Derry Dol, Indeed

[burrahobbit]

Today I have completely changed my opinion of saying what Tom is. Do you know what Tom is?

Goldberry: Tom is.

Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying this to be flip, it fits in later.

Let's figure out what we know about Tom.

He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.

When did the Dark Lord come from Outside?

Melkor too was there from the first

The Dark Lord came in right away. The Dark lord was the first in, even.

What else was around when the Valar came in?

But when the Valar Entered into Eä they were at first astounded and at a loss, for it was as if naught was yet made which they had seen in vision, and all was but on pointto begin and yet unshaped, and it was dark.

Nothing else was around when the Valar came in, save only Eä itself.

How can Tom manage to be around before the Dark Lord when the Dark Lord was the first thing into Eä?

I would say, now, that it is because Tom is Eä, or at least an embodiment thereof.

Power to defy our Enemy is not in [Tom], unless such power is in the Earth itself.

QUESTION: What is Arda?
ANSWER: Arda is song.

None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master:
His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster.

Eä: The World, the material Universe; Eä, meaning in Elvish 'It is'

Tom is.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

I made this topic a year ago. Please don't just reply to say how awesome it is. A lot of people did that already.

[ August 23, 2003: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

[Anorien]

What are you trying to get at? Tom Bombadil, right? Tom was described by someone, I not sure who, as the one person who the ring had absolutely no affect on. So, he could have destroyed it. He was so in tuned with nature, and the good things in life. but, he was soo absentminded, or carefree, that he would mostlikely forget the ring, and it would be lost. That's the technical stuff I know about Tom. but other then that, someone lese wanna take a stab at it?

[Gandalf_theGrey]

* The familiar form of a grey-clad figure enters, encircled by rising wisps of pipeweed smoke. *

Well Met, burrahobbit: smilies/smile.gif

I've nothing to add except my compliments to you on a fascinating post.

* bows *

Gandalf the Grey

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

[akhtene]

I would say, now, that it is because Tom is Eä, or at least an embodiment thereof.


Burrahobbit, I'm with you about it! End of mystery!!! hehehe smilies/wink.gif

[Rose Cotton]

That makes absalute scence. I agree. Tom must be an enbodiment of Ea. Yay.

Does anyone have any other views to go ageinst this?

[Sharkû]

Ea is itself only creation, and not capable of creating itself, or an embodiment of itself. The central point of Tolkien's belief and his mythology is that the created are formed after the likeness of the creator, so, Ea, since it was created by Eru, is modelled after him. And there we come to the point where we have to realize that everything is either modelled after the likeness of Eru directly, or at least 'has its utmost source in him'. So, basically, the same as you proposed for Tom applies for everyone in Ea, basically.

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

I guess that cancels out my theory of him being a Maia

[the phantom]

I love the mention of singing burrahobbit! That's a great point. I was thinking, when the hobbits were trapped by the wight, how could Tom rescue them so quickly. Frodo called, and Tom was there right away. That almost seems to indicate he's everywhere. I think 'Tom' is just a kind of raiment he puts on when he wants to be seen. Also, it makes sense that the Earth itself would not be affected by the ring. Yes, Tom could have destroyed the ring, but it wasn't his place to. This was a task for the children of Iluvatar to complete. I would imagine that Tom knew the will of Iluvatar better than anyone. He was allowed to interfere to save the quest just twice, but the rest was up to them. I don't think it's coincidence that Tom happened to be located right where he was. I think he knew a long time before exactly what would befall. Also,I recall Gandalf saying something like "he has removed himself to a little land, with boundaries he has set". It makes sense that as Middle Earth becomes less wide open and more populated, Middle Earth itself would recede. I agree with barrahobbit, Eru created Arda as not only an object, but a spirit in tune with his will, yet not at liberty to interfere with the children of Iluvatar unless allowed to do so by Iluvatar.

[Nar]

Excellent post, burrahobbit! Tom has his his house to mind, and Goldberry is waiting!So, Tom is the spirit of Ea, Ea is his house, and Goldberry is waiting!

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Rose Cotton]

That's great and all Sharku but Burro's theory is the best one yet.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

It's often asked how Tom could be so absent-minded or naive that he wouldn't take the ring seriously, but if you consider his age, especially if burrahobbit is right (which is certainly a possibility), it isn't so strange. If he was there before Melkor, then Sauron is little more than a tadpole to him, and the ring of power some passing game.

Remember, he had seen Ea sundered by the Valar and the casting out of Melkor. Even if Sauron had gained mastery of Middle Earth, I doubt that it would've changed Tom.

Burrahobbit, your idea is growing on me. The music really draws it all together. Just the same, Sharku has made some very valid points. Ea is only a stage, a shadow of Eru's thoughts. How could it manifest itself in a being as powerful as Tom Bombadil? There are concessions to be made if we would find ourselves closer to the truth.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[the phantom]

I don't believe burrahobbit is saying that Ea just up and decided to manifest itself. He's saying Eru created Ea as not just matter but as an actual sentient being capable of taking on form. That was the manner in which Ea (Tom) was created from the very begining.

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

I would imagine that Tom knew the will of Iluvatar better than anyone.


Could Tom be the embodiement of Eru?

[*Varda*]

Most interesting idea I've heard yet for who Tom is. Most evidence as well actually. I'm inclined to believe it, although Sharku does have a point.

~*Varda Elentari*~

[The Silver-shod Muse]

He's saying Eru created Ea as not just matter but as an actual sentient being capable of taking on form. That was the manner in which Ea (Tom) was created from the very begining.

Ah, I see. That does make more sense. My mistake. smilies/wink.gif

[Kuruharan]

Could Tom be the embodiement of Eru?


No. Tolkien explicitly denied this.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

Where? Is it in one of the letters? I haven't read them.

[Kuruharan]

Yes. In two letters he spoke about Eru physically living in the world.

Letter #181: "There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator in this story or mythology."

Letter #211: "The One does not physically inhabit any part of Ea."

[Daniel Telcontar]

Try look at the thread "A good essay on Bombadil". There is an interesting article about Tom, with good arguments. It is worth reading, at least if you're interested in the enigma Bombadil is.

[obloquy]

If he was there before Melkor, then Sauron is little more than a tadpole to him

Melkor and Sauron existed before Ea. Which is related somewhat to my question to burrahobbit: What of the discord of Melkor? The 'Morgoth element' that pervades all of creation? Do you believe this is also a part of Tom?

[burrahobbit]

I suppose that it would have to be, obloquy, though I am unsure as to how it would be manifest in Tom. Perhaps that is why he has limited himself to such a small area of Middle-earth.

[Elendur]

Ea itself is not in discord because of Melkor. I think that only pertains to the inhabitants of Ea. Ea was created from the flame imperishable. I dont beleive that flame was 'alive' and capable of being affected in any way except for by Eru. I think Ea itself is the flame imperishable. That is why Eru told Melkor he would never find it. It was not any small flame or object, it was all of Ea. Melkor never found the flame because he was looking at it with the wrong perspective from the start. The power of the flame is in Ea itself and it is under the control of Eru. I think that when Ea was created Tom was also created as an embodiment of Ea itself. But I think he is different from any other person or Ainur (I am agreeing with Phantom on this). Tom was everywhere at once and his body was just a raiment he put on. What Erus exact purpose was for creating Tom, I dont know. He seems to have been alone or only with Goldberry for most of his time in Ea. The only time he is recorded to even be a part of history is when he helps the hobbits and when Gandalf goes to talk to him at the end of LOTR (If Tolkien were to write one thing, I would choose to hear the conversation of Tom and Gandalf over anything else). So I dont think Eru would bring Tom into existence to only do those few acts.

Anyways, Ive gotten really off topic with most of my post and I am only writing what I think. It could be totally wrong or disproven in one of the books and I dont even know about it. I thought I would just share what I thought.

[Baran]

Tim is the essence of nature, the essence of Arda. And Arda is music! I totally agree with you Burrahobbit!! This, in my eyes, closes the Bombadil argument once and for all!

Thanks Burrahobbit!

[Kuruharan]

Ea itself is not in discord because of Melkor. I think that only pertains to the inhabitants of Ea.

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with that statement. Ea was distorted by the work of Melkor, that is why it is called "Arda Marred."

"Some of those thoughts he [Melkor] now wove into his music, and straightaway discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh to him grew dispondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought they had at first. Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound."

"But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before..."

"...but Melkor too was there from the first, and he meddled in all that was done, turning it if he might to his own desires and purposes..."

"...the Valar endeavored ever, in despite of Melkor, to rule the Earth and to prepare it for the coming of the Firstborn; and they built lands and Melkor destoryed them; valleys they delved and Melkor raised them up; mountains they carved and Melkor threw them down; seas they hollowed and Melkor spilled them; and naught might have peace or come to lasting growth, for as surely as the Valar began a labour so would Melkor undo it or corrupt it. And yet their labour was not all in vain; and though nowhere and in no work was their will and purpose wholly fulfilled, and all things were in hue and shape other than the Valar had at first intended, slowly nonetheless the Earth was fashioned and made firm."

I think Ea itself is the flame imperishable.

I also disagree with this. It sounds almost as if that says Ea is Iluvatar. Ea was created by the Flame Imperishable, but as a seperate thing.

"And I shall send forth into the Void the Flame Imperishable, and it shall be at the heart of the World and the World shall Be..."

The way that is phrased the Flame Imperishable is at the heart but is not the substance of the World. (And I don't think that Iluvatar meant that the Flame Imperishable was literally and physically at the heart of Ea, but in a spiritual sense. But that is just my opinion.)

[obloquy]

Arda is not exactly the same as Ea. Arda is the Earth, while Ea is the material universe. Ea was brought into being, and then Arda was shaped.

How do we interpret the Music of the Ainur? Is it symbolic of the entire timeline, from beginning to end? Or was Ea created complete with all of the various themes already interwoven? I believe the former is true. I believe that when Eru created Ea it was a pure creation -- I don't think he could have created something that was tainted. It was then given over to the Ainur to fashion physical representations of the music they had sung. It was thus marred by Melkor's theme of discord.

If this is the case, the significance of "Tom is Ea" is immeasurable. If Tom is the embodiment of Ea, and Sharku's contention is correct, then Tom must have come into being simultaneous with Ea itself. This means he existed before Melkor's "theme" began to mar creation. Does this mean that Tom is the only pure, untainted physical creation remaining? Does his diminished realm parallel the diminishing of Ea from its original perfection? Taking Sharku's post a bit farther, would Tom then also be a perfect reflection of Eru himself?

I doubt that this (burrahobbit's theory and the ramifications thereof) was Tolkien's conception of Tom, but you have to admit, it does fit startlingly well.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

burrahobbit, I understand your argumentation and it is fascinating, but I found a couple of quotes about Tom that contradict that theory:
Out east my knowledge fails. Tom is no master of Riders from the Black Land far beyond his country. (Tom of himself in "Fog on the Barrow-Downs")

I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall... (Glorfindel at "The Council of Elrond")

Eru would have to be greater than the Black Power, and those quotes indicate that Tom is not.

[burrahobbit]

I'm saying the Tom is the World, Estelyn, not that Tom is God.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Oops, I misunderstood you - sorry! smilies/frown.gif

[Anna Licumo]

The way that is phrased the Flame Imperishable is at the heart but is not the substance of the World. (And I don't think that Iluvatar meant that the Flame Imperishable was literally and physically at the heart of Ea, but in a spiritual sense. But that is just my opinion.)

If the heart of the world WAS the Flame Imperishable, in the literal sense, then it would be the molten core, correct? Is this the significance of Mount Doom? That Melkor wanted the Flame so badly, his servent (unconciousably or not) built his fortress around the only (or at least one of) the 'entrances' to the Flame? That was why the Ring could only be destroyed there. Not that it was made there, but that it was made OF the Flame, and only the Flame could retake it?

I don't ask to steer away from the original topic, just wandering. This Tom theory is great! However, another question: I understand he was bound, but why there? Why not Gondor or Fangorn forest or Lorien or even Mordor? These places seem a bit more signifacant than the Old Forest. Was he placed, or willingly moved, there just for the sake of saving the Hobbits from Death?

Sorry for all the questions, I just have an insatiable curiosty when it comes to Tolkien. Just don't know enough!

[Kuruharan]

If the heart of the world WAS the Flame Imperishable, in the literal sense, then it would be the molten core, correct? Is this the significance of Mount Doom? That Melkor wanted the Flame so badly, his servent (unconciousably or not) built his fortress around the only (or at least one of) the 'entrances' to the Flame? That was why the Ring could only be destroyed there. Not that it was made there, but that it was made OF the Flame, and only the Flame could retake it?


Well, I guess if it was, then it would. However, it wasn't so it didn't.

(It's so nice to have confusing use of pronouns isn't it smilies/wink.gif)

To more clearly answer your question, the Flame Imperishable could not have been in anyway related to the fires of Mount Doom because for the simple fact that it is hidden and undiscoverable to Melkor and his minions. (I'd insert the exact quote but I am unable to do so at the moment.)

Also I doubt that Sauron would be able to use the Flame Imperishable to forge the Ring. Probably Sauron would not have liked being in the actual presence of the Flame Imperishable. It is also virtually unthinkable that Iluvatar would allow Sauron to take part of his (Iluvatar's) power and use it to create a device of domination.

As for your second question, there is no real answer except to say that Tom was where he wanted to be for his own reasons. The relative importance of the place in the eyes of the rest of the world was irrelevant. He certainly had greater purposes (to himself) than saving hobbits, even if they were carrying the Ring.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[burrahobbit]

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the Old Forest. The Old Forest used to be the biggest thing going. Trees for farther than my eye has ever seen. Trees are amazing things. When a forest is gone it doesn't ever come back. That's important. The diminishing of the Old Forest and of Tom's realm is symbolic.

[Lush]

burrahhobbit, young man, you are far too intelligent for your own good.

[kingangmar]

thank you burrahobbit i had no idea the issue of tom was so deep..however does there occour any reference to him other than in the lord of the rings and if so wouldn't it seem than rather he signifying an all encompassing figure of humbly shrouded yet grandios figure in tolkeins work might he simply have been aliterary conveinence for tolkein as his hobbits wanddered away from there shire to encounter "the strange things" in the woods and barrows.... thank you again

[burrahobbit]

I'm not going to reply to this until it's written in English.

[Feanaro]

"however does there occour any reference to him other than in the lord of the rings"

Ever hear of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? No? Probably not because it has not been in print for several years. Solution? Go down to your local library and see if they have a copy.

[Elrian]

The got it stashed in a book called The Tolkien Reader now, but that too might be out of print. smilies/frown.gif

[Feanaro]

Don't fret, it still is. I remember seeing Bombadil's adventures combined with another book a week or two ago, but I did not mention the book's name because I forgot it.

There, now you have two ways to get more Bombadil information: a) go to your library to see the original version, or b) go to your nearest bookstore.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Feanaro ]

[kingangmar]

thank o bretheren for thy most gracious acceptance of my butchered postings would that I might master the language called english lowley american though i be

[theWhiteLady]

Wonderful theory, burrahobbit! I am thoroughly amazed at your brilliance, thank you for sharing it with us!!!

I have, however, one question: Knowing that Goldberry is the River's daughter (a reference to her being a Maiar?) and assuming that as you say Tom is an embodiment of Ea, why would Tom marry someone (the River's daughter) that is something that he embodies... For if he embodies Ea, or is Ea, wouldn't he embody, or be, the River?

Forgive my stupidity if the answer is as simple as I suspect smilies/wink.gif

[burrahobbit]

That is a good question, theWhiteLady. I've been thinking about it for a while. I noticed that you posted the same question over at MT. smilies/biggrin.gif Don't worry, you aren't being ignored. It's just something of a philosophy question, and I don't have any training in that. Tom is and is not the world. He is a world and a person at the same time. Persons are allowed to marry.

[Tarthang]

Quite some month's back, I was at a site where Tom was discussed in some depth (sorry, I don't recall if was the Downs or somewhere different). Anyway there was a quote taken from on of JRRT's letters concerning Tom. JRRT admitted that he didn't know who or what Tom was, as Tom didn't fit in anywhere, but left him in the story as an enigma which JRRT felt was a necessary element in the story (an enigma that is).
Which pretty much leaves it up to the reader to interpret Tom how they want.
Sorry I can't provide any better details, like I said it was a while back (like December or January).

[theWhiteLady]

LoL, I thought it would be interesting to see what would be thought about it over there smilies/wink.gif

Indeed, I have come to conclusion that, as Tarthan's post shows, that Tolkien himself did not really understand Tom, or probably Goldberry for that matter... Still, it's fun to speculate and of all theories I've seen, your's has been to best! smilies/biggrin.gif

[HerenIstarion]

I haven't read the whole bunch of posts in here yet, I confess, but I have burra's

The Dark Lord came in right away. The Dark lord was the first in, even

to comment upon first

One can be in Arda before Dark Lord, for Melkor becomes Dark Lord after killing Finwe, with the change of his name to Morgoth
So, Tom is there after Melkor, but still before Dark Lord (and there is no contradiction in terms at all)

now back to reading smilies/smile.gif

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

That's very nice. So nice, in fact, that I believe you. I've always held that Tom was a Maia, but I have to say that this post is very damn compelling.

Hopefully, even more wonders will spring from the partnership between you and the Old Man. smilies/wink.gif

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

In response to HI, Melkor was always the dark lord, in the sense that he was the Lord of Darkness anyway.

What was the theme of the song? 'High and beautiful' (I can't source my quotes yet, because I need to read up again. Give me time...). Therefore, it was light -- light upon the soul, i.e. happy, and light as in noble and high. Melkor was responsible for the discord. What is a discord? The opposite of what should be played. So, it was darkness.

Melkor is the Lord of Darkness. That's who he is, that's how his mind works.

[HerenIstarion]

to Gwaihir:

. He began with the desire of Light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning, down into Darkness

description of Melkor/Morgoth

+ If I remember correctly, Melkor lost his Vala abilities of changing shape only after the change of name

concerning marriage:

In case Tom is a maia (if), Goldberry may also be one. Some of the folk of Ulmo and Osse.

Tom as a maia:

But the main strees of my argument falls on Gandalf:

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.

First of all, why Gandalf haven't had conversation with Tom? Because he moved to hither lands as Melian did, but stayed there for all agais of ME. And Gandalf compares himslef to Tom as he would compare equals (i.e. things of the same rank and order). If tom was anything else, why underying their outlooks. For it would have been no metter of concern. Sample:

Bob and Jim are musicians. Bob plays banjo, and Jim is a drummer.

I can compare both on the ground they are both musicians

Bob is a driver, and jim is a drummer

no point in comparing those.

Though all of the above are speculations, as all concerning Tom is smilies/smile.gif

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

From The Two Towers, Gandalf speaking:

Treebeard is Fangorn, the guardian of the forest; he is the oldest of the Ents, the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the Sun upon this Middle-earth.

This point would hinge, I suppose, on how the word "living" applies to Tom. If Treebeard is older than Tom, can Tom be the embodiment of Ea? Can he even be a Maia?

Gandalf also seems to be saying Treebeard is older than himself. Is that possible? Perhaps Olorin entered Ea after Ents were made (per Yavanna's discussion with Manwe)...? In that case Tom could still be a Maia.

I like the idea of Tom=Ea, but this was just bothering me.

[Tirinor]

So Tom is like the Ea version of the man in the moon?

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tirinor ]

[Baran]

This point would hinge, I suppose, on how the word "living" applies to Tom
That means he is not a stone, not every sentence of Tolkien had a deeper meaning.
Try taking away "living" from the sentence and you can see why it's there.

[thorondil]

You are right that Tom is an embodiment of the world, but not the whole world, only that part of the world. Tolkien says in Letter 19:

..Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside...

That is why as Estelyn points out:

Out east my knowledge fails. Tom is no master of Riders from the Black Land far beyond his country. (Tom of himself in "Fog on the Barrow-Downs")

Tom is the Old Forest. He was there in the dark under the stars before the Dark Lord came from Outside, and will be there until the End.

But as Tolkien points out in Letter 153:

I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. smilies/smile.gif

Well done, Burra.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I went to a discussion by Tom Shippey (author of JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century) and the question of "who is Tom Bombadil" was brought to his attention.
He did not really know how to answer it completely, but he had his theories. He started by saying what happened to the Elves of Middle Earth (who did not sail West) - that they became a part of nature itself. They are the trees, the grasses... etc. In turn he said that Tom was born from the Earth. Perhaps that he was once part of nature and because of this connection he was not corrupted by the ring because he was not living in the same sense as Hobbits, or Elves, or Men... etc.

Don't know if I fully agree, but it was an interesting discussion. I wish I had taped it so that I could put actual quotes here.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thorondil,

You are right that Tom is an embodiment of the world, but not the whole world, only that part of the world. Tolkien says in Letter 19:

..Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside...

To tell the truth, I've read and used this quote myself to make as similar point. Only there's one problem. The letter above was written on December 16, 1937. On December 19, 1937, Tolkien also says this:

I have written the first chapter of a new story about Hobbits --'A long expected party'

That means the Bombadil tale in Chaper VII had't even been written yet. According to HoMe, JRRT didn't do the Bombadil sections of LotR until the end of August 1938, which was long after the letter you quote.

So what was JRRT referring to here in Letter 19? It was not the Tom B of LotR. Instead, he was referring to a poem about Bombadil that was written very early, and published in The Oxford Magazine in 1934. This same poem was later reprinted in The Adventures of Tom Bambadil, which came out after the LotR.

The Tom B of the poems and the Tom B of the LotR were not exactly the same thing. In 1962, when he was getting the Tom B book ready for publication, Tolkien made reference in several letters (237, 241)that the early Tom B. had to be changed in certain ways to fit with the LotR Tom B. Since JRRT was speaking with the illustrator Pauyline Baynes, the changes referred to were minor physical ones such as the type of feather Tom wore. He did not go into any more detail than this.

Yet, knowing the way Tolkien drastically revised things time and again, I have to think that there were more changes than this between the Tom of the 1934 poem and the Tom of the book. When you read the 1934 poem and the later chapter on Tom in LotR, you get the sense that Tom has grown considerably.

Did Tom start out as the spirit of the Oxford and Berkshire countryside? Absolutely. Did he grow to become greater or more than this, as he came into contact with the Legendarium? Quite possibly.

Just look at the hobbits themselves, how they grow and change. The hobbit and Gandalf of The Hobbit are "smaller" in many respects than the same characters in LotR. That's even more so if you compare the Gandalf of The Hobbit with the one mentioned in the Silm. I would argue that a similar process also took place with Tom B., and he became much more than the spirit of a particular locale in England.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

That means he is not a stone, not every sentence of Tolkien had a deeper meaning.

I did not question how the word applies to Treebeard in the sentance. I questioned how the concept "living" applies to Tom Bombadil. If it does not apply the same as to Treebeard, then the sentance "Treebeard is the oldest living thing that walks on this Middle Earth," does not include Tom. If the concept does apply the same, then Tom cannot be the embodiment of Ea. There could even be a question of if he is a Maia, which was a popular idea before burrahobit's new one.

Cat must have burrahobbit's tongue if he doesn't even have a two word sentance to throw in here. smilies/smile.gif

[burrahobbit]

I've been sick. But more than that I am satisfied to watch.

[Legolas]

Read Bombadil = yearning ? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002457) for more on Bombadil and philosophizing (with more quotes from Tolkien).

[Annalaliath]

The unspoiled creation, the greenman the old man of the wood. And so as the earth itself changes so does Tom. The world does change, but much slower than that of us. I am talking about the earth. If Tom is the embodiement of Ea than Tom would take on characteristics of Ea in how slowly he changes. If the two Toms in the two places he is mentioned are slightly differnt maby that would explain him. ( i am sounding stupider and stupider as i go on don't i?
)

Tom, to me, is the unblimished creation. He was not touched by the discourd. This is the reason why he seems so nieve at times, while all the time is wiser than probably evan Gandalf. but if he is the unblemished creation then he could be part of Ea. He was most likly a spirit of Ea, and he could take physical forms.( here i go rehashing all that has been said.) And so we have the spirit of the Old Forest. When the Old Forest diminishes so does Tom. But still i wonder if Tom is the spirit of the Old Forest than why were the trees so evil. was it because they were so old?( i know i am ging off topic) But if so then why did Tom not get eviler as he got older, if he wasn't the unblemished creation?

I think this is a good topic and i have made myself a fool. but that has never stoped me.

[Son of Fire]

Well, perhaps Tom was an embodiment of all of ea, and nature and stuff, but his knowledge of the east failed because it was not natural, but invented, therefore he would not know about it. Also, the wraiths were not technically a part of the world either, were they?

[the witch king]

Thank you burrahobbit, your ideas are a revalation to me.

Firstly i would like to ask why do you think that if tom is Ea why would he confine himself to the old forest? Next, if burrahobbit theory is correct how would you describe Tom? A earth spirit?

yours as always
the witch king

[ April 18, 2003: Message edited by: the witch king ]

[burrahobbit]

Because he wanted to.

[the witch king]

makes sense!

[Annalaliath]

can we bring this back or not? I was just thinking about Tom the other day. I was listening to the FOTR on tape and a certain thing caught my attention. He would forget about the ring, he would not understand its importance. That made me think about the unspoiled creation. He would not understand the significance of the evil in the ring. He is willfully nieve, but infinatley wise. I know it is conflicting, but the gears in my brain are working overtime on this....

[Esgallhugwen]

I don't know if someone has mentioned this yet but all your theories are good but i have one of my own. You see Eru had the Valar sing to make Arda but even to the Valar not all was revealed to them by Eru, so perhaps Eru whose vision was Arda already had a being in it that the Valar could not concieve. Although the Elves were the first children of Iluvatar, perhaps Tom was the first being to enter into it. and his naiveness could be due to his pure goodness and because he has such a strong will that the Ring and Sauron, including Morgoth had no power or sway over him whatsoever. And yes it is quite ironic that he just pops up out of nowhere to save the Hobbits twice. So perhaps he is an entity of Arda or perhaps he is Eru embodied while in the Earth, wishing that the Hobbits finish their quest to save his beloved creation and all that are in it! smilies/biggrin.gif

[lindil]

Child posted: "Did Tom start out as the spirit of the Oxford and Berkshire countryside? Absolutely. Did he grow to become greater or more than this, as he came into contact with the Legendarium? Quite possibly."

I think he grew as you suggest Child, but he is still circumscribed as my old friend Thorondil suggests. Both these are raised to their pinnacle by Burra's 'incarnation or embodiment of Arda' idea.

If Tom was originally the 'master' of all of Arda or rather as master of himself being a spirit of Arda then he identified for some reason with the great Primeval forest early on, instead of say the plains of Rhun or the deserts of Harad, or the seas, and as this was chopped up and domesticated he retreated. Doubtless he foresaw much, such as a need to keep an eye on the Huorns of the Old Forest who have seemingly gone bad, as Ttreebeard would say, under the influence of Old Man Willow.

So I see him as a 'localized' embodiement of Arda. Or else his knowledge would not fadeaway out east. He would know the shores of Lindon as well as the Island in the Sea of Rhun, etc...

Why this is so, I can't say, but the above 3 explanations woven together seemto explain [ as far as it can be] all of the data without contradiction.

I am sorry I missed this thread in it's inception Burra. I tend to avoid Balrog and Bomadil threads on a matter of principle and time constraints, to my loss. But I have enjoyed watching your relationship to the thread -as it has been a model of laconicity.

[ July 23, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Luthien_ Tinuviel]

I would say, now, that it is because Tom is Eä, or at least an embodiment thereof.


How enlightening. Thanks, burrahobbit, that really helps. I think this is the best Tom theory I've seen so far: there are so many proofs and it just plain makes sense.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Yes, this theory fits exceptionally well. It makes a lot of sense.

You see Eru had the Valar sing to make Arda but even to the Valar not all was revealed to them by Eru, so perhaps Eru whose vision was Arda already had a being in it that the Valar could not concieve.

Esgallhugwen, this sounds to me exactly the same as burrahobbit's Music-origin theory -- Tom forming out of the Music before the world was begun.

Actually, I don't think Bombadil would have been in the vision Illuvitar showed to the Ainur. Not because he 'didn't show them everything', as it was only the Dominion of Men that was withheld from their sight. But Bombadil (assuming the burrahobbit theory) was the creation of the Music itself, and before the Ainur came down to make the Music real, Tom had already formed out of it independently of the physical labour that the Ainur performed in order to actually fabricate Ea. He would have developed as soon as the Music was sung and from it directly. When the Ainur came down into Ea, he would already have been there.

[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[lindil]

My only problem with the theory is that why would Bombadil's music be so, how do I phrase it, whimisical, if he was 'Music'.

Water, of which it is said has retained the echo of the Music, more than anything else has very little of this kind of bizarre sing-song, nursery rhyme quality.

[burrahobbit]

A different section of the Music?

[lindil]

I suppose if I had to try and defend the theory, I would be more likely to try and posit that the Bombadil we see with the Hobbits, may not at all be the Bombadil that Aragorn or Gandalf or Gildor may know.

Perhaps he was secretly having a laugh on the Hobbits and their rustic non-sense rhymes and dittie's like the 'Man in the Moon'. But his ring-a-ding-dillo's do really seem to be the order of the day, as hinted by Gandalf saying what an unsafe gardian he would be for the ring.

[burrahobbit]

To my thinking, being playful and singsong does not preclude wisdom. If Bilbo is to be believed, the Elves of Rivendell are somewhat preoccupied with singsongs of their own, yet they clearly are among the Wise of Middle-earth. Following everything that I've said in this thread, Tom is Nature unsullied by evil, worrisome in the least. He sings his nonsense rhymes because he can, while others may not have the same luxury, being part of Arda Marred.

[Firnantoonion]

I like this post, I had a post on wich I asked who was older: Tom or Treebeard, but I guess that this is now answered too! thank you

[lindil]

To my thinking, being playful and singsong does not preclude wisdom.
Agreed. No question Bombadil was wise. But Wisdom does not imply that one is the only inhabitant of Arda that has been/is personally immune to the marring of Arda, this is lcearly a whole other 'category of Being'.

I raised the question based on that, that for Tolkien to whom music's place in the Legendarium was essential if not central, it seems strange that the embodiment of Ea would be so consistently simple and childlike in expression seemingly for millenia! It certainly can be argued quite strongly from the '...Exept you become as little children, you shall in way inherent the Kingdom of the Heavens', and I am not as adverse to doing so as some might be, but it still leaves me unsatisfied as to the musical connection - which I admit - may well just be prejudice on my part.

However Tolkien's many descriptions of Ainurian, Elvish, Dwarvish and Dunedainian music lead me to have slightly higher expectations. I would expect that Tom [and as I mentioned in the last post he may well have] had a larger 'repertoire' if you will.
More representative of the whole of Ea.

Too me his sort of musical parochialism it seems the only [possible] incongruity in an other wise near perfect theory.

As for the Rivendell Elves, as I have postd elsewhere, we see them making music at 2 different levels;

*The feast of the victory of the 'battle' Ford of Bruinien.

*when the Dwarves first arrive [presumably very few if any Dwarves had been to Imladris in an extremely long time, if Durin's Folk do not know the way, no of the other more distant clans are likely to] in Rivendell the Elves have already discerned their purpose and are I think mocking them, and using sill music and rhymes to do it with.

In no other place do we hear of or see such jesting from Elves, in general for them music was a 'high art' and while I do not doubt they had their more light-hearted material it was clearly not the sole or primary content of their repertoire.


So in general music making was almost always very taken seriously by all of the Children of Eru and of Aule and Yavanna, not to mention the musics of the Ainur themselves, which would undoubtedly be direct expressions of their being and varrying 'elemental' natures. The hobbits and [oddly enough] the misty mntn Goblins seem to be the primary purveyors along with Bombadil of the the 'lighthearted'[if lighthearted and wicked in the case of the goblins] sort of thing.

If we are seeing Tom likewise express his essence through song, it truly to my mind takes his paradoxical strangeness and uniqueness to new heights and depths.

So I think even after a slightly closer analysis only yeilds forth the same 2 possibilities:

1 your childlike/innocence idea
2 we are only seeing a small slice of the 'music' of Bombadil when the Hobbitss are there. He may have been in 'Hobbit-mode' so to speak. I rather doubt this but we have only a few stray mentions in the LotR along with the four Hobbits encounter and the Shire-coloured 'Adventures' which only re-inforce the tale of the 4 hobbits.

a third possibility [from outside the Legendarium ] is that Tolkien created Bombadil first [which is attested to] and then after landing in the stories as the shire's closest neighbor, Tolkien was content to leave all of his oddness completely intact and not 'fully integrate' it cosmologically (which seems the case from the Letters, that he resisited analysis of TB), or musically.

What we do have though in the Master is a breath of extremely fresh air, or better what one of my favorite musicians, Bill Bruford might call 'the sound of suprise'.

[ August 15, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Firnantoonion]

come to think about it, If Bombadil is the incarnation of Ardacouldn't it be that Goldberry was such to? let's just say tom is the incarnation of the fysic (to get it better in words)incarnation of Arda and Goldberry the more mystic incarnation,
the incarnation of land and the incarnation of water. a fysic and a spiritual element.
(water and air being spiritual and earth and fire more fysic)

[burrahobbit]

Lindil, the oldest song that I know, I think, is Ring Around the Rosie (a pocket full of posie, etc etc).

Firnantoonion, no. Goldberry is the River Woman's daughter.

[Dancing_Hobbit]

i am fully convinced by the burrahobbit's Tom argument, but what about Goldberry? she seems to me to be an intrinsic part of Tom. it is stated that she is the River-daughter, but what, exactly, does that mean? we don't really know. Tom is the embodyment of the untainted, origional Ea, which is why he knows nothing of the tainted areas. but he seems to be very much tied to the LAND with little to do with the water. perhapse he is the embodyment of the land and Goldberry is that of the water. that is how she comes to be the River-daughter. also, perhapse Tom represents the past and what is vanishing while Goldberry, as the younger one, represents the new. Tom's music is light-hearted. perhapse this is the way Eru regarded music. perhapse it was not quite as serious for him as for the Valar, at least not all the time. Goldberry's is more on the serious side. it is more reminicent of the way the elves and the Valar look on music. it always seemed to me that while they are both happy, Tom is more silly and carefree, and Goldberry is more serious. thus, together, they embody all facets and aspects of the origional, untainted creation.

i hope that's comprehensive, i sometimes have trouble explaing my thoughts in a way others understand.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

What Goldberry and her mother are is a mistery (as Tom is), but she is the River-woman daughter. smilies/wink.gif

There his beard dangled long down into the water:
up came Goldberry, the River-woman's daughter; (...)
Back to her mother's house in the deepest hollow
swam young Goldberry. (...)
Said Tom Bombadil: "Here's my pretty maiden!
You shall come home with me! The table is all laden:
yellow cream, honeycomb, white bread and butter;
roses at the window-sill and peeping round the shutter.
You shall come under Hill! Never mind your mother
in her deep weedy pool: there you'll find no lover!"(...)
Lamps gleamed within his house, and white was the bedding;
in the bright honey-moon Badger-folk came treading,
danced down under Hill, and Old Man Willow
tapped, tapped at window-pane, as they slept on the pillow,
on the bank in the reeds River-woman sighing
heard Barrow-wight in his mound crying.
The Adventures of Tom Bombadil

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

My only problem with the theory is that why would Bombadil's music be so, how do I phrase it, whimisical, if he was 'Music'.

Have you never watched Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? "A little bit of nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men!"

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Personally, I think this 'river-woman's daughter' thing isn't being thought about properly at all.

As Amarie corectly says, we have never seen the River-woman. We don't know who this mysterious person is, where she came from, or -- most importantly -- whether she is in fact a real person in the common sense of the word. After all, we don't know.

Thinking along these lines, the River-woman could in fact be Goldberry's Maia superior (her a kind of hand-maiden type servant in the Withywindle) -- alternatively, she could be the river itself. Therefore Goldberry could be what Firnantoonion said. Any imaginable explanation, actually, that has her as an independant (non-biological 'daughter' of the 'river-woman') anomalous creature of Ea (or Maia, perhaps) can be really considered. (Especially when you consider that have little but our own imaginations to go on.)

Hmm... certainly the idea of Goldberry, unless she is an Elf (pretty unlikely too, although possible) being someone's literal daughter does not fit into it all, and in a way (as I somewhat vaguely talked about in the 'anomalies' thread) that I do not find palatable.

[Kaiserin]

Fascinating theory on Bombadil. I quite enjoyed reading this thread.

About his "silliness": If he is indeed the physical embodiment of unmarred Ea, he could choose (if he willed)to take a simple, non-threatening and even "sily" form, such as the one the Hobbits saw.

"River-woman's daughter" could just be a metaphor, to say that "she dwelt by the river", or "she's a river-spirit-type".

[ August 20, 2003: Message edited by: Kaiserin ]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Exactly!

[lindil]

Burra- the oldest song I know is a 1st or second century Christian hymn for the moment of sunset.

Feanor quoting Willy Wonka: "A little bit of nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men!"

the operative words to my mind are 'now and then' not 'almost all of the time'.

But of course, I have also postulated [not entirely convinced or unconvinced myself] that we
only see one side of Bomabadil, the side he showed the Hobbits of the Shire.

[ August 20, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[burrahobbit]

Well, maybe I know older songs, but that's all I could think of at the moment. My point was that songs that don't mean anything, as far as most people can tell, are usually the most recognized by the most people, and among the oldest that most people will know.

[Annalaliath]

hey I think that Tom being silly has more to do with why he was not chosen to guard the ring.... And yes sillyness gets me through some hard times. So I think that Tom could have used silly and wimsical songs to keep him afloat as his world shrank.

As for Goldberry I have no idea.

And as we all should know 'ring around the roses' is a song that came about during or after the black plauge. A silly and wimsical song if ther ever was one. The song that I remeber singing alot was 'Jesus loves me'...

[Sharkû]

Burrahobbit's "theory" has one fatal, if perhaps somewhat elusive flaw – the equation of "songs" with the Ainulindale, and the conclusion that Tom, knowing all such "songs", necessarily has to have full understanding of the Music.
However, the real nature of the Ainulindale is such that we cannot associate it with such degree of certainty and in such bold interpretation with Tom.

The Ainulindale came from the Ainur, and Eru. We do know that the Ainur were given a vision of Eä, their Music put into being; however, we also know this was incomplete. This is one reason why no Ainu, not even Manwe, would have complete knowledge of the Music; the other reason is that Eru brought in themes which are solely his (sc. the Children and others, depending on how meaning is attributed to the Themes, cf. HoME X, I).
These were not then understood by the Ainur, and, as can be assumed with great certainty, Eru might have presented aspects of the Themes not perceived by the listeners, or Eru might still add to the Music afterwards, since that was certainly in his power (cf. Athrabeth).

Burrahobbit circumvened this problem of the Ainur's incomplete knowledge of the Music by making Tom not an Ainu, but Eä itself. As I have argued above long ago (though apparently not convincingly or strikingly enough), Eä is itself only creation and therefore can not only not be assumed to have a full understanding of itself at any time of its existance, but it also cannot be plausible that there could be a perfect simulacrum of itself in itself; in a very peculiar, fixed form (Tom) on top of that.
A painting neither knows how it was painted, nor knows how it looks to the beholder; nor is music able to comprehend itself.

If, however, we are to make Eä a completely different case, not applicable to those comparisons, we are still faced with the difficulty that Eru the One alone and solely possesses full knowledge and understanding of all the the themes of the Music, especially since it is still unfolding, and gradually and perpetually so. Eä, while a finite thing by necessity (cf. Athrabeth), can in its vast boundaries of space and time and drama only be comprehended, more importantly, only be mastered by Eru the Creator alone, as only he can know how and what it is, and how it is going to unfold.

(Furthermore, Tom does not, when tempted by the Ring and the Barrow-Wight, show any sign of corruption, even though we know that Arda, and thus an important part of Eä [even more so with the image prevalent at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings that the globe of Arda was pretty much all there was to Eä] was marred. "Arda umarred does not exist." (MT VII). That Tom, if he was to be, represent, or, as a matter of fact, even be within Eä, would have to show at least signs of Marring [though not necessarily at the above mentioned occassions] is evident from the following: "[Melkor] had introduced evil […] into all physical matter of Arda" (Athrabeth commentary). "Latent evil" would have been "roused" by "evil minds" (ibid.) such as the Ring or the Barrow-Wight.
Of course, we cannot say whether Tom is marred, flawed or corrupted or not on the textual basis concerning him, but the texts we have are a firm pointer in the firection that aids my argumentation.)

Therefore, Tom cannot be Eä, and we know Tom is not Eru. Tom cannot be master of the Music, and cannot "know" all songs of the Ainulindale.
On a scientific scale, the absence of Tom from all philosophical or cosmogonical writings of Tolkien only further disproves any interpretation of Tom beyond the old "spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside", which did not exist until much later ages.

About Tom not as Eä as a whole, but as a mere representation of it, I have said all there is to it in my post near the beginning of this very thread. All parts of Eä, however small or great, evil or glorious are representations of Eä, the end of which is always to add to its greatness as a praise unto its creator.

Tom may be, but Eä is, and Tom is not Eä.

[Ainaserkewen]

Mondieu Burrahobbit, it's like a riddle that once you know the answer it is so obvious. You've convinced me of your theory, I never really thought he could have been a Maiar anyway. You did an impressive amount of research for all this, all I can say is "Wow!"

[Ainaserkewen]

(Sorry, edit button isn't working)

Sharku, what you say makes sense too, but it's missing something...
Like I said above, what burrahobbit says just clicks and makes sense to me, however I may be wrong.
These questions that are not answered in Tolkiens books, probably can't be answered at all. Tom may be just a representation of some aspect of Tolkien's personal life, no one knows, and if they do, they haven't said anthing.
So, because no one knows for sure, I will side with burrahobbit because that's what fits the best to me.
It's almost like religious faith really.

[Rimbaud]

Eä is itself only creation and therefore can not only not be assumed to have a full understanding of itself at any time of its existance, but it also cannot be plausible that there could be a perfect simulacrum of itself in itself; in a very peculiar, fixed form (Tom) on top of that.
A painting neither knows how it was painted, nor knows how it looks to the beholder; nor is music able to comprehend itself.

Purely on this point, Old Man, I find myself in disagreement. There are many things of Eru's creation that 'comprehend themselves', arguably imperfectly, but nevertheless so. Elves, Men and Dwarves et al are sentient along with much more of Tolkien's world than our own; Legolas tells us even the rocks have memories.

[Sharkû]

umm... next paragraph?

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, if Tom was the physical representation of Eä, then it follows that he, like Eä, would be partially marred. But isn't this true of any theory which involves Tom being part of Arda? If he was of Arda, like Elves, Men, Ents and the like, then he was tainted by the marring of Arda. If it is the case that Tom was not marred in any way, then this can only mean that he originated outside Arda. If it is not, then burra's theory holds.

[Sharkû]

My point about the Marring, in the post already given in meaningful parenthesis, only becomes truly valid when you make the simple mental realization that Tom, if he were Eä, would not simply be marred to the degree other inhabitants are, but incorporate all Marring and the Marrer itself. I cannot see that.

I, perhaps too obliquely, implied the possibility of Tom being outside of the whole matter when I said " if he was to be, represent, or, as a matter of fact, even be within Eä" and hinted on the old Tolkien quote of the Oxford countryside, which is very clearly not a work of his fiction and thusly not of Eä.

[The Saucepan Man]

Tom, if he were Eä, would not simply be marred to the degree other inhabitants are, but incorporate all Marring and the Marrer itself.

But is there really any difference? Arda was partially, although not wholly, marred. Its inhabitants were partially, although not wholly marred. Whether Tom were to represent that which incorporates the former or whether he was one of the latter, then either way he too would be partially, although not wholly, marred.

Also, I do not see that it follows that if Tom were the representation of Eä he would necessarily have to incorporate all of its inhabitants, including "the Marrer itself".

hinted on the old Tolkien quote of the Oxford countryside, which is very clearly not a work of his fiction and thusly not of Eä

True, but are we not discussing here the question of Tom's existence and status within the mythology devised by JRRT? As for his significance outside the mythology, I am rather partial to the "Bombadil as reader" theory that was posted on another thread.

[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Rimbaud]

Yes, S, on the incomplete nature of the potential self-knowledge in question, I have seen and understood your logic. My point was based as I said, purely on that which I quoted, that created matter cannot be fully aware of itself. Inclined to a slight degree though I am to agree with that, it is a fairly bold statement, paticularly in (what is for me) an atheistic mode of enquiry.

[Sharkû]

Of course there is a difference, since, while all physical matter was marred, not all and everybody was marred to the same degree. Unlike relatively pure Quendi, Bombadil would in this theory have to incorporate all the other stuff as well.

I did not say a representation of Eä would have to be all that, but Eä itself. The representation idea is not explaining anything anyway.

Of course we are not discussing the significance of Bombadil on any level, literary or mythological. No matter what or who he is, it is bound to be a wholly different question, one I am not remotely interest in, what that means.

[Mister Underhill]

As Sharkû has mentioned, the statement “Tom is Eä or an embodiment thereof” doesn’t have much meaning. Eä is Eä. Tom is Tom. How can Tom be “the earth” or “the material universe”? And if he’s an “embodiment” of it only, again what does that mean? As the Old Man has stated, this may be said in some sense of all things: “For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Gen 3:19) There are river spirits, mountain spirits, tree spirits, rock spirits (apparently – c.f. Rimb’s reference to rock memories) – where does a generalized “embodiment of Eä” fit in to all this? What aspects of Eä does he personify?

In any case, I would add these few items which seem problematic for the theory, such as it is:
“Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself.”This quote is taken out of context. Considered with the paragraphs surrounding it, it may be read to mean that Bombadil does not have the power (or perhaps even the temperament) to resist Sauron, and will fall unless the very ground that he occupies were able to resist the power of Sauron and his Ring. Using this statement to equate Tom with the earth doesn’t hold up. Following on the heels of, “I know little of Iarwain save the name...”, Galdor’s words lack the authority from which such bold and sweeping conclusions may be drawn.

Gandalf: “...he would not understand the need [to safeguard the Ring].”Surely a sentient embodiment of Eä would have an understanding of the need considering Sauron’s ability to “torture and destroy the very hills”.

Gandalf: “And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.”Has the spirit of Eä (if such an idea even has any real meaning) withdrawn from Lothlorien? From the fields of Rohan? Even from Mordor, where fire from “the heart of the earth” wells at Orodruin?

Gandalf: “But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others.”Eä, in fact, holds the only power that can alter the Ring and break its power over others.

[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Annalaliath]

I still think that he is a creation that is pure. His sillyness may have been a way to keep him afloat with willfull nievity, or just part of his nature. Other than that I am baffled. I mean Tom probably would have some sourt of power over the ring but since the ring has no power over him he sees no need to do anything with it. He is only concerned with those lives within his shrinking land. He is powerfull ,though; you have to give him that. He was able with out the slightest problem to get rid of the Barrow Wight, without even flinching. So there is power in him as a created beeing.

It is hard to pin any explination on him as Tolkien doesn't even tell us much in his letters or anything else for that matter. I think Bombadil will forever be a mystery.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course there is a difference

No, not in terms of trying to determine the nature of Tom's existence from what we know of him (which is the primary theme of this thread). Tom's behaviour might (or might not) tell us whether or not he is marred, but I do not believe that it can tell us the extent of any marring.

If we were to determine from Tom's depiction in the books that he is marred, then that would be consistent with burra's theory of Bombadil as the embodiment of Eä. It would also be consistent with any theory of Bombadil as an inhabitant of Arda. But I do not believe that we would be able to tell from such depiction the extent of the marring such that we would be able to ascribe a greater likelihood to one theory or the other. That is what I meant when I questioned whether there was really any difference between the two "types" of marring.

If, on the other hand, we were to determine from Tom's behaviour that he is not marred, then neither burra's embodiment of Eä theory nor any Bombadil as Arda inhabitant theory can explain his existence. In those circumstances he would have to have originated from outside Arda.

The question is, can we tell from Tom's portrayal in the books whether or not he is marred? You are of course right to allude to the fact that he is not tempted by the Ring as relevant in this regard, Sharkû. To me, this suggests that he is not marred, since the Ring works by appealing to the evil, ie marred, side of those with whom it comes in contact. If Tom has no marred side, the Ring cannot appeal to him. Indeed, it has no effect on him whatsoever. Anyone else have any views on this issue?

I did not say a representation of Eä would have to be all that, but Eä itself.

Sorry! Loose wording on my part. For representation read embodiment.

The representation idea is not explaining anything anyway.

Agreed. See above.

Of course we are not discussing the significance of Bombadil on any level, literary or mythological.

Also agreed. But we not discussing his interpretation either. The point that I was making was that his interpretation as the "spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside" does not explain the nature of his existence within the mythology any more than the "Bombadil as reader" theory.

[Mister Underhill]

The point that I was making was that his interpretation as the "spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside" does not explain the nature of his existence within the mythology any more than the "Bombadil as reader" theory. The problem with trying to shoehorn Bombadil into an explicable, seamlessly logical place in the mythology is that it can’t be done. Tom being the anomaly that he is in fact provides a rare instance where Tolkien is willing to cop (albeit grudgingly) to allegory (Letter 153; cf. Letter 144). Tom embodies, if anything, an idea or a certain point of view to which Tolkien wished to give expression.

Tolkien freely admits on a number of occasions that Tom was inserted, nearly as-is, in his pre-existing form. To the extent that he is “integrated” with the legendarium, it was done after the fact, an exercise which Tolkien seemingly didn’t feel compelled to spend too much energy on.

[The Saucepan Man]

The problem with trying to shoehorn Bombadil into an explicable, seamlessly logical place in the mythology is that it can’t be done.

Yes, essentially I agree with you on this Mr U. But there is an argument (which was expressed, as I recall, in the "Bombadil as reader" article (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003489)) to the effect that Tolkien, in describing Tom as an enigma, was laying down a challenge to his readers. Since one definition of "enigma" is "riddle" and riddles have solutions, so the argument runs, Tolkien has, in the question of the nature of Tom's existence, deliberately set us a riddle to solve. This argument posits that there is a solution and the clues are there in his writings if only we can find them.

Of course, "enigma" is also defined as "paradox" and a paradox is an inconsistency, something which is not explicable by reference to its surroundings, so the argument does not necessarily work on every level. But it does nevertheless have a certain appeal to me - and to many others judging by the amount of bandwidth devoted to this question on this forum (and no doubt many others). smilies/wink.gif

[Dancing_Hobbit]

I beg to differ, Saucepan Man. A paradox is a seeming inconsistency that, apon closer inspection turns out not to be inconsistent. thus the phrase "an apparent paradox" is redundent. smilies/evil.gif

I would also like to suggest that, as I am of the opinion that Tom is unmarred, he is the memory of Arda unmarred. That is why his country is shrinking as the bounds of relatively unmarred land shrink. This still leaves it unclear as to how Tom escaped marring, but perhapse that has something to do with the power of music he has. I don't know, but it's what occured to me.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

Arda Unmarred never existed. That is why it is impossible that the memory of Arda Unmarred existed (there is nothing to remember). smilies/wink.gif

[lindil]

If, on the other hand, we were to determine from Tom's behaviour that he is not marred, then neither burra's embodiment of Eä theory nor any Bombadil as Arda inhabitant theory can explain his existence.

I put forward, tentatively, that we look at Arda in a in a similar way to the planet Zonama Sekot, in the SW books Rouge Planet and New JEdi ORder: Force Heretic: Reunion [that really is the title].

In it the planet Zonama has a sentient soul, 'Sekot'. It is able to materialize in human form, converse with sentients, guide the re/actions of the planet etc.

If we have a similar thing in Bombadil, then it does beg the questions:

- Could not Tom/spirit of Ea then manifest orudruin in his palm for a moment?

- and as already posited, 'what of the Marring'.

Fot the first question, we could answer that Tom inutively or otherwise felt it was not his job to destroy the ring even if he could.

For the second, I will propose a sort of Aquinasish dualism of Ea having a Hroa and Fea, and that TOm is the Fea, and that it is the Hroa that has fallen.

Tom's 'body' i.e. the world, has developed a viral sickness due to Melkor's dissemination of his fallen will into the fabric of Ea, but Tom has remained more or less resistant to it.

HE can not overcome it in his body [Ea] but he being the spirit of Ea is not harmed by ti either.

As a final analogy, does a man's soul become ill if the man does?

In some cases perhaps, but it certainly not be considered a given.

BTW - I do not personally ascribe to the 'the body is fallen, but the mind and soul and spirit are not' theology [it is specifically contradicted in Orthodox Christian theology] which I have seen [correctly or not I can not say] ascribed to Dr. Aquinas. But if it is true, JRRT may well have agreed.

As for the a creature being able to 'fully know itself'. I think that this is all extremely relative, with near self-oblivioousness and near perfect self-knowledge [being a gift of grace] being possible for sentient creatures.

To support this would require quite alot of background citations from Hagiographical and metaphysical sourcetexts, and it is in any case, as a discussable theory{ not in reality} dependant on one's belief system, so I will not elaborate.

[Firnantoonion]

Tolkien himself somewhere stated that Tom came into his writing, without Tolkien came to think of putting tom into it, he just came during the writing. this was possible because he existed earlier. in this case, Tom is just an anomaly wich wasn't happy in his own story and thus went to another one. (I know this sounds stupid, but it's the best i can put it in words)

[The Saucepan Man]

I beg to differ, Saucepan Man. A paradox is a seeming inconsistency that, apon closer inspection turns out not to be inconsistent. thus the phrase "an apparent paradox" is redundent.

Yes, that is one definition of "paradox", Dancing_Hobbit. But another definition, given in my Concise Oxford Dictionary is:

a person or thing conflicting with a preconceived notion of what is reasonable or possible.

Taking that definition, the "preconceived notion" might be Tolkien's "rules" for the world which he created, so that Tom might then be seen as conflicting with those rules such that he could not be explained by reference to them. But I agree in the sense that there is scope for the argument that Tom is a conundrum, whose existence might be explained by finding the carefully hidden clues. smilies/wink.gif smilies/evil.gif

For the second, I will propose a sort of Aquinasish dualism of Ea having a Hroa and Fea, and that TOm is the Fea, and that it is the Hroa that has fallen.

Yes, I follow your logic, lindil. But, is it not the case that the marring of Arda taints both the Hroa and the Fea of those who inhabit it? Surely they would not be capable of committing evil if their Fea were not marred. And, if the Fea of Arda's inhabitants is marred, then the Fea of the embodiment of Ea (which encompasses Arda) would surely also be similarly marred.

[Mister Underhill]

We’re getting a bit outside the scope of the thread here, but I’m curious to know what leads you to think that Bombadil is a riddle with a discoverable solution. I don’t mean that question in a flip or aggressive way – I’m genuinely interested. I can understand debating, say, Balrog wings. I think if you could ask the Professor point blank whether or not Balrogs had wings, he could answer you without hesitation. It’s just an accident of grammar that has left us in the lurch, but there assuredly is an answer.

Don’t get me wrong – I also understand the impetus that drives Bombadil inquiries. People want to integrate him fully into the mythos whether Tolkien bothered to or not. I would be more inclined to sympathize with such inquiries if it weren’t for a number of factors which argue against a “secret solution” to the mystery. The most obvious of these is Tolkien’s own dismissive response to over-analysis of The Master. I think the explanations he gives in the two cited letters are about as definitive an explanation of what Tom is and what he’s doing in the story as there is. I don’t think he’s being intentionally mysterious, at least in the sense that he’s hiding the solution to a riddle.

The second is that Bombadil pre-dates LotR, and the character and many events and details of his scenes are lifted whole cloth from the original poem and transplanted into LotR. Tom had nothing to do with the mythology, and was only retrofitted in later. If anything, the deliberate air of mystery surrounding Tom is used to screen his somewhat clunky integration into Middle-earth.

Thirdly, traces of Bombadil are nowhere to be found in the vast writings of The Silmarillion in all its various drafts and incarnations, at least that I am aware of. As the Old Man has pointed out, Tom’s absence from any of these writings tends to argue against the idea that Bombadil had any particular hold on Tolkien’s imagination or great significance within the legendarium, or that the professor used him to pose one last grand (but solvable) riddle to his readership.

If you plumb back through volumes Volumes VI and VII of HoME, you can trace Bombadil’s evolution (what little there is of it) in fair detail. Without going into a lot of particulars, you’ll find that the prof hit a six month dry spell in the early drafting of LotR, and that Bombadil, Old Man Willow, and the Barrow-Wight, characters and scenes that he already had on hand, were used to break the block. The subsequent development of Tom does not suggest any especially crafty subtext on Tolkien’s part as far as I can see.

I do get that people are fascinated by the topic and are interested in advancing and debating theories about who or what Tom “really is”. Everyone is welcome to their pet Bombadil theory, and equating him with some sort of amorphous “nature spirit” is about as close as you can come to fitting him in. This specific incarnation of the debate (Tom is Eä) doesn’t stand up to textual analysis. Eä is. Tom is. “I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?” (Tolkien) But that doesn’t make Winnie the earth or the universe or God or anything else.

[samrohan]

All very nice but scary for people to follow on after such a lashing of RATHER CLOMPICATED words.
I am but a silly Hobbit and reckon the last paragraph contains the best solution to the plot.

Tolkien like PJ and many great writers or directors placed himself in the book. But not wanting to be cast in a too crucial role he decided to do his bit in saving the Hobbits in the Downs and appearing as a lovely, bubbly though intriguing character that is Tom.

[lindil]

But, is it not the case that the marring of Arda taints both the Hroa and the Fea of those who inhabit it? Surely they would not be capable of committing evil if their Fea were not marred. And, if the Fea of Arda's inhabitants is marred, then the Fea of the embodiment of Ea (which encompasses Arda) would surely also be similarly marred.

I agree with this view completely Saucepan, what I was pionting out however that in some strains of Catholic Theology, the mind [and thus one can reasonably asssume the spirit as well] is unfallen, and that JRRT may well have subscribed to it.

Underhill is of course quite right, I think, in stating that JRRT 'clunked' Bombadil into the LotR and that much of his mystery is really obfuscation!

I don't think JRRT posed a riddle, does not one of his letters actually discount the idea? [sorry no reference books at hand].

However I admit I have fallen prey to aspects of Burrahobbits theory and find that with only a little bit of force, the shoe fits.Oh and a blind eye to the external history and context of Bombadil too. smilies/wink.gif


I think however the urge to locate TB more exactly into the Legendarium is due to JRRT's own meticulous attempts [not always realized] at finding a home/position in the various heirarchies for everyone/thing.

Bombadil more or less breaks JRRT's own pattern of fitting everthing/one into a pattern. This of course is like a splinter in the mind for some, and thus we post...

[Mister Underhill]

Bombadil more or less breaks JRRT's own pattern of fitting everthing/one into a pattern. This of course is like a splinter in the mind for some, and thus we post... Very well put, lindil, and right on the money into the bargain. Bombadil is a valuable lesson from a writing point of view: when faced with a large plot hole or a discordant element, less is more. Readers love an enigma!

[The Saucepan Man]

I’m curious to know what leads you to think that Bombadil is a riddle with a discoverable solution.

The idea is more one that intrigues me than one to which I subscribe, Mr U. Essentially, I agree with you and lindil when you say:

The problem with trying to shoehorn Bombadil into an explicable, seamlessly logical place in the mythology is that it can’t be done.

and

Bombadil more or less breaks JRRT's own pattern of fitting everthing/one into a pattern.

I came across the idea of Tom as a riddle in the article setting out the theory of Bombadil as reader, where it was expressed as follows:

From his first appearance here in The Lord of the Rings, speculation about his identity and role in the story has been widespread, and no clear consensus has ever been reached on it. That this uncertainty is the writer's intention is apparent in an excerpt from one his letters: "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists);... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 174).

It seems that we must live with the puzzle. However, an intentional enigma is nothing other than a riddle, and we know from The Hobbit that J.R.R. Tolkien was very good at devising and solving riddles. 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?


As I said, the idea intrigued me and I thought it worth repeating here by way of an alternative view to the sentiments expressed in the quotes set out above. And the fact that many pages have been written (here and elsewhere) carefully scrutinising every mention of Tom in JRRT's writings for clues to the nature of his existence suggests to me that there are many who think along these lines (whether consciously or unconsciously).

I am afraid that I do not have Tolkien's Letters and so can only go by the quote given in the extract from the article set out above. There, it is suggested that an "intentional enigma" may be likened to a riddle with a solution. And it is interesting that earlier in the passage that makes direct reference to Tom, Tolkien said:

As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists). (emphasis added)

The idea is also supported by the many enigmatic references to Tom that we find in LotR, such as that he is "the Master" and "the Eldest", and Galdor's comment that he does not have the power to defy Sauron "unless such power is in the earth itself". Also the fact that the Ring has no power over him. These little tidbits, added together, do seem like clues pointing to a solution.

Of course, these "clues" may also be explained by reference to the fact that Tom needed to bear some relation to the characters and events within the story told in LotR. In that context, it seems natural for Frodo to ask questions about him, for others to talk of him and for him to have some interraction with the Ring. Since, as you say, his existence as a character pre-dated (and existed independently of) LotR and he had to be "shoehorned" into the story, it makes sense that Tolkien would keep references to him deliberately engimatic. Quite possibly, had Tolkien tried to integrate him as being explicable by reference to the “rules” of the world in which LotR is set, he would have fallen flat as a character. Indeed, you make this point very well when you say that “the deliberate air of mystery surrounding Tom is used to screen his somewhat clunky integration into Middle-earth”.

So, ultimately, I do agree that Tom probably does have no “rational” explanation (in Middle-earth terms). But I still think that there is some scope for the alternative view of “Tom the riddle” (unless of course it is the case that this theory was expressly or impledly dismissed by JRRT in his Letters). And it is of course fun (and somewhat irresistable) trying to solve the riddle, even if there is ultimately no solution to it. smilies/wink.gif Lindil put it quite superbly when he said:

This of course is like a splinter in the mind for some, and thus we post...

As you say, we are rather straying off topic here, but I thought that your question deserved a considered response. So, to try to get back on path (and to continue the attempt to solve the riddle with no solution smilies/wink.gif ), I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others on the question of whether it would necessarily be fatal to the idea of Tom as the embodiment of Ea if he were not marred himself and, if so, what evidence we have as to whether or not he was himself tainted by the marring of Arda.

[Mister Underhill]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Sauce, but since you’ve revealed this gaping hole in your Tolkien library ( smilies/wink.gif), I don’t think we can get much further on the topic of Bombadil as riddle. Suffice to say that extracts like the ‘enigma’ one cited in that argument, without context, may be misleading. I urge you to check out Letters (and specifically letters 144 and 153 in relation to this discussion) when you get a chance. It is filled with gems (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002328) beyond number, as I’m sure you’re aware.

[The Saucepan Man]

Alas, Mister Underhill, my presence in a bookshop never seems to coincide with the presence on the shelves of the Letters. Otherwise, I would have snapped them up by now. I have indeed found those excerpts that I have read on this site illuminating. smilies/smile.gif

I still feel that it's an interesting theory nonetheless. Perhaps I will be able to develop my thoughts further once I have had the benefit of the Letters. One of the extracts on the thread to which you linked seemed to me to admit scope for argument ...

... but enough digression. smilies/rolleyes.gif On with the debate ...

[Dancing_Hobbit]

I personally can see no evidence whatsoever that Tom is marred. There is also evidence to me that he is not marred. How else could the ring fail to have an affect on him?

I do think that his not being marred makes it impossible for him to be the incarnation of Arda as we were looking on it. However, I think there is a way we could find that it would work. Perhapse he is one of the strains of music that Eru did not show the Valar, and thus remained unmarred? Or perhapse he somehow has that of Arda and of Eru in him? Or perhapse, for whatever reason, Eru somehow prevented him from being marred?

I oppologise if I'm being a dunderhead again, but I learn by being corrected by those more knowledgeable. smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Annalaliath]

I still think that he is a creation that is pure. His silliness may have been a way to keep him afloat with willful naivety, or just part of his nature. Other than that I am baffled. I mean Tom probably would have some sort of power over the ring but since the ring has no power over him he sees no need to do anything with it. He is only concerned with those lives within his shrinking land. He is powerful ,though; you have to give him that. He was able with out the slightest problem to get rid of the Barrow Wight, without even flinching. So there is power in him as a created being.
It is hard to pin any explanation on him as Tolkien doesn't even tell us much in his letters or anything else for that matter. I think Bombadil will forever be a mystery.



This was something that I had discussed with my mother. I tend to agree with her that Tom is an unblemished creation, but I have also come up with a few more theories.

posted April 17, 2003 07:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unspoiled creation, the Green Man the old man of the wood. And so as the earth itself changes so does Tom. The world does change, but much slower than that of us. I am talking about the earth. If Tom is the embodiment of Ea than Tom would take on characteristics of Ea in how slowly he changes. If the two Toms in the two places he is mentioned are slightly different: maybe that would explain him. ( I am sounding stupider and stupider as I go on don't I?
)
Tom, to me, is the unblemished creation. He was not touched by the discord. This is the reason why he seems so naive at times, while all the time is wiser than probably evan Gandalf. but if he is the unblemished creation then he could be part of Ea. He was most likely a spirit of Ea, and he could take physical forms.( here i go rehashing all that has been said.) And so we have the spirit of the Old Forest. When the Old Forest diminishes so does Tom. But still I wonder if Tom is the spirit of the Old Forest than why were the trees so evil. was it because they were so old?( I know I am going off topic) But if so then why did Tom not get more evil as he got older, if he wasn't the unblemished creation?


SO here I repeat my question, and therefore come to the conclusion that Tom is not the embodiment of the Old Forest just something of a caretaker, and wrangler. And so here is my theory yet again with a few spelling and grammer corrections.