There are some good points made in that article, Osse, and I was almost persuaded at points. But I think that there is a greater preponderence of evidence mitigating against Tom being Aule. What's more, Bombadil and Goldberry as physical embodiments of any of the Valar just doesn't "feel right" to me.
Also, I think that the author of the article is misconceived in trying to support his theory that Goldberry is Yavanna by arguing that she was not, contrary to what is said in the Books, the River-Woman's Daughter:
Quote:
|
Of course, an important problem with this hypothesis is the claim that Goldberry is the Riverwoman's daughter. If the story is true, then Goldberry cannot be Yavanna. However, there are many things said in Rings that are not true literally and many matters are left unrevealed or unexplained. ... As is clear from "The Hunt for the Ring," in Unfinished Tales, many details are presented in a confused and unconnected way in Rings, because that is how they appeared to the people who wrote the book ... Thus, the fact that some people believe that Goldberry is Riverwoman's Daughter does not absolutely, literally have to be true.
|
I always see this kind of argument as being a big cop-out. It is in effect saying that, if something from the published works doesn't fit in with my theory, I will disregard it by making out that it is just the belief of those relating the story and doesn't necessarily have to be true. But of course much the same might be said of most, if not all, of the "evidence" concerning Bombadil's nature - Elrond's reference to Bombadil being the oldest, for example. Why not disregard that as his belief and therefore not necessarily literally true? And if we are to follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, what is there in any of the Books that we can rely on?.
What's more, Bombadil actually tells the Hobbits that Goldberry is the River-Woman's daughter (in song, obviously, Tom being Tom) and Goldberry refers to herself as the Daughter of the River. So, are we to take it that they were lying? Or did Frodo get it wrong when relating these events in the Red Book of Westmarch? Neither is an attractive option. There is , in any event, a world of difference between what is presented to us as "fact" in LotR and the various unfinished and alternative manuscripts compiled in UT.
Of course, the reference to Goldberry as the River-Woman's daughter doesn't actually mean that she had to have a physical mother who was called the River-Woman. This might just be a poetic way of saying that she is a spirit of the river (in the same way that some hold that Tom is a spirit of the earth/nature), particularly as she refers to herself as the Daughterof the River, rather than the River-Woman. That, however, would not be consistent with her being Yavanna either, and so is not an argument that the author could use to support his theory of Bombadil as Aule.