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).

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

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! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

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

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

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.

to Gwaihir:

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:

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

From The Two Towers, Gandalf speaking:

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.

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

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

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.

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:

That is why as Estelyn points out:

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:

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Well done, Burra.

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.

Thorondil,

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:

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

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. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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

Read Bombadil = yearning ? for more on Bombadil and philosophizing (with more quotes from Tolkien).

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.

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?

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 ]

Because he wanted to.

makes sense!

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....

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! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Child posted: 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 ]

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.

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

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 ]

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.

A different section of the Music?

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.

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.

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

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 ]

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 ]

Exactly!

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

Feanor quoting Willy Wonka: 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 ]