations of Tom and all of which disagree with one another.

Tolkien himself explains that Tom is intentionally an enigma. Cirdan takes this to mean that Tolkien had an explanation for him, which Tolkien purposely did not state and not one of the many commentators before Cirdan has figured out. Cirdan explains that “an intentional enigma is nothing other than a riddle …” which is not necessarily true.

Cirdan then explains, “Indeed, in this letter he seemed to be hinting that there was an answer to the riddle of Bombadil. Could he have been challenging his readers to find it?” I see no hint at all. Where does Cirdan get this idea from? Where does Cirdan get the idea that Tolkien is challenging the reader to find the answer to a riddle which Tolkien does not state and Cirdan only postulates.

Cirdan provides a series of facts about Tom which supposedly proves his theory that Tom represents the reader, but most of which are not true of most if not all readers. Most readers are not the Master. No reader is old as Tom. Most readers do not know Farmer Maggot. And so on.

Cirdan states,“Treebeard can be the oldest living thing while Tom is truly ‘oldest and fatherless,’ but only if Tom is not alive.” This is quite true of Tom, and Goldberry, but also true of Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, and Radagast and true of all the Valar and Maiar. There are also the nameless things gnawing away beneath the ground of which Gandalf claims, “Sauron knows them not for they are older than him.”

Cirdan works by asking questions which have, for him, the assumed answer of “yes” but which to a critical reader can be just as well answered “no” or “no answer given”. He has the trick of using the word we, to mean you and I, never considering that this means that he is telling the reader what they think, when perhaps the reader doesn’t think or feel what Cirdan claims.

That Tom was a Maia (which is not Cirdan’s idea) runs afoul of Tolkien’s claim that Tom is an enigma.

That Tom is the physical manifestation of the Music of the Valar doesn’t fit with the idea that the music was corrupted by the interfering music of Sauron and his followers from the beginning.

Tom is a character in fiction written by J. R. R. Tolkien and Tolkien’s clear statement that Tom is an enigma should take priority over anyone’s theories.

[Inziladun]

Tom is a character in fiction written by J. R. R. Tolkien and Tolkien’s clear statement that Tom is an enigma should take priority over anyone’s theories.

enigma
[uh-nig-muh] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun, plural enigmas; Chiefly Archaic, enigmata [uh-nig-muh-tuh]

1.a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation

2.a person of puzzling or contradictory character

3.a saying, question, picture, etc., containing a hidden meaning; riddle.

4.(initial capital letter) a German-built enciphering machine developed for commercial use in the early 1920s and later adapted and appropriated by German and other Axis powers for military use through World War II.

I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.

[jallanite]

I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.

Agreed.

However Tolkien did refuse to give any explanation other than that. Tolkien writes: “And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).”

The main barrier to me is the insipidness of the many explanations given by others. Tom might be a Maia, except that this explanation does not account for Goldberry or River-woman. These require a fantasy world where river-gods and nixies exist. But such supernatural beings are not even mentioned outside of Tom Bombadil’s associates, even in the Book of Lost Tales, which introduces a large number of supernatural beings not mentioned later in connection with Middle-earth.

Also Tolkien might well have written that Bombabil was a Maia, or have rephased it as ‘lesser god’, if Tom were to be a Maia in The Lord of the Rings. He did not.

Tolkien on every other occasion that he was asked about the meaning or source of his characters was quite open and often very vocal. If you wish to use the third item of your definition you should also explain why in this one case Tolkien in effect said, “I know who Tom Bombadil is in the world of Middle-earth, but I won’t tell you. Nyahh! Nyahh!” He is quite willing to explain everything else about Bombadil.

So I interpret enigma by its primary meaning. Tolkien does explain that he had originally created him for a poem in the Oxford Magazine and wrote him into The Lord of the Rings. That would explain why Tom Bombadil was a discordant element in The Lord of the Rings, he was invented in what was originally a universe unconnected with The Lord of the Rings.

Of course, once invented in The Lord of the Rings, Tom Bombadil must have some kind of explanation within that secondary world, but Tolkien might not himself know which explanation was right. Therefore, Tom would remain a riddle without an answer, along with the question of the origin of the Orcs.

That is the barrier to speculation: none of them have been convincing to a large number of people and Tom Bombadil is fictional and so what is true about him depends on the opinion of the author.

So, you insist that Tolkien must have had a theory that Tolkien refused to reveal. I simply don’t believe that and find such speculation repugnant.

[Tar-Jêx]

The main barrier to me is the insipidness of the many explanations given by others. Tom might be a Maia, except that this explanation does not account for Goldberry or River-woman. These require a fantasy world where river-gods and nixies exist. But such supernatural beings are not even mentioned outside of Tom Bombadil’s associates, even in the Book of Lost Tales, which introduces a large number of supernatural beings not mentioned later in connection with Middle-earth.



Whether Bombadil was a Maia or not, we are never going to know.
I see the creation of Bombadil as an enigma, or the outcome that he was an enigma, to be to stir discussion, and have crazy theories. In general, and enigma is something that is left unexplained to make the reader inquire about its existence.

All of these weird theories are healthy for discussion, unlike stupid things like romance theories between characters who are obviously not meant to be together.

[Galadriel55]

I see the creation of Bombadil as an enigma, or the outcome that he was an enigma, to be to stir discussion, and have crazy theories. In general, and enigma is something that is left unexplained to make the reader inquire about its existence.

Personally, I prefer to leave enigmas as enigmas and not come up with crazy theories. Explaining enigmas is like making the story scientific. It looses its charm. I prefer perpetual wonder [without explanation]. But many would agree with you, that we have to concur that we'll never know for sure but there's no harm in speculation. So each to his own.

[Tar-Jêx]

Personally, I prefer to leave enigmas as enigmas and not come up with crazy theories. Explaining enigmas is like making the story scientific. It looses its charm. I prefer perpetual wonder [without explanation]. But many would agree with you, that we have to concur that we'll never know for sure but there's no harm in speculation. So each to his own.

If you're leaving an enigma alone, and putting it to the side, it doesn't really have any charm at all.
In another interpretation of what you said, not trying to rationalize mysteries like Bombadil and Ungoliant makes a lot of sense, too. I feel that the less we know about these characters, to more intriguing they are. While I personally don't theorize about enigmas much, I still like seeing people try to work it out. There's something special in seeing the determination of the theorist. They just have to figure it out, but they never can. They don't give up, though.

[jallanite]

I agree mostly with Galadriel55 as usual.

The problem as I see it is that Tolkien only explains Tom Bombadil as an enigma, which may be explained as a puzzle. The question then is whether Tolkien himself ever created an answer to this puzzle.

If Tolkien did solve the puzzle, then someone else in all the years since The Lord of the Rings was released ought to have been able to figure out the answer. None has, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the majority.

And there is an additional problem: why did Tolkien not reveal his solution to third parties in correspondence or include it in his notes for his never-completed Silmarillion? Possibly he himself never solved this puzzle, which is what I believe.

If Tolkien did not solve the puzzle, then any attempt by a second party is only going to be fan fiction.

A secondary fictional world cannot be examined scientifically. If Tolkien had no answers to Tom, then there really are no answers. Tolkien, in his correspondence mentions several problems in his fiction to which he had no answer and his notes on the Silmarillion reveal many cases where Tolkien was inconsistent in his answers; that is he changed his mind. One cannot investigate non—public domain fictional characters created by a single author beyond the imagination of that author, or one only comes up with fan fiction. For example, Mark Twain’s character Huckleberry Finn presumably was imagined by Mark Twain to have had a mother, but Twain tells us nothing about her and one may investigate her only if some writing about her by Twain were to be found, or investigate only by unfounded speculation about her. Huckleberry Finn’s father is not even named in the book, being called only ‘Pap’.

I have read many speculations about the supposed reality of Tom Bombadil over the years, and none of them has impressed me to the point of seeming, to me, true. I have become tired of this discussion, of seeing yet another writer claiming to reveal the truth which Tolkien did not reveal, and failing yet again.

I could also easily invent fan fiction about Tom. Tom or Iarwain, might be one of the Ainur, and the first of them to come to Middle-earth. When the other Ainur who became the Valar and Maiar and Úmaiar came to Middle-earth, Tom had little interest in dwelling with them, preferring solitude. One at least of the Maiar or Úmaiar was a female who chanced to dwell in the Withywindle, she whom Tolkien calls River-woman. River-woman mated with an Elf and bore to him the daughter called Goldberry (for we know by the case of Melian that Maiar and Elves are fertile). Tom later married Goldberry, but they have no children because Ainur cannot beget children with other Ainur or half-Ainur (this last exception being my own invention).

This account which I just invented is only fan fiction, or perhaps an outline which might be worked up into fan fiction. If anyone despises it because parts don’t seem like Tolkien, I partially agree.

[Tar-Jêx]

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.
If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

[jallanite]

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.

Do you believe that the reader must come up with what Galadriel55 calls “crazy theories”, and it doesn’t matter if they are crazy. I totally disagree,

If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

That you have a quasi-religious faith that Tom Bombadil can be explained is your own quasi-religious faith, not mine. Similarly I have no quasi-religious faith that Huckleberry Finn’s mother will ever be explained or that there any point in imagining details. Perhaps she was whore. Or perhaps she and ‘Pap’ were two young lovers or a man and wife deeply in love, and then she died of scarlet fever.

I don’t have to invent theories for a literary work which does not explain them. You want to invent theories, do so yourself instead of merely preaching.

[Tar-Jêx]

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

That you have a quasi-religious faith that Tom Bombadil can be explained is your own quasi-religious faith, not mine.

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

[jallanite]

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

I have put forth a theory that I don’t believe. You have put forward nothing except pie-in-the-sky faith that Tolkien had an explanation.

The problem is not that Tom is an enigma or a puzzle, but whether there is a solution, an explanation that will cover Tom entirely. No explanation has yet appeared that covers all that is shown. Provide one, or admit that your quasi-religious faith has no foundation.

[Tar-Jêx]

I have put forth a theory that I don’t believe. You have put forward nothing except pie-in-the-sky faith that Tolkien had an explanation.

The problem is not that Tom is an enigma or a puzzle, but whether there is a solution, an explanation that will cover Tom entirely. No explanation has yet appeared that covers all that is shown. Provide one, or admit that your quasi-religious faith has no foundation.

I'm not saying that there is an explanation at all, but I'm not blatantly denying it. However, when people are determined to find one, I find it inspiring on how far they go.
Of course there has not yet been an explanation that covers everything, because even some characters with a lot of substance, like Gimli, haven't been explained 100%.

I do not appreciate these assumptions that I believe what I am advocating, because I don't personally think that Bombadil will ever be explained due to the fact that Tolkien probably didn't write anything about him, even though I enjoy seeing the theories people come up with.

I especially don't appreciate these insults, either, and I will politely ask you to refrain from aggressively toned arguments.

I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.

As Inziladun suggested, theorizing should not be frowned upon, as it can promote healthy discussion.

[Galadriel55]

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.
If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

Intrigue doesn't necessarily amount to speculation. On the contrary, if you present a rational solution ("I know! Tom is a maia!"), the case in question loses its intrigue because it stops being a mystery. Only an unsolved riddle is intriguing. So why solve it?

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

I'm afraid I must disagree here. I think ignoring it is not the right thing to do. Like Tar-Jex says, ignoring Tom is missing the point of the story. It's like ignoring the fact that some sort of "fate" governs the events of LOTR. But there's a long way between ignoring and investigating. I would go for appreciating - not quite doing anything about it, but far from ignoring.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

I promised myself long ago I will not get tangled in a discussion about Tom again because it tends to get too heated with the clashing philosophical views (that are, as you point out, completely irrelevant to the rationale behind Tom's origin) - and look where that got me. I would be more than willing to put it to rest.

[jallanite]

I'm afraid I must disagree here. I think ignoring it is not the right thing to do. Like Tar-Jex says, ignoring Tom is missing the point of the story. It's like ignoring the fact that some sort of "fate" governs the events of LOTR. But there's a long way between ignoring and investigating. I would go for appreciating - not quite doing anything about it, but far from ignoring.

Fair enough and quite right about ignoring Tom. Just ignoring Tom would be wrong. I thought to mean only ignoring the various theories about Tom that Tolkien did not mention.

I have, after sending a message to Tar-Jêx, put him on my ignore list, so I will not have to see so much that he alone posts that I greatly disagree with.

[Inziladun]

You know, when one disagrees with the premise of a topic, that's fine. Make a comment about why, if you wish, then move on. Denigrating those who disagree is uncalled for. If one dislikes a topic, the sensible thing to do is to ignore it, and leave it for others who do not share one's views.

[jallanite]

You know, when one disagrees with the premise of a topic, that's fine. Make a comment about why, if you wish, then move on. Denigrating those who disagree is uncalled for. If one dislikes a topic, the sensible thing to do is to ignore it, and leave it for others who do not share one's views.

I agree. But I don’t have any disagreement with the premise of the topic as I understand it. Essentially the problem, as I see it is only the communication between Tar-Jêx and myself and I see this as a way to solve the problem, though an unfortunate way.

Denigration was not from me one way, as I see it.

[Morthoron]

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom was, a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once inhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.

[Tar-Jêx]

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom is, that being a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once imhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.

I never knew that. That changes everything, then. As in, actually everything.

[jallanite]

Denigration is an interesting word.

Its meaning is found at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate and various other dictionaries on the web.

But is not an accusation that one has denigrated another not also an attempt to denigrate a person?

If so, I could accuse Inziladun of attempting to denigrate me by accusing me of denigrating Tar-Jêx. See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=695402&postcount=38 for Inziladun’s accusation.

Is it also against the rules here as understood by the moderators to denigrate another poster’s arguments? Is that allowed as long as one clearly does not denigrate the poster personally?

Furthermore, Inziladun does not point out where I have denigrated Tar-Jêx in person or in respect to his arguments, leaving his accusation vague in details. Was it unfair not to give details?

Tar-Jêx posted the statement: “If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point.” See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=695391&postcount=31 .

Who does Tar-Jêx mean by you? Is Tar-Jêx here denigrating myself and any other viewers of his post who prefer Bombadil left as a mystery?

I think denigration is too vague a term to be useful by itself, especially if one expands the meaning to include denigration of the poster’s arguments.

I request that Inziladun not further accuse me (or anyone) of denigration without also giving full details of exactly what I or they are being accused of. I also request that Inziladun not make vague accusations that Ior anyone dislikes the topic, as this is also an accusation that might be made against him on occasion. I also don’t see that there is anything at all wrong in itself with someone who dislikes some features of a topic in posting on that topic.

Actually I personally aren’t bothered much by being vaguely denigrated. This is not a very serious complaint to me.

Reasons for my adding Tar-Jêx to my ignore list can be seen from viewing this thread and in the thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18847 by reading the posts by myself and Tar-Jêx. People can make up their own opinions about it by viewing the posts, if they wish.

[Morthoron]

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

[Tar-Jêx]

So, from what Morthoron said earlier, Tom Bombadil was similar to an inside joke.
If this is true, which I'm trusting Morthoron on, then trying to figure out how Bombadil fits in universe is just a fun exercise, because he doesn't fit at all.

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

[Inziladun]

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

Though indeed introduced as a character rather independent of the main story, Bombadil was at least important enough that Elrond considered in hindsight the value of having his opinion at the Council.
More noteworthy to me, as Gandalf's time in Middle-earth drew to an end at the fall of Sauron, he made a point of going to see Bombadil before leaving for good, saying they would have a "much to say to one another".

That alone makes Tom worth theorizing about in my mind.

[jallanite]

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives.

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

I quite agree with you that Bombadil is an enigma, and I believe that for Tolkien, also, Tom was an unsolved enigma, in part, indeed, because Tom originated in alien material, a poem in the Oxford Magazine where Tom was not connected with Middle-earth.

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

I do not intend to post on the matter again. Please do the same.

[Morthoron]

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.


I do not intend to post on the matter again.

Thank goodness! Given your seeming need to quantify and define even the most inconsequential points, I was expecting a Powerpoint presentation on the word "denigration". Followed by e-mails and a phone conference. With a pop quiz on Monday.

[jallanite]

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.

Elrond says at the Council that he had known Bombadil long ago when his name was Iarwain, but had forgotten him until now (presumably being reminded again about him when Frodo’s story of his journey from Hobbiton to the Ford of Bruinen was told). Elrond then supplies other names of Bombadil not mentioned earlier in the account and doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person.

This doubt is ignored by Gandalf and Galdor. They both seem to know/believe better.

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil well enough to interpret Frodo’s story that it would be better if Erestor said not that Tom had power over the Ring but that the Ring had no power over Tom. Gandalf also argues against putting the Ring into Tom’s protection because Tom would be unwilling. Even if Tom accepted the Ring at the plea of all the free folk of the world, Tom would not fully understand the need, and would soon forget the Ring or throw it away, for such things have no hold on his mind.

Gandalf also indicates that Tom would not have come to Elrond’s Council, even if summoned, but had long retreated into a little land.

This indicates to me that Elrond and Gandalf, especially Gandalf, knows much about Tom. Gandalf, at least, thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do, or would only do unwillingly, and to predict that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring.

Do you think Gandalf’s conjectures arise solely from Frodo’s tale or are mistaken?

It is true that neither Elrond or Gandalf say anything about Tom’s origins or much about his state of being, but they say sufficient that I doubt your claim the two of them have no idea what or who Tom really is. Your argument is based only on what is not said in a situation where details on Tom’s origins and state of being beyond what Frodo’s tale has told are not immediately important. What is important to the Council is whether Tom can or will help them in the matter of the Ring. Tom’s origin would have been relatively unimportant in that circumstance. And much information outside of Frodo’s account on the state of Tom’s being, would have also been relatively unimportant.

Your speculation seems to me to be based only on what Elrond and Gandalf do not say and to ignore what they do say, especially Gandalf. What they do say is not, it seems to me, a dearth of anything substantial, but indicates that both know things about Tom beyond what Frodo’s story related. What these thing are, is indeed mostly not related. But neither Elrond nor Gandalf says that he knows nothing of Tom’s origin or state of being. You are the only source for that as far as I can see.

Elrond and Gandalf might have known much about Tom’s origin and state of being with barely a word by them in the Council being different if they mostly knew only what Frodo’s story told. But those words are important in indicating that both have knowledge beyond Frodo’s tale.

This is my view on the matter. If you think this is an inconsequential point, you might just drop it from your argument. I think moot points weaken an argument.

[Morthoron]

Elrond says at the Council that he had known Bombadil long ago when his name was Iarwain, but had forgotten him until now (presumably being reminded again about him when Frodo’s story of his journey from Hobbiton to the Ford of Bruinen was told). Elrond then supplies other names of Bombadil not mentioned earlier in the account and doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person.

Doesn't the fact that Elrond "had forgotten him until now" speak to a general sense of unknowing and a lack of clarity or concern? I would suggest that it does. Elrond's lack of information goes further when he, as you stated, "doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person". And of Goldberry, Elrond makes no mention at all. So much for the inane theory that Tom and Goldberry are Aule and Yavanna, eh? ;)

But fundamentally, Elrond does not offer anything of value regarding Bombadi and his essential nature. This is not because he is harboring secrets, as when he flatly ends all questions about the three Elven Rings of Power by saying, "of them it is not permitted to speak"; on the contrary, he divulges what little he knows about Tom and moves on to more germane topics.

This doubt is ignored by Gandalf and Galdor. They both seem to know/believe better.

Really? In Galdor's case, he basically states knowing "little of Iarwain save the name".

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil well enough to interpret Frodo’s story that it would be better if Erestor said not that Tom had power over the Ring but that the Ring had no power over Tom. Gandalf also argues against putting the Ring into Tom’s protection because Tom would be unwilling. Even if Tom accepted the Ring at the plea of all the free folk of the world, Tom would not fully understand the need, and would soon forget the Ring or throw it away, for such things have no hold on his mind.

Gandalf also indicates that Tom would not have come to Elrond’s Council, even if summoned, but had long retreated into a little land.

This indicates to me that Elrond and Gandalf, especially Gandalf, knows much about Tom. Gandalf, at least, thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do, or would only do unwillingly, and to predict that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring.

I will agree that Gandalf seems to know Bombadil more than the others on a personal level, however the rest of your statements, particularly when you say that Gandalf "thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do" is obvious conjecture, on your part and Gandalf's.

It is true that neither Elrond or Gandalf say anything about Tom’s origins or much about his state of being, but they say sufficient that I doubt your claim the two of them have no idea what or who Tom really is. Your argument is based only on what is not said in a situation where details on Tom’s origins and state of being beyond what Frodo’s tale has told are not immediately important. What is important to the Council is whether Tom can or will help them in the matter of the Ring. Tom’s origin would have been relatively unimportant in that circumstance. And much information outside of Frodo’s account on the state of Tom’s being, would have also been relatively unimportant.

Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis. And yet a being who can make the One Ring disappear as if he were doing parlor tricks is not explained at all. I would suggest that Tolkien was holding true to his statement that Bombadil was an enigma. We, the readers, know nothing about Tom, and the players themselves are not given extensive background either.

Your speculation seems to me to be based only on what Elrond and Gandalf do not say and to ignore what they do say, especially Gandalf. What they do say is not, it seems to me, a dearth of anything substantial, but indicates that both know things about Tom beyond what Frodo’s story related. What these thing are, is indeed mostly not related. But neither Elrond nor Gandalf says that he knows nothing of Tom’s origin or state of being. You are the only source for that as far as I can see.

The entire Council's statements regarding Tom tend to speculation. Every premise by each of the Council members is tempered with a proviso like "I fear" or "I think", which is speculative. Take Glorfindel's quote: "Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall". It is a reasonable assumption, but it is assumption nonetheless.

Elrond and Gandalf might have known much about Tom’s origin and state of being with barely a word by them in the Council being different if they mostly knew only what Frodo’s story told. But those words are important in indicating that both have knowledge beyond Frodo’s tale.

Gandalf indeed knows Tom on some personal level; however, Gandalf himself implies that there is more to be learned:

"I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil: such a talk as I have not had in all my time. He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another."

I think moot points weaken an argument.

Unless one is talking about Ents, of course.

[jallanite]

Doesn't the fact that Elrond "had forgotten him until now" speak to a general sense of unknowing and a lack of clarity or concern?

No. They talk about whether Tom can or will aid their cause, and Gandalf remarks that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring. Elrond has been told in Frodo’s tale that at least some of Gildor’s folk still knew Tom, although Elrond himself had forgotten him. I don’t see any lack of clarity or concern in this discussion.

But fundamentally, Elrond does not offer anything of value regarding Bombadi and his essential nature.

Why should he, whatever he knew? Elrond doesn’t offer even as much about Sauron and his essential nature or Saruman and his essential nature or about Elves and their essential nature. There is no reason that I can see that he should. The idea of calling directly on Manwë and Varda for help is never even raised. Lots of things aren’t raised.

This is not because he is harboring secrets, as when he flatly ends all questions about the three Elven Rings of Power by saying, "of them it is not permitted to speak"; on the contrary, he divulges what little he knows about Tom and moves on to more germane topics.

Your source that Elrond was not harboring secrets? Tolkien did not write that Elrond divulges what little he knows about Tom. Elrond also says nothing of the origin of the Elves, or of the origin of the wizards, or of the origin of Orcs, or of the origin of Sauron. Does this prove that he knew nothing on these topics? Obviously not. That Elrond does not admit to harboring secrets about Tom says nothing about whether Elrond was doing so or not.

I will not accept an argument that Elrond did not say something as an indication that he knew nothing on the topic. The argument only works if you can show that Elrond must have spoken more if he knew more. Why then does Elrond not speak on what he knows or think he knows about the origin of hobbits and the other points I mentioned?

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil more than the others on a personal level, however the rest of your statements, particularly when you say that Gandalf "thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do" is obvious conjecture, on your part and Gandalf's.

I stand behind that statement. Your seem to me to admit that Gandalf does show further knowledge of Tom beyond what Frodo’s story tells. That is all I claim. Gandalf knew many things that he does not recount at the Council and his silence on one point is not significant one way or the other how much he could have spoken on that particular point. That Gandalf “thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do” is a direct abbreviation of Tolkien’s account. Point out where I have misrepresented Tolkien if you think I have distorted what Tolkien writes. This is not just a mere conjecture of mine.

Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis.

Neither Gandalf or Elrond seems to me to be verbose in extremis except that Gandalf is perhaps very verbose in his account of his captivity by Saruman, but then apologizes and excuses the length of this account. Both happen not to mention many things that we know from elsewhere that they knew. Neither, for example, mentions Ents at that point. If you wish to claim that their silence about Tom is suspiciously significant, indicate why it is more significant than their complete silence on other matters that they did not speak of.

Readers of these posts may make their own decision about whether your claim that if Elrond and Gandalf knew more than they spoke about Tom’s origin and state of being they must necessarily have spoken of it and my claim that they if they knew such matters, they had no reason to bring it up save for Gandalf’s opinion that he considers Tom to be an unsafe guardian which itself, it Gandalf’s opinion is accepted, puts Tom out of the picture from the Council’s point of view, regardless of what they know or think they know about Tom’s origin and state of being.

Whether Elrond and Gandalf knew of Tom’s origin and state of being has no relation as to whether Tolkien might or might not make such a claim for himself.

[Morthoron]

Whether Elrond and Gandalf knew of Tom’s origin and state of being has no relation as to whether Tolkien might or might not make such a claim for himself.

I will cut this short and reply, simply, nonsense. The point is that the author of the piece, the creator of the world itself, preferred Bombadil to be an enigma This is the central point and crux of the character. Tolkien did not have Gandalf utter that Bombadil was a manifestation of the Oxfordshire countryside because Hobbits and Elves, Dwarves and Istari alike would be scratching their heads and saying, "What and where the hell is Oxfordshire?"

The very nature of Bombadil -- and Goldberry as well -- does not fit in Middle-earth. The mythos from which they were derived, the folkloric motifs they represent, and the very nature of their origins beyond the publication of The Lord of the Rings defies explanation and is incongruous to any characterization or categorization from the point of Arda, cosmologically-speaking; ergo, the "wise" of Elrond's council simply express doubts as to Tom's reliability, do not dwell on anything but some archaic nomenclature of the being, and go on to the next tangent.

They cannot explain the unexplainable, but they accept the inconsonant nature of Bombadil without question because the author of the piece felt the character was germane and important for what he represented, and inserted the character even though he defied conventional canonic definition. This, from the author himself.

[Belegorn]

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

[Orphalesion]

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

I always agreed with this theory the most, he and Golberry seem akin to me in the "spirits form far away" that became the Ents at Yavanna's wish or the rock giants in the Hobbit.
As much as Tolkien later tried to purge the fairy/pixie element from Middle Earth, it snuck back in here and there. Perhaps his own creation rebelled a little bit against him?

The is of course two schools of thought how to tackle this, and other Middle Earth questions. The in-universe and the real world explanation.

From an in-universe perspective it, the way many people wish it to be answered, it is moot wether Tolkien intended Tom to be just an "in-joke" he exist in Middle Earth. And since Tolkien strove so hard to categorize and explain the rest of his universe it is understandable that people wish more explanation to the identity of these characters.

However I quite like the idea that Tom and Golberry just "are" that in such a well explained world like Middle Earth, there can still be mysteries which (as Tolkien himself wrote) are often more interesting than the answer provided by the author.
It opens the door for all sorts of things, like if Tom, Goldberry and the Riverwoman are the only ones of their kind or if there is more of those Genii Loci around or maybe were in the Elder Days.
Would have been interesting if Tolkien had chosen to validate by making Melian a "kinswoman" to them, the spirit of the woods of Beleriand and returning her o her faery character as Gwendeling.

With them, the numerous talking animals and Beorn's shape shifting a of Fairy Tale and "magic" elements are provided which Middle Earth sometimes lacks.

Maybe there were unicorns in Aman, maybe Melian was what we would today call a faery spirit. Middle Earth, for all its sobriety is still fantasy.

Once I had the theory that Goldberry, Old Man Willow,t eh Riverwoman and the Barrow Wights were some of those "lingering' Elf spirits mentioned by Tolkien. The souls of dead Elves that ignored the Call of Mandos and chose to remain in Middle Earth inhabiting and "haunting" natural places of great beauty and which the dark powers often used for Necromancy (hence Sauron's title of the Necromancer)
With Goldberry I no lnger hold this theory, as it begs the question of where her body came from if that was the case (and she definitely had one, just as much Bombadil)
But with Old Man Willow I still hold this theory and with the Barrow Wights I'm almost certain.

[jallanite]

I will cut this short and reply, simply, nonsense.

That is not a valid argument, merely an unsupported attack on my arguments, and therefore a failure of argument on your part. I could simply reply nonsense to your arguments, and it would also prove nothing more than that I disagree with your arguments, perhaps wrongly, and that I argue poorly.

The point is that the author of the piece, the creator of the world itself, preferred Bombadil to be an enigma This is the central point and crux of the character.No. It is true, I believe, that Tolkien preferred to keep Tom Bombadil as an unsolved enigma rather than fit him it. That is not any part of my argument at all and never has been. I do disagree with the idea that Tom is an enigma is the central point and crux of the character. That is just one of the characteristics of Tom and I agree that to Tolkien Tom remained an unsolved enigma. For most characters in fiction or fact one cannot demonstrate that any one characteristic is the central point and crux of the character. That is a nonsensical and unfalsifiable claim.

The very nature of Bombadil -- and Goldberry as well -- does not fit in Middle-earth. The mythos from which they were derived, the folkloric motifs they represent, and the very nature of their origins beyond the publication of The Lord of the Rings defies explanation and is incongruous to any characterization or categorization from the point of Arda, cosmologically-speaking; ergo, the "wise" of Elrond's council simply express doubts as to Tom's reliability, do not dwell on anything but some archaic nomenclature of the being, and go on to the next tangent.But by putting Tom in his story, Tolkien effectively admits Tom exists in the story, albeit as an unsolved enigma. Accordingly I don’t see that either Gandalf’s or Elrond’s lack of discussion of the Bombadil’s origin means either is supposed not to know the truth behind it. That is all you have, an argument from silence, that can also purportedly prove that neither Gandalf nor Elrond knew anything about the state of nature of wizards or the origin of wizards, and prove it just as badly.

They cannot explain the unexplainable, but they accept the inconsonant nature of Bombadil without question because the author of the piece felt the character was germane and important for what he represented, and inserted the character even though he defied conventional canonic definition. This, from the author himself.Tolkien did not explain Tom Bombadil. I have always admitted that. And Tolkien admits that. But that is totally irrelevant to your claim that neither Elrond or Gandalf are not supposed to know anything about the matter. The only support you can give is that neither Gandalf nor Elrond said anything about it at the Council. That is just an argument from silence, not a valid argument at all. Neither Gandalf nor Elrond can be supposed to know that Tom originated in the Oxford Magazine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence .

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail. Similarly that Tolkien considered Tom to be an unexplained enigma in the story does not necessarily show that no character in the story, including Elrond, Gandalf, Goldberry, and Tom himself, did not know the supposed truths behind it, only that Tolkien did not consider it overly important to fit Tom in.

You claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story did not know anything about Tom’s state of being or origin. But you provide no evidence from the story save that they do not speak much about it. Do you also claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story do not know anything about Eru’s state of being or origin because they do not speak of him in the tale. Indeed Eru is only mentioned by name once in the tale, in an Appendix?

[Tar-Jêx]

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail.


I think the purpose of not explaining the magic is because he expected the reader to accept its existence, rather than question its intricacies and fine details.

[Morthoron]

That is not a valid argument, merely an unsupported attack on my arguments, and therefore a failure of argument on your part. I could simply reply nonsense to your arguments, and it would also prove nothing more than that I disagree with your arguments, perhaps wrongly, and that I argue poorly.

Nonsense.

No. It is true, I believe, that Tolkien preferred to keep Tom Bombadil as an unsolved enigma rather than fit him it. That is not any part of my argument at all and never has been. I do disagree with the idea that Tom is an enigma is the central point and crux of the character. That is just one of the characteristics of Tom and I agree that to Tolkien Tom remained an unsolved enigma. For most characters in fiction or fact one cannot demonstrate that any one characteristic is the central point and crux of the character. That is a nonsensical and unfalsifiable claim.

Tolkien very early on considered the alien and enigmatic aspect of Bombadil, and that allegoric representation of what Tom was. In regards to a sequel to The Hobbit, Tolkien did indeed try to "fit him in" as something not of Middle-earth, and he admitted as much:

Do you think that Tom Bombadil, the sprit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into a hero of the story? Or is he, as I suspect, fully enshrined in the enclosed verses? Still I could enlarge the portrait.

But by putting Tom in his story, Tolkien effectively admits Tom exists in the story, albeit as an unsolved enigma. Accordingly I don’t see that either Gandalf’s or Elrond’s lack of discussion of the Bombadil’s origin means either is supposed not to know the truth behind it. That is all you have, an argument from silence, that can also purportedly prove that neither Gandalf nor Elrond knew anything about the state of nature of wizards or the origin of wizards, and prove it just as badly.

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover. We know where wizards (Istari) come from. Gandalf certainly knows where he came from. Elrond knows where Gandalf comes from. They both know who holds the three elven rings of power and how they got them. We even know Gandalf and his buddies' names from back in Aman, and which Vala sponsored which Istar. There is quite a bit of background regarding wizards. It is inane to pretend that information is not available. Yet there is no such information regarding Bombadil. None. We can go through The Silmarillion and HoMe and see the entire wizardly panoply unveiled both in Aman and Middle-earth. We even get hints of Ents in The Silmarillion and adjunct addenda. But not a damn bit of Bombadil. It is asinine to ignore what is (and what is not) there from a research perspective.

Tolkien did not explain Tom Bombadil. I have always admitted that. And Tolkien admits that. But that is totally irrelevant to your claim that neither Elrond or Gandalf are not supposed to know anything about the matter. The only support you can give is that neither Gandalf nor Elrond said anything about it at the Council. That is just an argument from silence, not a valid argument at all. Neither Gandalf nor Elrond can be supposed to know that Tom originated in the Oxford Magazine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence .

Thank you, Wiki Warrior. There is a validity in the silence in this case because the omniscient author purposefully withheld any such information, did not offer a history of the character, and therefore the other characters could not offer any detail:


As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists)....Many readers have, for instance, rather stuck at the Council of Elrond. And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

The other characters do not have any further information because there is none to give. Again, you are thinking in a vacuum, and thus might need some oxygen.

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail. Similarly that Tolkien considered Tom to be an unexplained enigma in the story does not necessarily show that no character in the story, including Elrond, Gandalf, Goldberry, and Tom himself, did not know the supposed truths behind it, only that Tolkien did not consider it overly important to fit Tom in.

But we do know much about "magic" (which is an inappropriate term as you must know) in Middle-earth. We know who can wield power and who cannot. We know Gandalf is a Maia, an angelic being. We know that Elves who have been to Valinor have far more power than their Silvan cousins in the woods. We know of magia and goeteia. The art of the Elves manifested as sub-creation. Tolkien speaks of magic in Middle-earth in far more detail than he does Bombadil. In fact, the majority of his references to Bombadil are outside of Middle-earth proper.

You claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story did not know anything about Tom’s state of being or origin. But you provide no evidence from the story save that they do not speak much about it. Do you also claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story do not know anything about Eru’s state of being or origin because they do not speak of him in the tale. Indeed Eru is only mentioned by name once in the tale, in an Appendix?

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head? Again, ignoring Tolkien's Middle-earth corpus in its entirety is a scholastic game I am uninterested in. Of Eru, there is abundant information. Tom was inserted into Lord of the Rings on the authors whim, as when Tolkien said he was "'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. into which he was inserted." In fact, if you look at every description Tolkien gives of Bombadil, Tom is not described in terms of Middle-earth, but what he represents outside of the story to the author. And even Tolkien had to forego his disdain for allegory when he admitted that Tom "is an allegory or exemplar".

[Nerwen]

Morth, I think you've misinterpreted what jallanite is trying to say, which if I'm right (I may not be right) is that Tom's identity may be much like the mysterious briefcase in "Pulp Fiction". As you no doubt recall, there is neither an in-story nor an official explanation of the case's contents- it is an intentional enigma- but various characters in the film are definitely *supposed* to know what's in it.

That's just the first example I thought of, but I'm sure I can provide more if needed. In fact the fiction-within-a-fiction whereby a character is *held* to know "the answer" when in fact no such answer really exists is not all that uncommon.

In short, we can't possibly know who Bombadil is, but, for narrative purposes, Elrond can.

[Morthoron]

In short, we can't possibly know who Bombadil is, but, for narrative purposes, Elrond can.

But that's just it, my dear, Elrond doesn't know. He has forgotten completely about Bombadil by the time of the Council, is not sure that Bombadil is Iarwain Ben-adar of old, and as a topper, Elrond says, "He is a strange creature".

Now, when a loremaster of Elrond's stature, one versed in the histories of both Elves and Men, and one whose personal journey begins in the 1st Age, uses the term "strange creature" regarding Tom, the inference is quite clear, particularly when we are speaking of one of the "wise". "Creature" does not give an implication of race or even species. There is no designation of any reliability or specificity. "Strange" is self-evident, don't you think? Netherworldy, alien, odd, out-of-sorts, outlandish (on more than one level) -- it is not a definition an Elvish loremaster would give of a being he is certain of, like a Vala or Maia, for instance.

[denethorthefirst]

I think it is quite believable that Elrond forgot about Bombadil, they lived in the same region (the north-west of ME) for roughly 6000 years and maybe met once (maybe only shortly) earlier in that time when Bombadil wasn't as reclusive as later. It's also obvious that they have very different Personalities: why should the worldly, active and engaged leader-politician Elrond "remember" some strange eccentric he met sometime maybe 4000 years ago, when he hasn't seen him since and we take in account everything that happened during that time! Another thing: 6000 years may sound old but compared to Gandalf, Saruman, or even Elves like Cirdan, Galadriel and other Exiles Elrond is rather "young"; everything he knows about the creation and cosmology of ea and arda and a large part of the prehistoric history he knows from second hand sources: of course Bombadil is a "strange creature" for him, Elrond is not all-knowing.
Tolkien didn't explain Bombadil because he understood that a believable mythology needs loose ends and inconsistencies (like the real world Greek and Germanic myths that inspired him - they grew over time and don't always fit together, different parts contradict each other, or make.no sense, there are differences and changes in tone, and so on.)
But there is only one logical in-universe explanation for Bombadil: he has to be an unaffiliated Ainu - nothing else makes sense. The real mistery however is Goldberry. Who is the mysterious "River-Woman"? Just an elven Woman that lived by the River sometime during the great journey westward, or maybe an Ainu of Ulmo that dwelled inside the river and mated with one of the passing Elves (like Melian and Thingol) - eventually her partner died and she returned to Valinor leaving her Daughter with Bombadil?

[Tar-Jêx]

The real mystery however is Goldberry. Who is the mysterious "River-Woman"? Just an elven Woman that lived by the River sometime during the great journey westward, or maybe an Ainu of Ulmo that dwelled inside the river and mated with one of the passing Elves (like Melian and Thingol) - eventually her partner died and she returned to Valinor leaving her Daughter with Bombadil?

I think that Goldberry, moreso than Tom, is an entity from outside of the world. She is comparable to a water spirit/nymph from traditional folklore. I don't believe Goldberry was intended to be anything at all. Tom, however, was intended to be something, we just don't know what.

[jallanite]

Nonsense.

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover.Or perhaps you simply don’t understand what I am posting. You admit that we know Tolkien answers many of my questions, but not in the chapter “The Council of Elrond”. My point is that in that chapter, where alone we find Tom discussed at some length, other questions that also might arise are not considered. It seems to me that you just don’t want to notice that. Instead you respond with an insulting name.

Thank you, Wiki Warrior. There is a validity in the silence in this case because the omniscient author purposefully withheld any such information, did not offer a history of the character, and therefore the other characters could not offer any detail.Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

But we do know much about "magic" (which is an inappropriate term as you must know) in Middle-earth.

But we have no details about how magic works, because Tolkien has no details. Similarly a time travel story may present a protagonist who is supposedly an expert in creating time machines without the author of the story actually knowing anything about it, and perhaps not even believing that time machines are possible. That Tolkien doesn’t get into technicalities about things beyond his ken doesn’t mean that the characters he writes must be similarly ignorant. The characters are fictional.

In fact, the majority of his references to Bombadil are outside of Middle-earth proper.Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head?Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Tom was inserted into Lord of the Rings on the authors whim, as when Tolkien said he was "'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. into which he was inserted." In fact, if you look at every description Tolkien gives of Bombadil, Tom is not described in terms of Middle-earth, but what he represents outside of the story to the author. And even Tolkien had to forego his disdain for allegory when he admitted that Tom "is an allegory or exemplar".But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

I agree with much of what you post about Tom’s origins, but that is entirely irrelevant to a possible origin of Tom within Middle-earth. And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth. Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

[Nerwen]

But that's just it, my dear, Elrond doesn't know. He has forgotten completely about Bombadil by the time of the Council, is not sure that Bombadil is Iarwain Ben-adar of old, and as a topper, Elrond says, "He is a strange creature".

Now, when a loremaster of Elrond's stature, one versed in the histories of both Elves and Men, and one whose personal journey begins in the 1st Age, uses the term "strange creature" regarding Tom, the inference is quite clear, particularly when we are speaking of one of the "wise". "Creature" does not give an implication of race or even species. There is no designation of any reliability or specificity. "Strange" is self-evident, don't you think? Netherworldy, alien, odd, out-of-sorts, outlandish (on more than one level) -- it is not a definition an Elvish loremaster would give of a being he is certain of, like a Vala or Maia, for instance.
But you see that what I have been addressing is your other line of reasoning?

[Morthoron]

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

Nonsense is an apt word in this case. A single word sometimes is all that is necessary.

Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

None knew that Saruman was a traitor until Gandalf found out. Elrond and the Council were genuinely shocked when it was revealed (as was Gandalf when he was captured). There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece. The author who, by the way, inserted an intentional enigma into the piece and gave him a bit of story because, as Tolkien put it, he "wanted an adventure on the way."

Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

I said Tolkien's references, not Gandalf's. Please read in context before you try to bully someone.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Oooh! That would have hurt in grade school. Luckily, I had my fingers crossed.

But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story. He does not intrude elsewhere in the story or beyond the self-imposed bounds set for him by the author. An "allegory", an "exemplar". The story itself could have been told without Bombadil's presence and still be cogent and complete. One of the very few logical things Peter Jackson did in The Fellowship of the Ring film was to omit the Bombadil sequence in total; however, he irrationally plopped in wholesale fan-fiction of his own design, thus negating any time saved from the plot compression.

And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative." As the author, Tolkien can do what he wishes, and Bombadil is a striking case in point. He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.

Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

Every other race, species or angelic being has a beginning in Tolkien's universe: Sauron, the Dwarves, the Elves, Man, and even a foggy genesis like the Hobbits or Orcs. If there isn't a specific point of origin, like in Orcs, then Tolkien fiddles with their provenance, and gives possibilities. Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible. Goldberry, herself as enigmatic as Tom, says merely "he is" without further explanation -- because no further explanation could be forthcoming.

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

That is an assumption on your part. I can only go on what the author stated specifically regarding the character on several occasions, and there is nothing that he stated that would lead me to follow your speculation. "An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

Elrond referred to Bombadil as a "strange creature", and is unsure of this creature's past. How do you define what he said inside your vacuum?

[jallanite]

Nonsense is an apt word in this case. A single word sometimes is all that is necessary.

Necessary for what? The word nonsense does not convince me that you are right. It merely, along with your supposed arguments, convinces me that you cannot argue coherently. That you continue to attempt to argue shows that you do not believe that the word nonsense is all that is necessary.

There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece.Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story.Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative."I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible.Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

"An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

You stated earlier:
Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis.I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing. And you ignore what Nerwen actually posts.

As I see it you originally attempted to show that Elrond and Gandalf’s lack of statements were significant, and failed so far as I see. This is not surprising when you only had an argument from silence. Now you attempt to show that because Tolkien had made Tom into an unsolved enigma with Middle-earth, that Elrond and Gandalf could not have known anything about him. But these two conclusions are completely unrelated.

Tolkien likewise never solved the history of Galadriel within Middle-earth, unless you wish to take Tolkien’s last theories in Unfinished Tales as his final solution. Yet I don’t think that anyone would take Tolkien’s different theories about Galadriel to prove that Tolkien also thought at any time that Elrond or Gandalf did not know her history, whatever it was at the moment. Similarly Tolkien in his late writings was very undecided about the origin of the Orcs. But I see no sign that Tolkien did not believe that, whatever his own beliefs at the moment, that Elrond and Gandalf were ever supposed not to know whether Orcs were longaeval or not. Tolkien himself was undecided, but his characters were not.

I have in more than one post here stated this, though not in such detail. Nerwen also stated it. Ignoring our statements is not a convincing way to argue.

In short, Tolkien’s beliefs about Tom Bombadil have nothing at all to say about whether Tolkien may or may not have believed that Elrond or Gandalf knew Tom’s origin, even if Tolkien himself did not.

[Morthoron]

Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

I am uncertain if you are being purposefully inscrutable or just plain dense; I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and write off the comment as simply obscurant. You made the indefensible claim that both Gandalf and Elrond knew of Tom Bombadil's origins without question. You then rabbit on about currency and political systems that they must have been aware of, although not specifically stated in the book. I merely pointed out that they indeed do not know everything, and in fact are unaware of some crucial points that impinge far more on the story than Bombadil's origin.

Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Your analogies are completely off base, and absurd for the most part. Even in the case of Winnie-the-Pooh where the origin of the character was a doll, Bombadil was already quite a fully-fleshed character with the same peculiar idiom, the same geographical locus and the same cast of cohorts in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil:

Old Tom Bombadil was a merry fellow;
bright blue his jacket was and his boots were yellow

Per Tolkien, Bombadil was already "invented", and he simply lifted the persona wholesale and plopped him in LotR. Unlike your compromised comparisons, Bombadil was not based on someone or something else. "He is".

I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

You were not misquoted. What you have is a comprehension problem. You somehow want to divorce "Middle-earth" from the "narrative", the story itself and how Tolkien chose to arrange it. The statement Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth” is debatable, but that he was unimportant to the story as a narrative is not.

So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

No, Tom as an intentional enigma is not similar to every other character in the book. Every other character in the book has an origin and history. There are complete genealogies of many characters. There is a whole creation mythos wherein Tom does not fit. I can reply "so what" to most of your argument.

Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

Again, you want to divorce the narrative, and now the original poem (which originally had nothing to do with Middle-earth), from the Ainulindalë. How about you prove Bombadil's origin within the constraints of Arda. I posit you cannot.

Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

Then stop replying with arguments when you can't comprehend what is being said.

You stated earlier:
I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

I stated an opinion that Gandalf and Elrond are verbose based on the rambling narratives at the Council of Elrond. They do like to hear themselves talk, and they do like to disembogue a font of their knowledge. Elrond talks for hours regarding the Ring, its history, the history of Numenor, and details his own origin, "even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore". "Books of lore" -- a prolific writer of histories, and yet short shrift given to the enigma Bombadil. Just because that opinion does not jibe with your pompous pronouncements does not mean it is false.

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing.

Elrond does not know Bombadil's origin, and is unsure if said Bombadil is even the same being as the one he knew of when he traveled in the West. It is not speculative but based on Elrond's own words:

But I had forgotten Bombadil, if indeed this is still the same that walked the woods and hills long ago, and even then he was older than old. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless.

Elrond is unsure if Bombadil is even the same as the being he knew previously. "older than old" denotes a lack of a set starting point and no parameter at all, historically-speaking. The term "fatherless" is indeed indicative of not knowing an origin. Add in the fact Elrond refers to Bombadil as a "strange creature", again indicative of not being able to categorize a being with any specifics, shows beyond speculation that Elrond does not know what the hell a Bombadil is. Unless, of course, you have some sort of abstraction you'd like to type out over several dull paragraphs that expounds on nothing.

This is not an "argument of silence" as you'd like to quote from your pals at Wiki. This is the spoken word of Elrond.

[jallanite]

You made the indefensible claim that both Gandalf and Elrond knew of Tom Bombadil's origins without question.

I never made the claim that you accuse me of. Point out the post where you think you find it. I did and do make the claim that neither Gandalf or Elrond make a claim that they did not did not know Tom’s origin.

Here is the original post: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=695422&postcount=46. I was questioning your source for a claim that you made. You have not provided one in my opinion. You could easily satisfy me with an answer that I would accept.

You were not misquoted. What you have is a comprehension problem. You somehow want to divorce "Middle-earth" from the "narrative", the story itself and how Tolkien chose to arrange it. The statement Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth” is debatable, but that he was unimportant to the story as a narrative is not.The first statement within quotation marks is indeed what I said. The following statement is a reasonable paraphrase of what Tolkien said. You find them different enough that you find the first debatable and the second not so. I agree. You really ought to be more careful about attributing a quotation to me that I did not say. Yes, you misquoted me.

No, Tom as an intentional enigma is not similar to every other character in the book.I did not post that Tom was not similar to every other character in the book, though I agree with the statement. What is your purpose in attributing to me something I have never said but agree with?

Every other character in the book has an origin and history. There are complete genealogies of many characters. There is a whole creation mythos wherein Tom does not fit. I can reply "so what" to most of your argument.Probably true enough, if you ignore unnamed characters. Tom fits well enough, it seems to me. We are told that he is fatherless, much the same as we are told this of Beleg.

Again, you want to divorce the narrative, and now the original poem (which originally had nothing to do with Middle-earth), from the Ainulindalë. How about you prove Bombadil's origin within the constraints of Arda. I posit you cannot.I am not sure what you mean by “the constraints of Arda”. Tom’s own account of his origin is on page 131 of Fellowship. Elrond adds some information on page 265 of Fellowship, current edition. Tom does not appear in the “Ainulindalë” as I’m sure you know, nor in the “Valaquenta”. Nor does Ungoliant or Gothmog. In any case I don’t accept that Tom’s not being mentioned in The Silmarillion or in The Hobbit means anything more than, say, Saruman or Treebeard not being mentioned in The Silmarillion or in The Hobbit. I think that Tom’s appearance in three books of The Lord of the Rings and his being discussed at the Council of Elrond indicates that Tom’s origin was within the constraints of Arda, as much as anything can. Tom is also known of by Gildor and his companion elves.

Then stop replying with arguments when you can't comprehend what is being said.I suspect this means that you yourself can’t figure out what you meant either.

I stated an opinion that Gandalf and Elrond are verbose based on the rambling narratives at the Council of Elrond. They do like to hear themselves talk, and they do like to disembogue a font of their knowledge. Elrond talks for hours regarding the Ring, its history, the history of Numenor, and details his own origin, "even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore". "Books of lore" -- a prolific writer of histories, and yet short shrift given to the enigma Bombadil. Just because that opinion does not jibe with your pompous pronouncements does not mean it is false.It doesn’t mean that my opinion is not true either. You again ignore that neither Elrond nor Gandalf are recorded as saying anything about the states of beings or origins of Men, Elves, Orcs, Wizards, Hobbits, Ents, or various other beings at the Council. Ignore away. But why, why, why do you make such a deal that they did not discuss more about the state of being or origin of Tom at the Council?

Elrond is unsure if Bombadil is even the same as the being he knew previously.Then Elrond is shown to apparently accept that they are the same.

"Older than old" denotes a lack of a set starting point and no parameter at all, historically-speaking.Except that Elrond also mentions once knowing Bombadil, which does work as a starting point for Elrond. That Elrond at that point says that Tom was “older than old” indicates Tom’s age when Elrond first met Tom. You are surely only pretending not to understand this, not a good way to argue.

The term "fatherless" is indeed indicative of not knowing an origin.Or it means Tom actually had no father.

Add in the fact Elrond refers to Bombadil as a "strange creature", again indicative of not being able to categorize a being with any specifics, shows beyond speculation that Elrond does not know what the hell a Bombadil is.But Tom, in The Lord of the Rings, is a strange creature. You ignore that, pretending that an Elvish loremaster would not say this, when the book attributes these words to him. Seems to me that Tolkien is more trustworthy than you are in these matters. If Tom was not one of the People of the Valar, he would not properly be called a Maia, though possibly of the same origin. And Úmaia seems to mean one of the People of Morgoth. If so, that name would not do. Tom seems to be unique, and the term strange creature does well enough for me, and apparently did well enough for Tolkien.

Unless you have something new to add, I don’t see any point in my continuing this discussion, because you appear to be more interested in speculating than providing data, and your speculation is, to me, most unconvincing. Trying to demonstrate that Elrond’s words only make sense when interpreted by you doesn’t work for me.

And to repeat: Tolkien’s beliefs about Tom Bombadil have nothing at all to say about whether Tolkien may or may not have believed that Elrond or Gandalf knew Tom’s origin, even if Tolkien himself did not.

And I have never believed that either Gandalf or Elrond said anything about Tom’s origin at the Council of Elrond. Any argument from that is indeed an argument from silence because Gandalf and Elrond don’t say anything on the matter, nor should they be expected to, whatever they might be supposed to have known.

[Balfrog]

There has been a startling development on our enigmatic friend: Tom Bombadil. A new book called “Breaking The Tolkien Code” exposes apparently the greatest of secrets – seven hidden puzzles within TLotR.

One of them is the identity of Tom, or rather 'what' he is.

Tolkien the Master Riddler supposedly cryptically inserted the secrets to his greatest mysteries in a riddle-game with the reader.

Tolkien's grandchildren noted (as suspected by some) a mischevious side to his nature in a couple of notable quotes:

“We played endless word games and I asked him inumerable questions about Midle Earth.”

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”

Within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

With confirmation being provided via a signature, one was meant to think out-of-the-box and decipher the following clues:

“... are referring to the mystery of names.” (from one of his Letters)

and Tom's own words:

“Don't you know my name..? That's the only answer” (- from TLotR)


I cannot possibly summarize an entire book in so short a post – but I can tell you the strength of the evidence is remarkable!

[Nerwen]

There has been a startling development on our enigmatic friend: Tom Bombadil. A new book called “Breaking The Tolkien Code” exposes apparently the greatest of secrets – seven hidden puzzles within TLotR.

One of them is the identity of Tom, or rather 'what' he is.

Tolkien the Master Riddler supposedly cryptically inserted the secrets to his greatest mysteries in a riddle-game with the reader.

Tolkien's grandchildren noted (as suspected by some) a mischevious side to his nature in a couple of notable quotes:

“We played endless word games and I asked him inumerable questions about Midle Earth.”

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”

Within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

With confirmation being provided via a signature, one was meant to think out-of-the-box and decipher the following clues:

“... are referring to the mystery of names.” (from one of his Letters)

and Tom's own words:

“Don't you know my name..? That's the only answer” (- from TLotR)


I cannot possibly summarize an entire book in so short a post – but I can tell you the strength of the evidence is remarkable!
If that's a representative example, I definitely can't agree, sorry. One can "prove" any text "really" means almost anything via a selective use of anagrams. It can be a fun game, but as an argument it's worthless.

Nonetheless, welcome to the Downs!

[Nerwen]

within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.
See, that's just the kind of forced, semi-nonsensical phrase that people come up with when they're trying to create an anagram from existing text. But the thesis here is that the names were created to fit the pre-existing phrase, so Tolkien could have chosen any message, including *a coherent and grammatical one*.

[Tar-Jêx]

See, that's just the kind of forced, semi-nonsensical phrase that people come up with when they're trying to create an anagram from existing text. But the thesis here is that the names were created to fit the pre-exiting phrase, so Tolkien could have chosen any message, including *a coherent and grammatical one*.

This sort of forced logic is what I don't like about the Bombadil discussion. Theorizing is one thing, but claiming what you say is true based off of convoluted logic is ridiculous.

[Zigûr]

To take this more seriously than is necessary, I am reasonably sure (although others may know better) that the term 'Maiar' was not even used by Professor Tolkien to refer to the lesser Ainur until after the composition of The Lord of the Rings. Certainly Gandalf still refers to "Fionwë son of Manwë" in drafts of the confrontation with the Balrog if I recall correctly, which were composed after the Bombadil sections were written (and I believe they were not substantially altered afterwards). In fact I have a rather firm impression that the very concept of the 'Maiar' as we now understand it was not solidified by that point, where there were still 'children of the Valar' and 'folk of the Valar'.

Christopher Tolkien himself observes that the 1958 Valaquenta is "probably where the word Maiar first arose." (Morgoth's Ring) Anyone performing more than a most cursory research into Professor Tolkien's process of composition (for a publication, for instance) would be able to discern this information.

One also cannot help but think that if there was some groundbreaking secret about Bombadil's identity it would not be the same trite, cliché line of speculation which has been proposed (and to my satisfaction at least, refuted) for years and years: "Bombadil is a Maia." How shocking. :rolleyes:

[denethorthefirst]

One also cannot help but think that if there was some groundbreaking secret about Bombadil's identity it would not be the same trite, cliché line of speculation which has been proposed (and to my satisfaction at least, refuted) for years and years: "Bombadil is a Maia." How shocking. :rolleyes:

That Tom Bombadil is a Maia (or more accurately: an unaffiliated Ainu) is, in my opinion, the only logical in-universe explanation. How is that theory refuted? Not to my knowledge. Its definitely not trite or boring: Ainu are still pretty rare, especially in Middle-Earth. The only problem is the repeated claim that Bombadil is somehow "first": but that can be easily explained away as: either hobbit folklore, that it simply means that he was the first in that particularly part of Arda, of that he maybe snuck past Melkor and actually was the the first (least likely option imo). His form would make a lot of sense in that case: in his burning curiosity and eagerness to experience the world he anticipated the coming elves and humans and clothed himself like the children of iluvatar (or as he perceived them in the music of the ainur); its a bit like Aule and the dwarves (Aule wanted to model his children after the children of Iluvatar, but because, like bombadil, his perception during the music was faulty and flawed the dwarven bodies, and bombadils body, look nothing like an elf or a human. In fact bombadil looks a bit like a dwarf himself: the "misshaping" of the dwarves may not have been Aules fault at all, maybe all the Ainur had a bit of a distorted picture of the children of iluvatar during the music. At the time of their arrival bombadil was maybe already fully incarnated because he lived for ages in that body (eating, drinking, sleeping, living) and could no longer change/correct it or he simply did no longer care (very likely given his character).

[jallanite]

To take this more seriously than is necessary, I am reasonably sure (although others may know better) that the term 'Maiar' was not even used by Professor Tolkien to refer to the lesser Ainur until after the composition of The Lord of the Rings.

I believe you are right. The first published mention is, I believe, in Clyde S. Kilby’s book Tolkien and the Silmarillion, published in 1971, which mentions “Melian the Maia”.

You can peruse the first pages of the book Breaking The Tolkien Code in an amazon preview at http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Tolkien-Code-Priya-Seth/dp/1501056883/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418663417&sr=8-1&keywords=%22Breaking+The+Tolkien+Code%22&spebp=1418663417694#reader_1501056883 . The Balrog anagrams are supposedly:MINE HOLE FALL, HELD LEFT WING
andWELL DONE, MINE FALL. FLIGHT EH
It reminds me of an encounter with a Tolkien fan on another website who was trying to explain Quenya by translating it into Hebrew using a concordance of Hebrew roots from a family Bible. He was amazed by his results. I tried to convince him that his results were mainly from his forcing the most interpretable results from the concordance which allowed him to pick and chose words, not from anything Tolkien wrote. But the forum administrators banned the fan as posting obvious religious crackpottery before I had come close to convincing him that God was not speaking to him and anyone who knew Hebrew through Tolkien’s Quenya, even though God was not making much sense.

Balfrog, I find, normally posts at The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza where he is credited with 139 posts. His other posts seem to me to be sensible ones. For his post there on Breaking The Tolkien Code see http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread.php?77827-Tolkien-s-Secret-Hidden-Code . The two responses don’t indicate much interest in the book.

[mhagain]

That Tom Bombadil is a Maia (or more accurately: an unaffiliated Ainu) is, in my opinion, the only logical in-universe explanation. How is that theory refuted?
What you're essentially asking here is to prove a negative: it can't be disproven that he's a Maia but that does not constitute proof that he is one.

There are actually plenty of logical in-universe explanations for what he could be, and none of them require him being a Vala or Maia. First of all let's take a quote from the Valaquenta:...in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Ea.
So now that we've established that the Valar and the Maiar weren't the only spirits that entered into Ea, let's look at some potential examples of other spirits. Here's another quote, this time from the Ainulindale:But Manwe was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor; and he called unto himself many spirits both greater and less, and they came down into the fields of Arda and aided Manwe...
That's example one; here's example two, from Of Aule and Yavanna:When the Children awake, then the thought of Yavanna will awake also, and it will summon spirits from afar, and they will go among the kelvar and the olvar, and some will dwell therein, and be held in reverence, and their just anger shall be feared.
So right now we have two in-universe examples of candidates for what Tom Bombadil could be that don't necessarily involve him being either a Vala or a Maia. Therefore he doesn't have to be a Maia (and nor do any of the many other beings which it's normally assumed must be one).

[Mithalwen]

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13207

A long time ago we did have fun with anagrams. A mixed bag but some gold in there. And for the record my personal title is not a coded confession of a hard drugs habit.:rolleyes:

[denethorthefirst]

What you're essentially asking here is to prove a negative: it can't be disproven that he's a Maia but that does not constitute proof that he is one.

There are actually plenty of logical in-universe explanations for what he could be, and none of them require him being a Vala or Maia.

I never wrote that he's one of those. "Vala" and "Maia" are job descriptions, but both are Ainur (their "race" so to speak). I think hes an unaffiliated Ainu ... Maybe he was a Maia in the beginning, but it's also possible that he was pretty independent from the start.

[Nerwen]

Balfrog, I find, normally posts at The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza where he is credited with 139 posts. His other posts seem to me to be sensible ones. For his post there on Breaking The Tolkien Code see http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread.php?77827-Tolkien-s-Secret-Hidden-Code . The two responses don’t indicate much interest in the book.
Balfrog's sole other post here is identical to that one. As I said on that thread, I believe we are dealing with an author in self-promotion mode.

[Nerwen]

denethor, it's been been pretty well established that Tom is *meant* to be an enigma, so I don't think it makes much sense to claim that he's "really" any given thing.

Or are you just suggesting this as a way he could *theoretically* fit into Middle-earth? I mean without that being "the answer"?

[jallanite]

denethor, it's been been pretty well established that Tom is *meant* to be an enigma, so I don't think it makes much sense to claim that he's "really" any given thing.

Or are you just suggesting this as a way he could *theoretically* fit into Middle-earth? I mean without that being "the answer"?

It seems to me that Tom could be a Maia, or perhaps better an Ainu, since the name Maia refers to one of the People of the Valar and that doesn’t fit well with Tom.

Nor do we know in what sense Tom was an Enigma. I can imagine Tolkien quite willing to accept Tom as a creature of the Maia type. The Enigma part would come from how Goldberry and River-woman fit it.

But of course Tolkien did not say, seemingly on purpose. Mahgain’s post points out that beings of the Valar and Maia type are not the only spirits in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

[Nerwen]

It seems to me that Tom could be a Maia, or perhaps better an Ainu, since the name Maia refers to one of the People of the Valar and that doesn’t fit well with Tom.

Nor do we know in what sense Tom was an Enigma. I can imagine Tolkien quite willing to accept Tom as a creature of the Maia type. The Enigma part would come from how Goldberry and River-woman fit it.

But of course Tolkien did not say, seemingly on purpose. Mahgain’s post points out that beings of the Valar and Maia type are not the only spirits in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.
There is a difference between pointing out ways that Tom *could* fit into the universe, and claiming any one of them as the actual answer. I am not sure which of those things denethor is doing, which is why I asked him.

[denethorthefirst]

denethor, it's been been pretty well established that Tom is *meant* to be an enigma, so I don't think it makes much sense to claim that he's "really" any given thing.

Or are you just suggesting this as a way he could *theoretically* fit into Middle-earth? I mean without that being "the answer"?

Yes. (That's the short answer :))

Of course I know his real world history. See also my post #59

I think it is quite believable that Elrond forgot about Bombadil, they lived in the same region (the north-west of ME) for roughly 6000 years and maybe met once (maybe only shortly) earlier in that time when Bombadil wasn't as reclusive as later. It's also obvious that they have very different Personalities: why should the worldly, active and engaged leader-politician Elrond "remember" some strange eccentric he met sometime maybe 4000 years ago, when he hasn't seen him since and we take in account everything that happened during that time! Another thing: 6000 years may sound old but compared to Gandalf, Saruman, or even Elves like Cirdan, Galadriel and other Exiles Elrond is rather "young"; everything he knows about the creation and cosmology of ea and arda and a large part of the prehistoric history he knows from second hand sources: of course Bombadil is a "strange creature" for him, Elrond is not all-knowing.
Tolkien didn't explain Bombadil because he understood that a believable mythology needs loose ends and inconsistencies (like the real world Greek and Germanic myths that inspired him - they grew over time and don't always fit together, different parts contradict each other, or make.no sense, there are differences and changes in tone, and so on.)
But there is only one logical in-universe explanation for Bombadil: he has to be an unaffiliated Ainu - nothing else makes sense. The real mistery however is Goldberry. Who is the mysterious "River-Woman"? Just an elven Woman that lived by the River sometime during the great journey westward, or maybe an Ainu of Ulmo that dwelled inside the river and mated with one of the passing Elves (like Melian and Thingol) - eventually her partner died and she returned to Valinor leaving her Daughter with Bombadil?

But whatever his outside history, Ea is supposed to be a fairly consistent world with its own rules and laws. Forget for a moment that were talking about a work of fiction, suspend your disbelief; we are all in middle-earth, learned and cultured Dunedain or Elves: knowing what we do about the cosmology, what would we think about Bombadil? What would be our most logical conclusion regarding his nature? That he must be an unaffiliated/independent Ainu, it's the ONLY in-universe explanation that makes any sense.

[mhagain]

I never wrote that he's one of those. "Vala" and "Maia" are job descriptions, but both are Ainur (their "race" so to speak). I think hes an unaffiliated Ainu ... Maybe he was a Maia in the beginning, but it's also possible that he was pretty independent from the start.
There's a subtle distinction here.

The Ainur were created first and participated in the Music, then they entered into the world at the beginning of time.

That's not necessarily the case for the other spirits. They need not have been created first and they need not have participated in the Music, and this would make them not-Ainur. Since we know these other spirits did exist, they could just as easily have been created as part of the Music (the Ents definitely were; recall Yavanna's "yet it was in the Song ... some sang to Iluvatar amid the wind and the rain").

That makes them neither Ainur nor Children, and - if they were created as part of the Music - they would also have been already a part of the world when the Valar and the Maiar entered into it, which would also nicely satisfy Tom's claim to be "first"/"eldest"/etc.

[denethorthefirst]

That's a good point ... So he's not necessarily an Ainu, but he may be a Spirit (Ealar) that became fully incarnated? It's not as neat as the Ainu-explanation because his origin and purpose is still unclear. If he's an Ainu he has a clear origin and maybe even purpose (shape/build arda and guard the children) even if he's a bit negligent in that regard. Or he is some kind of a rogue/neutral Ainu and came to Arda independently and of his own accord, then he may not identify with the purpose of the other Ainu (but he seems to love the creation, so he can't be completely nonchalant about its fate).

[Zigûr]

To be honest I don't think Bombadil is "anything" really. I don't think there's an "in-universe" explanation that causes him to conform to some other established race/species/whatever.

I think he's just Bombadil.

[mhagain]

If he's an Ainu he has a clear origin and maybe even purpose (shape/build arda and guard the children) even if he's a bit negligent in that regard.
Of course if he wasn't an Ainu then his apparent negligence wouldn't need to be explained away - because he wouldn't be negligent.

I don't see why he even needs to have a purpose within Ea, to be honest - or at least a purpose that's relevant to the main action of the stories that Tolkien was writing.

[Tar-Jêx]

I don't see why he even needs to have a purpose within Ea, to be honest - or at least a purpose that's relevant to the main action of the stories that Tolkien was writing.

But he did serve purpose to the plot and atmosphere. Without Tom, the hobbits would be stuck in a barrow, or imprisoned by Old Man Willow. The Witch King would not have been defeated without the swords found in the barrows, which was part of Tom's section in the story.

If you are referring to the journey of the Ring to Orodruin as the main action of the stories, then Tom is a lot less important, but his impact on the story was meaningful.

Plot aside, Tom's purpose was adding to the atmosphere of the Old Forest, and to exhibit classical magic.

[Belegorn]

I can't recall right now, but I wonder if the Northern Sea-Kings were familiar with Bombadil, at least as familiar as he seemed with them. I don't think Aragorn spoke much of him, if at all, at the Council.

[Tar-Jêx]

I can't recall right now, but I wonder if the Northern Sea-Kings were familiar with Bombadil, at least as familiar as he seemed with them. I don't think Aragorn spoke much of him, if at all, at the Council.

I don't think Aragorn spoke about him at all. The Northern Sea-kings don't seem like they would have known about him because he wasn't the sort of person to venture anywhere outside of the Old Forest.

[Morthoron]

You could easily satisfy me with an answer that I would accept.

An answer that you would accept? Perhaps you should start referring to yourself in the pompous plural, the "royal we".

We are told that he is fatherless, much the same as we are told this of Beleg.

No, it is not the same and you know it. Like Beleg, one could say Legolas was "motherless", however, that does not mean that, like Athena, Legolas sprang fully formed from the skull of Thranduil.

Or it means Tom actually had no father.

Yes, if you remove all nuance, ignore all else Elrond said and adhere to a literal definition so severe as to preclude any other sense of the word; in other words, parsing out pieces in a vacuum. "Oldest and fatherless" doesn't mean poor Tom was an orphan, nor does it mean that dear old Mrs. Bombadil had a virgin birth.

But Tom, in The Lord of the Rings, is a strange creature. You ignore that, pretending that an Elvish loremaster would not say this, when the book attributes these words to him. Seems to me that Tolkien is more trustworthy than you are in these matters. If Tom was not one of the People of the Valar, he would not properly be called a Maia, though possibly of the same origin. And Úmaia seems to mean one of the People of Morgoth. If so, that name would not do. Tom seems to be unique, and the term strange creature does well enough for me, and apparently did well enough for Tolkien.

Elrond, as a loremaster, would use the term "strange creature" to denote a being he cannot classify, lacking the knowledge to assert anything with certainty, as you yourself just plainly stated. Yes, you stated it quite clearly here.

And with that, I am done with this conversation. But by all means, continue to beat a dead horse into bloody equine particulates.

[jallanite]

I can't recall right now, but I wonder if the Northern Sea-Kings were familiar with Bombadil, at least as familiar as he seemed with them. I don't think Aragorn spoke much of him, if at all, at the Council.

Tolkien pretends to translate some northern names in Middle-earth, by Norse (Scandinavian) names, whence the Dwarf names and Gandalf. On page 265 Elrond says:
But many another name he [Bombadil] has since been given by other folk: Forn by the Dwarves, Orald by northern Men, and many other names beside.
Hammond and Scull, in their The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion, page 128, write:
In Nomenclature (under Orald) Tolkien states that Forn and Orald ‘are meant to be the names in foreign tongues (not Common Speech)…. Forn is actually the Scandinavian word for “(belonging to) ancient (days)”…. Orald is an Old English word for “very ancient”, evidently meant The Lord of the Rings] to represent the names of the Rohirrim and their kin.’
This makes it clear that Bombadil was at one time more widely known, spoken of in many tongues. But nowhere is any mention made of this figure in connection with “the Northern Sea-kings”, which itself proves nothing.

[Zigûr]

Forn is actually the Scandinavian word for “(belonging to) ancient (days)”…. Orald is an Old English word for “very ancient”, evidently meant The Lord of the Rings] to represent the names of the Rohirrim and their kin.’
That's interesting. I'd always assumed that 'Forn' was a Khuzdul word for some reason. Of course it obviously isn't, given that it lacks a triconsonantal word structure - I think that soft 'r' wouldn't count as one if it was Khuzdul. Similarly, of course, the name 'Durin' was given to the Dwarven ancestor retroactively in the tongue of Northern Men long after Durin the Deathless' own time so I really shouldn't be surprised at the Dwarves using Mannish names of their own choosing for people who pre-dated their use of Mannish. I am of course assuming the Dwarves knew of Bombadil before they adopted Northern Mannish as their public naming language, however.

[jallanite]

I am of course assuming the Dwarves knew of Bombadil before they adopted Northern Mannish as their public naming language, however.

Possibly the Dwarves knew of Bombadil before adopting Northern Mannish and possibly they didn’t. The name Forn is presumably a current name for Bombadil originating among Dwarves who took names of translated Norse.

Similarly, of course, the name 'Durin' was given to the Dwarven ancestor retroactively in the tongue of Northern Men long after Durin the Deathless' own time …In The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME 12), page 304, J. R. R. Tolkien attributes the name Durin to the Men of the North of the Second Age, and states the name was a word for ‘king’ in that language. But Durin in Old Norse is not related to a word for ‘king’ so far as I know. It may be from dyrr ‘door’ and be intended to mean ‘Door Warden’ or from the stem dúrr- ‘slumber, sleep’ and mean ‘Sleeper, Sleepy’.

In a note on this statement Christopher Tolkien notes that his father here seems to accept Durin as the ‘real’ Mannish name of the Father of the Longbeards, but that name is a name derived from Old Norse, so it must be a translation. But I’m not sure that J. R. R. Tolkien did not, in this case, understand it as a genuine name meaning ‘king’ that by coincidence was the same as the genuine Old Norse Dwarf name Durin.

[mhagain]

To take this more seriously than is necessary, I am reasonably sure (although others may know better) that the term 'Maiar' was not even used by Professor Tolkien to refer to the lesser Ainur until after the composition of The Lord of the Rings. Certainly Gandalf still refers to "Fionwë son of Manwë" in drafts of the confrontation with the Balrog if I recall correctly, which were composed after the Bombadil sections were written (and I believe they were not substantially altered afterwards). In fact I have a rather firm impression that the very concept of the 'Maiar' as we now understand it was not solidified by that point, where there were still 'children of the Valar' and 'folk of the Valar'.
The concept of the Maiar actually does pre-date Lord of the Rings, although the name "Maiar" itself certainly doesn't.

The precursors first appear in the earliest Annals of Valinor given in HoME4, and are fleshed out a teensy-weensy bit in the Old English versions, but I'll skip over those and jump straight to the second version of these Annals (AV2, in HoME5) where they suddenly appear:With these great ones came many lesser spirits, beings of their own kind but of smaller might; these are the Vanimor, the Beautiful. And with them also were later numbered their children, begotten in the world, but of divine race, who were many and fair; these are the Valarindi.There are two main notable things about this passage. First is that the Vanimor are portrayed as an order of beings distinct from the old Children of the Valar concept. Second is that the translation given for Vanimor ("the Beautiful") is the same as that later used for Maiar.

It's possible to trace this passage through subsequent development in the Annals of Aman and it's various revisions, and the conclusion is that the Vanimor are the Maiar: it was only the name that had changed. At the same time the Children of the Valar were dropped.

There are other connections in the AV2 text too, including:Thereafter the night of the world was beautiful, and some of the Vanimor strayed into Middle-earth. Among these was Melian, whose voice was renowned in Valmar.The formations Vanimor/Uvanimor and Maiar/Umaiar are also notable.

None of which says anything about Bombadil, of course.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A very interesting JRRT letter on Bombadil has recently come to light, written to fellow Inkling Nevill Coghill shortly after the publication of FR. It was posted on Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull's blog (with Estate permission), and I think it is well worth reading as Tolkien's considered comments on Bombadil to an intelligent and sympathetic reader:

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.......

More at http://wayneandchristina.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/tom-bombadil-addenda-corrigenda/