Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.
|
Agreed.
However Tolkien did refuse to give any explanation other than that. Tolkien writes: “And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).”
The main barrier to me is the insipidness of the many explanations given by others. Tom might be a Maia, except that this explanation does not account for Goldberry or River-woman. These require a fantasy world where river-gods and nixies exist. But such supernatural beings are not even mentioned outside of Tom Bombadil’s associates, even in the
Book of Lost Tales, which introduces a large number of supernatural beings not mentioned later in connection with Middle-earth.
Also Tolkien might well have written that Bombabil was a Maia, or have rephased it as ‘lesser god’, if Tom were to be a Maia in
The Lord of the Rings. He did not.
Tolkien on every other occasion that he was asked about the meaning or source of his characters was quite open and often very vocal. If you wish to use the third item of your definition you should also explain why in this one case Tolkien in effect said, “I know who Tom Bombadil is in the world of Middle-earth, but I won’t tell you. Nyahh! Nyahh!” He is quite willing to explain everything else about Bombadil.
So I interpret
enigma by its primary meaning. Tolkien does explain that he had originally created him for a poem in the Oxford Magazine and wrote him into
The Lord of the Rings. That would explain why Tom Bombadil was a discordant element in
The Lord of the Rings, he was invented in what was originally a universe unconnected with
The Lord of the Rings.
Of course, once invented in
The Lord of the Rings, Tom Bombadil must have some kind of explanation within that secondary world, but Tolkien might not himself know which explanation was right. Therefore, Tom would remain a riddle without an answer, along with the question of the origin of the Orcs.
That is the barrier to speculation: none of them have been convincing to a large number of people and Tom Bombadil is fictional and so what is true about him depends on the opinion of the author.
So, you insist that Tolkien must have had a theory that Tolkien refused to reveal. I simply don’t believe that and find such speculation repugnant.