Is Tom Bombadil Tolkien or Eru Iluvatar?

[Legolas]

Hi everyone :)

Back with another one
I remember having had the question for a long time now, so I just want to know your opinions. Do you think Tom Bombadil is Eru Iluvatar or even Tolkien himself? Would definitely make sense

Once again, thankful for any help

[Winddancer]

If you are truly interested in who Tom Bombadil is then this thread here: http://yemachine.com/tom-bombadil/tom-b ... the-onion/ is a must read. From what I can remember this has been asked before and I *think* it was concluded that it was a no in both cases, but I will let the lore dudes/dudettes answer properly :)

[Androthelm]

I'll note that that post is a bit of a response to halfir's original Tom Bombadil posts, which... might have been archived successfully? That is a question for those in charge of the halfir compilation project, over in this thread.

That being said, Tom as Eru or Tom as Tolkien -- interpreting the role of both as "Supreme Figure" in a very Vonnegut-Writing-Himself-Into-Breakfast-of-Champions way -- is, as Windy (or, I suppose we have to call you Winddy now, to differentiate @Winddancer) -- a very popular suggestion which, from my limited understanding, is usually not considered to be likely.

Again, though, I'm no halfir. None of us are.

[Winddancer]

Yes it has and been made into a PDF, keep your eyes peeled (ha, pun intended!) as it will be popping up soonish :)

And I am the only Windy! :P

[Elenhir]

We don't need to wade into deeper philosophical asides to answer this.

No, Bombadil is not Eru.

There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers.

The One does not physically inhabit any part of Ea.

No, Bombadil is not Tolkien.

I am not Gandalf, being a transcendent Sub-creator in this little world. As far as any character is 'like me' it is Faramir - except that I lack what all my characters possess (let the psychoanalysts note!) Courage.

Bombadil both fails to be identified in response to this question being asked, and fails in the sub-creative responsibilities mentioned here and other places in letters. Also, they are nothing at all alike.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Yeah, both those options are found in the list of wild and crazy theories on the first post of halfir's legendary thread. The halfir archive project seems to have ground to a halt again, but here is the plaza pdf: https://lotrfanaticsplaza.com/plazahist ... eOnion.pdf

I have to say that, as with Adam (the first man), those two options, if certainly wild and crazy, do make some sense. But this is because Tom Bombadil makes almost no sense. Well, to try and put it more constructively, Tom Bombadil has no origin in Middle-earth, which is to say that he was there from the beginning. Actually, that puts paid to Adam, who was created (on the sixth day), and you can see why Tolkien and Eru make some sense (as in, the Author is about the only being who is there from the beginning).

(By the by, in FR Bombadil says that he was here already when 'the Dark Lord came from Outside.' That line has puzzled people, but I think it is Tolkien's way of indicating what things looked like to one who was already there when the world was made. Correct me, please, if this sounds wrong.)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Just to add on the other side...

So, Tom Bombadil not being created yet dwelling in a created world makes almost no sense, and hence opens the door to ideas like TB = Tolkien, or Eru. Note further, Tom Bombadil's (little observed) key characteristic is that his voice is obeyed by all. Just read again his first encounter with Sam and Frodo for illustration (and keep on until he tells Frodo to show him the Ring). Tom Bombadil in fact possesses that power of command that Sauron only aspires to and requires the Ring to achieve. Tolkien partly disguises this absolute power of command by giving Tom Bombadil a ridiculous name and appearance (and party by placing Bombadil beyond any temptation and so any possible Fall).

But - and this is the but - while the voice of Tom Bombadil commands, it does not make; he is not a sub-creative force. If his voice could also make the world, then he would indeed be God. But his voice is magical, not creative. Tom Bombadil simply is (as you see him). He was not created, but neither does he create.

[Androthelm]

@Elenhir I'm not sure what you mean by philosophical asides, but I will throw out that this stuff is fun to talk about, at the very least -- as a sort of what-if. I'm no Tolkien Scholar, but it is interesting to wonder what sort of conclusions we might draw if we did chose to interpret Tom as some kind of authorial insert or Eru incarnate.

@Chrysophylax Dives the Adam connection is fascinating, although it is probably worth noting that the Hobbits look at Tom and consider the possibilities in-text that he might either be a Big or Little person, meaning either way he ought to be (or at least, look) mortal. If he were Adam, (unfallen etc) I'd then pose the question how do we interpret his longevity, if death is meant to be a Gift? Unless he is some kind of Adam-of-the-Elves?

'the Dark Lord came from Outside' sounds to me to reference the arrival of either Sauron or Melkor to Arda at the end of the Ainulindalë. So, yes -- that would put Tom in Middle-Earth at the very moment of creation, if not before.

I do agree as well that Tom, in the end, is a bit senseless. "Tom is Master" is a claim made by the text, but once you follow that statement to its conclusion (as you do in your second post Chrys) it does get... dangerously implicative, shall we say.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

I do believe that, at the end of the day, in theory at least, it will be possible to give a solution to 'the Tom Bombadil question.' I am also convinced that the solution will illuminate the very heart and soul of LOTR, which means that it is at the very root of things. As do many here, I also think that halfir's 'Peeling the Onion,' while it does not quite get to that root, is the best discussion out there - nothing else comes close. So it is our starting-point, we need to criticize it and point out what halfir missed, but such criticism is a tribute as well as an attempt to advance.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

We don't need to wade into deeper philosophical asides to answer this.

@Elenhir, you are correct, and the two quotations that you give are evidence of this. However, just because we do not need to wade into philosophical waters does not mean that we cannot. Indeed, that the answer to the original question is, as you say, no, should not be the end of the matter; rather, it provides an anchor that allows us to navigate more of an impossible terrain - I mean the matter of Tom Bombadil. Bombadil is the enigma of Middle-earth, the idea of the Author, meaning J.R.R. Tolkien of his sub-creation and God of his Creation, is at the heart of Tolkien's thinking about fairy stories, and so the original post, while it can indeed be dealt with by two quotations, also allows - even invites - the deeper inquiries...

[Androthelm]

Since this is still the most active place talking about Tom, and in support, maybe, of @Chrysophylax Dives's hope of figuring out just what is going on with old Bombadillo, I've just come across this passage as I'm drawing close to the end of a reread.

[Gandalf remarks that Tom]"is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another."

This is interesting. It comes right on the heels of Gandalf remarking that he won't be with the Hobbits for the scouring of the Shire -- that it is no longer his duty to sort things out for other people -- and instead he's departing to go talk with Bombadil about things. That is... fascinating, in my opinion, because it does suggest a kinship between them after all? And perhaps, even, that Tom's "role" in Middle-Earth has been fulfilled, as Gandalf's has now?

Just wild speculation, I know, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

[Boromir88]

@Androthelm , I agree that quote is making me wonder about a few other things.

That is... fascinating, in my opinion, because it does suggest a kinship between them after all? And perhaps, even, that Tom's "role" in Middle-Earth has been fulfilled, as Gandalf's has now?

As to your first question, in my opinion I don't think it would suggest a kinship between Gandalf and Tom. That is, if you mean, Tom is an embodied Ainur. I do think it shows a shared or common bond. I'm now reminded of Gandalf's and Denethor's debate about "Stewardship":

"If you understand it, then be content," returned Denethor. "Pride would be folly that disdained help and counsel at need; but you deal out such gifts according to your own designs. Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good of Gondor; and the rule of Gondor, is mine and no other man's, unless the king should come again."
"Unless the king should come again?" said Gandalf. "Well, my lord Steward, it is your task to keep some kingdom still against that event, which few now look to see. In that task you shall have all the aid that you are pleased to ask for. But I will say this" the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor, nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anythig else passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flawer again in days to come. For I am a steward. Did you not know?" - Return of the King: Minas Tirith

Through Gandalf and Denethor's conversation about stewardship, I believe Tolkien is trying to distinguish between the different meanings of the word. I will attempt to be brief, so I don't go too far off the topic. The end point, in general, is Gandalf's a "steward" (and now I'm thinking that word can apply to Tom) while Denethor is a "Steward."

Stewardship, can mean a few different things. A steward can simply be a "care taker" of someone's household while master of the household is away. But it doesn't always imply that steward has political authority. There is also the "Steward," which is a title and position of authority to rule while the Lord/Master of the household/King is away. Denethor is the "Steward", and his mind is on the rule/political authority of his position: 'And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good of Gondor, and the rule of Gondor...". Denethor is someone who becomes a corrupt politician, solely focused on as the "Steward" Gondor's rule is his charge, and only his. "Until the king should come again" is a throw away and meaningless political talk.

Gandalf is a "steward," not the ruling sort of steward, but a care-taker, and not just Gondor but: "all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care."

I can see an argument that Tom Bombadil is Gandalf's sort of steward. Its just speculation, but I think Tom being a care-taker a "steward" is a more fitting description than the various other arguments that...he's Tolkien, Eru, an embodied Ainur...etc. Although, there is still a difference between Tom and Gandalf. as Gandalf says "all worthy things that are in peril" is his care, where Tom has closed himself off and self-imposed his borders. Gandalf is a "stone doomed to rolling," Tom is a "moss-gatherer."

[Chrysophylax Dives]

I agree with @Boromir88. Tolkien has a thing about stones, they are a sort of ruling metaphor across different writings - e.g. the mass of old stones (ancient stories) that an Anglo-Saxon poet makes into a tower (Beowulf), and the Seeing Stones found within certain towers of Middle-earth. In the original allegory of Beowulf the man uses the old stones to make, not a tower but a rock garden. I think Tolkien sometimes thought about The Lord of the Rings as another rock garden, an arrangement of stones. I know this is purely speculative, but I read Gandalf's contrast through this metaphor of stones in a rock garden, a contrast between Bombadil, the standing stone that does not move as the world around him does, and Gandalf who is a rolling stone until the end of the story.

[Androthelm]

@Boromir88 yes, you're on the money there I think -- and maybe I should clarify my language. I didn't mean a kinship in the sense of their cosmological positioning -- Tom is (at least by the standard of susceptibility to the Ring) far, far superior to Gandalf, at least before Sauron is overthrown.

I do think, though, that what you're describing in their similar "stewardship" could be described as a kind of kinship -- a kinship of spirit, maybe. They are true stewards (in a sense which reminds me of the concept of Christians as "stewards-of-the-earth"), or perhaps it would be better to say (as the book does) that "Tom is Master" -- but his mastery does not require possession (here, maybe, we're getting close to your theory, @Chrysophylax Dives, that understanding Tom will cast light on the heart of the whole of the Lord of the Rings).

Perhaps, then, Gandalf has finally (in setting down his labor) ascended from a mover of pieces (who is, I've realized over the course of this read through, accused of manipulating people to his own ends a tremendous number of times -- by Wormtongue, by Saruman, by Denethor, by the Mouth of Sauron, and then by Saruman again, meaning that the only named "villains" (or even slightly villainous figures) who don't make this claim are... Boromir, Shelob, and the Balrog? ) into a role of peaceful border-setting. There is a sense, I think, in Gandalf's comment there that at last, after long "doom" rolling, he might gather some moss.