Tom Bombadil

[tom the eldest]

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

[jallanite]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

1.a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation

2.a person of puzzling or contradictory character

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

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

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

[jallanite]

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.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

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

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

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

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

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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

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