Out of all of the characters in Tolkien's books, Tom Bombadil is perhaps the most enigmatic. He doesn't fit in with the rest of the world that Tolkien created. He is the only character in Middle Earth (that we are aware of), who was resistant to the powers of the ring. He also wielded an apparrant mastery over his domain of the old forest. In the hierarchy of beings in Middle Earth, this places him somewhere near the top. Arguably, at the end of the third age, Gandalf and Sauron were the most powerful beings in middle earth, both being Maia. However, Tom Bombadil was able to do something that Gandalf was not - resist the ring. In some ways, this would place Bombadil near the top of the power pyramid. However, his power was limited to the Old Forest (we think...).
Was Tom Bombadil simply an intentional departure Tolkien took from Middle Earth. Possibly an indulgent homage to his book - The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? Or was he something more powerful and intentionally included? Possibly another Maia, one of the Valar or maybe Eru himself?
Tom Bombadil - literal deity or synaptic misfire?
- Points: 271
Wise Ent
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:54 am
- Points: 1 140
Master Torturer
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:10 am
I don't have a ton of interest in the Bombadil debate myself--I think he's most likely a Maia and am all but certain he's not Aulë--but I think it's a great case study in how the standard "power pyramid" really only scratches the surface of Arda. (It's also a great case study in how I like the sound of my own voice and will ramble about certain topics when given a shadow of an excuse!)
The Valaquenta (the version in the 1977 Silmarillion) gives a rundown of the Valar and some of the notable Maiar, but it also makes a cryptic reference to "any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä", besides those two. At first glance, this might seem to be a relic of earlier stages of the mythology, when there were spirits such as "brownies, fays, pixies, [and] leprawns" who were neither Valar nor Eldar (HoMe I, The Coming of the Valar). Most of these vaguely defined spirits, as well as the Children of the Valar, were subsumed into the catch-all category of Maiar in the early 1950s. But the really interesting thing about the "any other order" quote is that it too comes from that period (HoMe X, The Later Quenta Silmarillion, Of the Valar), meaning the idea of other classes of spirits persisted.
So, who or what are these unaffiliated Ainur? Were they even Ainur at all? We don't know. And that's actually the neat thing--not that I would have thought so as a teenager. :P We know the names of only a tiny fraction of all the Maiar, and we don't even know how the number of categories of other immortal spirits from before the beginning of time. Is Bombadil one of them? Maybe. Is Ungoliant? The Silmarillion only tells us that the Eldar suspect she was a corrupted Maiar; they didn't know for sure. Because of the nature of the legendarium, that means we don't get to know for sure either: all the texts we read are mediated through chains of chroniclers and storytellers with in-universe existences and imperfect knowledge. This is bad news if you're trying to construct a single internally-consistent model of Arda, but it's great news if you like approaching the legendarium as if it were a real mythology, since those are never fully consistent.
The mysteries don't stop here, either! In The Lord of the Rings, it's strongly suggested that the mountain Caradhras possesses some level of sentience or will and that the mountain itself was responsible for blocking the Fellowship's passage across it. And when Gandalf recounted his fight against the Balrog in Moria (TTT, III 5), he mentions "...dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin’s folk, Gimli son of Glóin. Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light of day."
*record scratch*
Hold up. Sauron knows them not because they are older than he? But Sauron is a demiurgic spirit who predates the very existence of time. How can anything but Ilúvatar Himself be older than Sauron? My pet theory is that this means the "nameless things"--and God knows what else--existed within Eä before the Ainur entered in, meaning they existed within the flow of time for longer than Sauron, who was still in the Timeless Halls when they were "born". What were they? Your guess is as good as mine. People periodically suggest "echoes of the music of the Ainur"; I don't know what that means, but it sounds nice!
To bring things full circle, some people posit that Bombadil belongs in the same category of entities that existed in Eä before the Ainur, based on his statement (in FOTR, I 7) that he "was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn.... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside." However, there were no landforms, weather, or flora when the Ainur initially entered Eä ("they were at first astounded and at a loss, for it was as if naught was yet made which they had seen in vision, and all was but on point to begin and yet unshaped, and it was dark"; TS, Ainulindalë). Bombadil's statement almost certainly refers to Melkor's return to Arda as a Dark Lord, minions in tow, as described in the chapter "Of the Beginning of Days". Bombadil could fit into the pre-Ainur category, but it's far from a sure thing.
The Valaquenta (the version in the 1977 Silmarillion) gives a rundown of the Valar and some of the notable Maiar, but it also makes a cryptic reference to "any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä", besides those two. At first glance, this might seem to be a relic of earlier stages of the mythology, when there were spirits such as "brownies, fays, pixies, [and] leprawns" who were neither Valar nor Eldar (HoMe I, The Coming of the Valar). Most of these vaguely defined spirits, as well as the Children of the Valar, were subsumed into the catch-all category of Maiar in the early 1950s. But the really interesting thing about the "any other order" quote is that it too comes from that period (HoMe X, The Later Quenta Silmarillion, Of the Valar), meaning the idea of other classes of spirits persisted.
So, who or what are these unaffiliated Ainur? Were they even Ainur at all? We don't know. And that's actually the neat thing--not that I would have thought so as a teenager. :P We know the names of only a tiny fraction of all the Maiar, and we don't even know how the number of categories of other immortal spirits from before the beginning of time. Is Bombadil one of them? Maybe. Is Ungoliant? The Silmarillion only tells us that the Eldar suspect she was a corrupted Maiar; they didn't know for sure. Because of the nature of the legendarium, that means we don't get to know for sure either: all the texts we read are mediated through chains of chroniclers and storytellers with in-universe existences and imperfect knowledge. This is bad news if you're trying to construct a single internally-consistent model of Arda, but it's great news if you like approaching the legendarium as if it were a real mythology, since those are never fully consistent.
The mysteries don't stop here, either! In The Lord of the Rings, it's strongly suggested that the mountain Caradhras possesses some level of sentience or will and that the mountain itself was responsible for blocking the Fellowship's passage across it. And when Gandalf recounted his fight against the Balrog in Moria (TTT, III 5), he mentions "...dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin’s folk, Gimli son of Glóin. Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light of day."
*record scratch*
Hold up. Sauron knows them not because they are older than he? But Sauron is a demiurgic spirit who predates the very existence of time. How can anything but Ilúvatar Himself be older than Sauron? My pet theory is that this means the "nameless things"--and God knows what else--existed within Eä before the Ainur entered in, meaning they existed within the flow of time for longer than Sauron, who was still in the Timeless Halls when they were "born". What were they? Your guess is as good as mine. People periodically suggest "echoes of the music of the Ainur"; I don't know what that means, but it sounds nice!
To bring things full circle, some people posit that Bombadil belongs in the same category of entities that existed in Eä before the Ainur, based on his statement (in FOTR, I 7) that he "was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn.... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside." However, there were no landforms, weather, or flora when the Ainur initially entered Eä ("they were at first astounded and at a loss, for it was as if naught was yet made which they had seen in vision, and all was but on point to begin and yet unshaped, and it was dark"; TS, Ainulindalë). Bombadil's statement almost certainly refers to Melkor's return to Arda as a Dark Lord, minions in tow, as described in the chapter "Of the Beginning of Days". Bombadil could fit into the pre-Ainur category, but it's far from a sure thing.
- Points: 159
Scholar of Gondor
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 9:26 pm
Tom certainly wasn't a homage to Tolkien's book 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (published 1962). 
- Points: 299
Galadhrim Bowmaster
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 4:01 pm
My own theory would echo what you said, Eldy. I think of Tom Bombadil as an avatar of Eä, or perhaps Middle-earth, an incarnation or representation of the world itself. That is why he cannot be corrupted by the Ring, because it offers him no power he wants, nor could have any use for. He is the world as it was before the corruption of Morgoth and thus beyond its influence. At least as far as we are shown. But I never looked into the books to see whether this theory holds much water.
- Points: 932
Ent High Elder
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 1:14 pm
So this is my own personal Bombadil theory but it seems to be in line with the thinking so far in this thread...
On Tom Bombadil and Ungoliant
It is somewhat easier to define Tom Bombadil by what he is not rather than what he is, since Tolkien gives us very few clues as to the actual nature of his being. Tom is not mortal, he has lived far to long to be and states that he is the "Eldest." Furthermore, it is said that Tom remembers the "first raindrop and the first acorn." Therefore, Tom can not be any of the Children of Iluvatar. He can not be Man and can not be Elf. This leaves the possibilities as divine beings. From what we know from The Silmarillion, there are essentially three classes of Divine Beings - the Maiar, the Valar and Eru Iluvatar himself. The easiest of these possibilities to eliminate is Eru as Tolkien himself says "'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" (Letters, #181). Tom is not Eru.
Tom also can not be a Maia. The evidence here lies in Tom's interaction with The One Ring. Even the wisest (Olorin) and most powerful (Curunir) of the Maiar were subject to the influence of the power of the Ring. Tom has no interest in the Ring. Not only does he not disappear when putting on the Ring, but he also shows no desire to keep or to use the Ring. The Ring, by nature, being a part of Sauron's spirit, had an influence over Elves, Dwarves, Men and Maia. Tom can not be a Maia.
Could Tom be a Vala? A lot of work has been done on that front, and there are some convincing arguments for and against it, the most convincing of which is that Goldberry says Tom was present "before the Dark Lord came from Outside" (FotR: House of Tom Bombadil). This makes the Valar argument difficult because there is textual evidence that Melkor was the first of the Valar to enter into Arda, which makes the hypothesis that Tom is one of the Valar (specifically Aule), difficult to prove. Furthermore, Tom has no interest in actually helping in the quest against Sauron or in the world outside his borders. This does not sound like any of the Valar (even Aule the Smith, of whom Sauron was originally one of his Maia).
So where does that leave us? I contend that there is actually a third classification of Ainur. In terms of "power" they would fall between the Valar and the Maiar. To keep it easy, we will call them "The Others." While Tolkien gives us a specific number of Valar (even separating them into "high" and "low") and an innumerable number of Maiar, there are only two "Others." The Others are two ancient spirits that entered into Arda and are essentially diametric opposites of each other - Tom Bombadil and Ungoliant.
Tom is representative of all that is good and pure in nature. He has some power over nature to command trees. The most evidence as to what Tom IS falls under the "Spirit of Nature" category. In Letter #19 Tolkien calls Bombadil "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside." While Tom is a "Spirit of Nature" it is undoubtable that Ungoliant is the exact opposite. A "spirit of anti-nature," if you will. Tom's presence is focused on preserving and maintaining while Ungoliant's sole purpose is for destruction. Ungoliant is the sole character in the entire legendarium capable of destroying light. Melkor, while he despised Light, could not destroy it. Sauron could not destroy Light. Yet Ungoliant not only was capable of devouring light, she produced "Unlight" - the all-encompassing darkness that consumed anything it contacted. Ungoliant's origins are similarly unknown, and like Tom it is said that she was present at the beginnings of the world. If Tom is the "spirit of nature" or the personification of the world, then Ungoliant is the personification of the abyss. In a sense, one can not exist without the other - the two are inter-related in that they are exact opposites (two halves of the same coin, if you will). They are more powerful than Children and Maiar, they have been in the world longer than the Valar, they are clearly not of the world but one works to preserve its beauty while the other's purpose is to destroy the beauty of the world.
On Tom Bombadil and Ungoliant
It is somewhat easier to define Tom Bombadil by what he is not rather than what he is, since Tolkien gives us very few clues as to the actual nature of his being. Tom is not mortal, he has lived far to long to be and states that he is the "Eldest." Furthermore, it is said that Tom remembers the "first raindrop and the first acorn." Therefore, Tom can not be any of the Children of Iluvatar. He can not be Man and can not be Elf. This leaves the possibilities as divine beings. From what we know from The Silmarillion, there are essentially three classes of Divine Beings - the Maiar, the Valar and Eru Iluvatar himself. The easiest of these possibilities to eliminate is Eru as Tolkien himself says "'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" (Letters, #181). Tom is not Eru.
Tom also can not be a Maia. The evidence here lies in Tom's interaction with The One Ring. Even the wisest (Olorin) and most powerful (Curunir) of the Maiar were subject to the influence of the power of the Ring. Tom has no interest in the Ring. Not only does he not disappear when putting on the Ring, but he also shows no desire to keep or to use the Ring. The Ring, by nature, being a part of Sauron's spirit, had an influence over Elves, Dwarves, Men and Maia. Tom can not be a Maia.
Could Tom be a Vala? A lot of work has been done on that front, and there are some convincing arguments for and against it, the most convincing of which is that Goldberry says Tom was present "before the Dark Lord came from Outside" (FotR: House of Tom Bombadil). This makes the Valar argument difficult because there is textual evidence that Melkor was the first of the Valar to enter into Arda, which makes the hypothesis that Tom is one of the Valar (specifically Aule), difficult to prove. Furthermore, Tom has no interest in actually helping in the quest against Sauron or in the world outside his borders. This does not sound like any of the Valar (even Aule the Smith, of whom Sauron was originally one of his Maia).
So where does that leave us? I contend that there is actually a third classification of Ainur. In terms of "power" they would fall between the Valar and the Maiar. To keep it easy, we will call them "The Others." While Tolkien gives us a specific number of Valar (even separating them into "high" and "low") and an innumerable number of Maiar, there are only two "Others." The Others are two ancient spirits that entered into Arda and are essentially diametric opposites of each other - Tom Bombadil and Ungoliant.
Tom is representative of all that is good and pure in nature. He has some power over nature to command trees. The most evidence as to what Tom IS falls under the "Spirit of Nature" category. In Letter #19 Tolkien calls Bombadil "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside." While Tom is a "Spirit of Nature" it is undoubtable that Ungoliant is the exact opposite. A "spirit of anti-nature," if you will. Tom's presence is focused on preserving and maintaining while Ungoliant's sole purpose is for destruction. Ungoliant is the sole character in the entire legendarium capable of destroying light. Melkor, while he despised Light, could not destroy it. Sauron could not destroy Light. Yet Ungoliant not only was capable of devouring light, she produced "Unlight" - the all-encompassing darkness that consumed anything it contacted. Ungoliant's origins are similarly unknown, and like Tom it is said that she was present at the beginnings of the world. If Tom is the "spirit of nature" or the personification of the world, then Ungoliant is the personification of the abyss. In a sense, one can not exist without the other - the two are inter-related in that they are exact opposites (two halves of the same coin, if you will). They are more powerful than Children and Maiar, they have been in the world longer than the Valar, they are clearly not of the world but one works to preserve its beauty while the other's purpose is to destroy the beauty of the world.
- Points: 223
Councillor of Imladris
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:30 am
I've always found it interesting that Tom Bombadil is always referred to as "Eldest" when the nature of his identity is discussed. What I also find interesting is that there's another character who also is labeled as "Eldest", or the first-born: Tree-beard.
I've been curious of if the two are meant to have a connection, or if it's merely coincidental. But I do second Mojo's thoughts, that Tom is an embodiment of nature. For a long time, I would've suspected him of being a Maia, but Mojo's arguments about how the other Maiar were still affected by the Ring is quite convincing--enough for me, at least, to believe that rules out any possibility of Tom being Maia.
I may have to dig out some of the books and develop a more informed opinion, since it's been some years since reading anything but The Lord of the Rings itself, but I'll at least echo Mojo's theory about the possibility of Tom being a higher/celestial/angelic/whatever term you want to use being, which is neither Valar or Maiar in classification.
(Thanks, Mojo! :smiley10: )
I've been curious of if the two are meant to have a connection, or if it's merely coincidental. But I do second Mojo's thoughts, that Tom is an embodiment of nature. For a long time, I would've suspected him of being a Maia, but Mojo's arguments about how the other Maiar were still affected by the Ring is quite convincing--enough for me, at least, to believe that rules out any possibility of Tom being Maia.
I may have to dig out some of the books and develop a more informed opinion, since it's been some years since reading anything but The Lord of the Rings itself, but I'll at least echo Mojo's theory about the possibility of Tom being a higher/celestial/angelic/whatever term you want to use being, which is neither Valar or Maiar in classification.
(Thanks, Mojo! :smiley10: )
- Points: 932
Ent High Elder
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 1:14 pm
As a former Debater (and still debater at heart, tbh) this is music to my ears! :smiley8:Lúthien Tinúviel wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 5:36 pm but Mojo's arguments about how the other Maiar were still affected by the Ring is quite convincing--enough for me, at least, to believe that rules out any possibility of Tom being Maia.
On another point that was made above (and this may be a better topic for another thread so that we don't spam up the Tom thread with other topics....
Eldy wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 3:17 am
The mysteries don't stop here, either! In The Lord of the Rings, it's strongly suggested that the mountain Caradhras possesses some level of sentience or will and that the mountain itself was responsible for blocking the Fellowship's passage across it. And when Gandalf recounted his fight against the Balrog in Moria (TTT, III 5), he mentions "...dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin’s folk, Gimli son of Glóin. Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light of day."
I always wondered if the "spirit" of Caradhras was somehow connected to the Balrog, which were fallen Maiar...if the spiritual power of the Balrog had somehow inhabited the physical substance of the mountain as well which gave it its evil disposition.
- Points: 409
Weathered Ent
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:51 pm
This is only my opinion, as I do write as a hobby. I have had this hobby for a long time. Sometimes characters write themselves, without much thought as to their back story. I have several characters that I have written that are like this. I should give them a back story, but I haven't. I believe Tom Bombadil is one of these. He is a homage to the book the Adventures of Tom Bombadil. And the character pretty much wrote itself as the story went along.
I do recall reading someplace that the appearance of the character was based on a toy he had as a child.
I do recall reading someplace that the appearance of the character was based on a toy he had as a child.
- Points: 287
Wise Ent
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:35 am
I'm certainly not the loremaster a lot of others were...or even the one I was back in the days of the Old Plaza ( 
) but....
LOTR was originally supposed to be no more and no less than a sequel to the Hobbit. Yet it developed into the way that Tolkien got his mythology published in some form. We all know the difference in tone between the Hobbit and LOTR. What if Tom Bombadil was nothing more than an extension of the "Tra-la-la-lally down in the Valley" Rivendell Elves and the "Attercop!" Bilbo? Something that was meant to refer back to the more lightheartedness of the Hobbit? Then, as the story developed, he was kept as a bit of a throwback, but also came to represent a transition between the Hobbit and LOTR, the peacefulness and innocence of the Shire and the evil and adulthood?? of the World Outside. A bit of of a look at who is out there; a safe introduction to the myriad Others (a la Joseph Campbell variety, not the GRRM variety)?
We get our first look at the Barrows, Merry get his sword that is used to great effect later, the hobbits get to learn more of the history of Middle-earth, and they get to recover from Old Man Willow before being confronted by all the stuff that happens in Bree. And besides, did Aragorn know about Bombadil? If they hadn't spent however long it was that they spent with him, would they have, in universe, met Aragorn in Bree? He couldn't have realistically hung out at the Prancing Pony for weeks or months on end!
) but....LOTR was originally supposed to be no more and no less than a sequel to the Hobbit. Yet it developed into the way that Tolkien got his mythology published in some form. We all know the difference in tone between the Hobbit and LOTR. What if Tom Bombadil was nothing more than an extension of the "Tra-la-la-lally down in the Valley" Rivendell Elves and the "Attercop!" Bilbo? Something that was meant to refer back to the more lightheartedness of the Hobbit? Then, as the story developed, he was kept as a bit of a throwback, but also came to represent a transition between the Hobbit and LOTR, the peacefulness and innocence of the Shire and the evil and adulthood?? of the World Outside. A bit of of a look at who is out there; a safe introduction to the myriad Others (a la Joseph Campbell variety, not the GRRM variety)?
We get our first look at the Barrows, Merry get his sword that is used to great effect later, the hobbits get to learn more of the history of Middle-earth, and they get to recover from Old Man Willow before being confronted by all the stuff that happens in Bree. And besides, did Aragorn know about Bombadil? If they hadn't spent however long it was that they spent with him, would they have, in universe, met Aragorn in Bree? He couldn't have realistically hung out at the Prancing Pony for weeks or months on end!
Do not Meddle in the Affairs of Dragons, for You are Crunchy and Good with Ketchup.
- Points: 792
Newborn of Imladris
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 10:25 am
Here we go again! This will run and run.
Remembering halfir by learning something new each day
- Points: 455
Councillor of Imladris
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:57 am
Thou shalt listen to @geordie!
Always!
Unless I tell you differently, of course :smiley10:
Last edited by Troelsfo on Sun May 17, 2020 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The love of Faery is the love of love” J.R.R. Tolkien
- Points: 455
Councillor of Imladris
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:57 am
In the days of the Old Plaza, we had the halfir.
He did a commendable effort at analysing the available evidence with respect to Tom Bombadil in the thread called “Tom B: Peeling the Onion (Collegium 1)”.
The old thread can be found archived here (I believe that all pages are captured).
https://web.archive.org/web/20180307173 ... llegium-1)
Firm conclusions that can be drawn with regards to Tom Bombadil:
Apart from this, there is a lot of guesswork with regards to what Tolkien intended with Tom Bombadil, but most of it, in my considered opinion, is more nonsense than careful analysis – an important point, where halfir's analysis stands out (even if that, too, has a few weak parts).
He did a commendable effort at analysing the available evidence with respect to Tom Bombadil in the thread called “Tom B: Peeling the Onion (Collegium 1)”.
The old thread can be found archived here (I believe that all pages are captured).
https://web.archive.org/web/20180307173 ... llegium-1)
Firm conclusions that can be drawn with regards to Tom Bombadil:
- Tom Bombadil was created externally to the Silmarillion legendarium as “Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside”.
- Tom Bombadil got imported into the emerging The Lord of the Rings story early on, very appropriately as a neighbour to the “Warwickshire village of about the Diamond Jubilee” of the Shire (a description of the Shire, which Tolkien prefixed with “more or less”).
Apart from this, there is a lot of guesswork with regards to what Tolkien intended with Tom Bombadil, but most of it, in my considered opinion, is more nonsense than careful analysis – an important point, where halfir's analysis stands out (even if that, too, has a few weak parts).
“The love of Faery is the love of love” J.R.R. Tolkien
- Points: 106
Herald of Imladris
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 5:16 pm
Just to announce my return, and to confirm that thou shalt always listen to geordie.
I am no longer young even in the reckoning of Men of the Ancient Houses
- Points: 106
Herald of Imladris
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 5:16 pm
Just to announce my return, and to confirm that thou shalt always listen to geordie.
I am no longer young even in the reckoning of Men of the Ancient Houses
- Points: 159
Scholar of Gondor
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 9:26 pm
Hi, Troels. Hi, Saranna and Dorwiniondil. Hi, everybody! 
It's all in the books.
- Points: 106
Herald of Imladris
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 5:16 pm
And hello again geordie!
I am no longer young even in the reckoning of Men of the Ancient Houses
- Points: 455
Councillor of Imladris
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:57 am
This argument is, I believe, mistaken.Mojo wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 2:47 pmTom also can not be a Maia. The evidence here lies in Tom's interaction with The One Ring. Even the wisest (Olorin) and most powerful (Curunir) of the Maiar were subject to the influence of the power of the Ring. Tom has no interest in the Ring. Not only does he not disappear when putting on the Ring, but he also shows no desire to keep or to use the Ring. The Ring, by nature, being a part of Sauron's spirit, had an influence over Elves, Dwarves, Men and Maia. Tom can not be a Maia.
Tolkien explained quite thoroughly the reasons for Tom Bombadil to be unaffected by the power of the Master Ring in his 1954 letter to Naomi Mitchison (#144 in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien). The key is not his nature, but his relation to power. Tolkien explains how Tom Bombadil has renounced control, has renounced the desire for power, and it is that, which makes him immune to the Master Ring's “lure to power” (letter #181). Gandalf does desire power to control the world – power to defeat Sauron and order the world for good (“Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron.”, Tolkien explained in letter #246).
Additionally, it is highly doubtful that Gandalf can be used to say anything meaningful about Olórin (certainly not in terms of power and ability). The means by which five Maiar were embodied to become emissaries to the peoples of Middle-earth is never described in detail, but is is exceedingly clear that quite a lot of their innate power was not available to them as Istari – just the simple fact that Saruman was killed by a Hobbit arrow and didn't merely re-incarnate afterwards is testimony to the vast difference between the Istar and the Maia.
The simple fact that Tom Bombadil is not affected by the Master Ring whereas Gandalf is, is thus in no way a valid argument for Tom B not being a Maia.
It is a stronger argument that Tolkien could not have intended for Tom Bombadil to be something that did not exist, when Tom Bombadil was imported into the story. The Maiar only emerged around 1950 (Morgoth's Ring) – after{/i] Tolkien had finished writing The Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien therefore could not have intended him to be a Maia when he first imported this “the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside,” (letter #19) and also not when deciding to keep him in during multiple rewritings of the early parts of the story (some quite drastic, such as e.g. the evolution from Trotter the Hobbit to Strider, the Dúnadan).
He might, of course, have retroactively fitted the label of “Maia” onto this character, just as he did with Gandalf, who starts out in The Hobbit as simply a man who can do magic (he is still nothing more than that in The Hobbit) – a classic Dungeons & Dragons travelling mage, only to become some kind of angelic emissary from the Powers of the West in The Lord of the Rings, and then, afterwards, be elevated to order of the Maiar.
The earliest versions of Tolkien's great mythology doesn't make the same distinctions as the more mature versions do. In The Book of Lost Tales, the spirits accompanying the Vali are not a single order, but a great host of all kinds of spirits and sprites:
About them fared a great host who are the sprites of trees and woods, of dale and forest and mountain-side, or those that sing amid the grass at morning and chant among the standing corn at eve. These are the Nermir and the Tavari, Nandini and Orossi, brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns, and what else are they not called, for their number is very great: yet must they not be confused with the Eldar, for they were born before the world and are older than its oldest, and are not of it, but laugh at it much, for had they not somewhat to do with its making, so that it is for the most part a play for them; but the Eldar are of the world and love it with a great and burning love, and are wistful in all their happiness for that reason.
The Book of Lost Tales 1 (The History of Middle-earth, Book 1): Pt. 1 (pp. 65-66). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
In the earlier versions of the Silmarillion mythology, the Vali / Valar also have children and they have more dedicated, named servants. These two latter groups are definitely among those who become Maiar (and the idea of children of the Valar seems to be completely abandoned with the invention of the Maiar), but it is unclear to what degree this host of spirits / sprites / creatures listed in The Book of Lost Tales are included among the Maiar, and to what degree they were included in “any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä” (The Silmarillion). Some of those on the list, he may even have come to think of as later Mannish concepts based on faded or fading Elves.
All in all, we cannot finally reject the idea that Tolkien, e.g. when revising The Lord of the Rings for publication around 1953, came to think that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry were some kind of Maiar, though the idea cannot be confirmed either.
“The love of Faery is the love of love” J.R.R. Tolkien
- Points: 4 777
Tree
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
I don't see those conclusions as very firm.Troelsfo wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:26 pm
Firm conclusions that can be drawn with regards to Tom Bombadil:
- Tom Bombadil was created externally to the Silmarillion legendarium as “Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside”.
- Tom Bombadil got imported into the emerging The Lord of the Rings story early on, very appropriately as a neighbour to the “Warwickshire village of about the Diamond Jubilee” of the Shire (a description of the Shire, which Tolkien prefixed with “more or less”).
Tom B. was created in a couple of poems of the early 1930s, in one of which he is visiting a place in Devon. The key poem, published in The Oxford Magazine in 1934, includes Goldberry and Old Man Willow and a Barrow-wight, but nothing to link it especially with the Oxford countryside. If you wish to trace the roots of TB in this poem a better bet is the 1932 'The Name Nodens,' which is an etymological note on an ancient godling whose name once meant 'to catch' - perhaps inspiring a poem about one who could not be caught. The association with the Oxford countryside is only mentioned in a letter of late 1937, as JRRT began thinking about a sequel to The Hobbit. (Detailed references in halfir's post.)
To say that Tom B. got imported into 'the emerging LOTR story early on' is technically correct but potentially misleading. TB was evidently conceived in late 1937 and 1938 as a major part of the new hobbit story, which while certainly a sequel to The Hobbit was not really the story we know as LOTR until 1939 at the earliest and, really, summer 1940. In fact, the initial conception of the new hobbit story is, more than anything, a sequel to the 1934 poem - from the start of writing JRRT had in mind that Bilbo's heir would not only meet TB but get entangled in his earlier adventures (Old Man Willow and a Barrow-wight). Most of the nonsense talked about Tom Bombadil stems from an inability to recognize that he was written into a story that was never completed because it became a quite different story (while the whole story between Crickhollow and Bree remained almost unchanged).
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.
- Points: 455
Councillor of Imladris
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:57 am
In their The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion Hammond and Scull discusses Tolkien's propensity for “rhetorical superlatives” exactly in connection with the idea of the oldest / eldest.Lúthien Tinúviel wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 5:36 pm I've always found it interesting that Tom Bombadil is always referred to as "Eldest" when the nature of his identity is discussed. What I also find interesting is that there's another character who also is labeled as "Eldest", or the first-born: Tree-beard.
In their discussion of the Prologue, they have the following to say (p. 45):
and later, when discussing Gandalf's description of Treebeard as “the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the Sun upon this Middle-earth.” (The Lord of the Rings, LR,3,V:110), they add (p. 391-2)It is not clear what Tolkien meant by the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-earth. Some have queried if this should not be said instead of Treebeard the Ent, or of Tom Bombadil. In response to one such query, Christopher Tolkien remarked that his father was given to this kind of 'rhetorical superlative' (Tolkien-George Allen & Unwin archive, HarperCollins).
(bold-face emphasis added)In The Lord of the Rings Tolkien makes apparently contradictory statements concerning the priority of age in Middle-earth of Treebeard and Tom Bombadil. For the latter, see notes for pp. 119, 124, and 131, in which the cumulative evidence suggests that Tom Bombadil may have existed before Arda was fully fashioned, or at least before growing things appeared. To these may be compared Gandalf's statement about Treebeard as 'oldest' in the present paragraph .... otherwise it is worth repeating Christopher Tolkien's comment that his father was given to 'rhetorical superlatives', such as 'the oldest living thing' ....
The point of the discussion by Hammond and Scull appears to be that we should not attach a too literal interpretation to these things. Phrases such as ‘eldest’ and ‘oldest living thing’ points not to an individual being who is older than any other being, but rather to a very small group of the oldest beings – one that would appear to include Círdan besides Treebeard and Tom Bombadil.
Note that if we accept Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull's conclusion that “the cumulative evidence suggests that Tom Bombadil may have existed before Arda was fully fashioned”, then this alone would appear to limit our choices for Tom Bombadil to the Ainur or some other kind of spirit, created later and sent into Eä by Eru Ilúvatar.
Whether that tells us anything about any kinship between Treebeard, Círdan and Tom Bombadil (besides the obvious: very great age) is, I would say, anybody's guess – Melkor and Sauron would appear to counter any suggestion that there is a simple correlation of great age with wisdom ...
“The love of Faery is the love of love” J.R.R. Tolkien
- Points: 455
Councillor of Imladris
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:57 am
Thank you very much, @Simon - it is this kind of feedback that made the original Plaza such a great place!
According to the Tolkien family lore, Tom Bombadil was (also) a wooden doll owned by one of the Tolkien boys (there have been conflicting suggestions as to whose doll it was – if memory serves, both John and Michael have been mentioned) about which Tolkien told extemporised stories to his children. The connection to the Oxfordshire and Berkshire countryside may have emerged from those stories and have been put into the background in the poem ... I don't know and such is mere conjecture on my part, but it is definite that Tolkien did indeed, in December 1937 (just about the time he was struggling to get started on the second Hobbit), see Tom B as “the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside.” I would guess that this view of Tom Bombadil is quite close to some of the narrative impetus in his original sub-creation, but I cannot think of any evidence earlier than the December 1937 letter.
You have explained my purpose with that sentence much better than I could myself
My whole point was to emphasise that Tom Bombadil got imported into the story (of The Lord of the Rings) at a point where that story was still a very different thing than what we know today, and I really like your point that, at that point, being a “second Hobbit”, the story was closer to being a sequel to the 1934 poem than a story form the Silmarillion world. It is easy to overlook the vast changes that The Lord of the Rings went through as Tolkien struggled to find his way forward, and your description here stresses that point excellently.
Perhaps rewriting that list of firm knowledge would be better:
Re. 2, I think this aspect was present in the stories told to his children – if not in the original conception of Tom B, then before the poems were made.
I am sorry – I should of course not have said that Tom B was “created ... as”. What I should instead have said is that he was “created ... and seen as.” These are simple facts of the evolution of the character. That it would be very appropriate that Tom Bombadil got imported into the story as a eastern neighbour to the Shire is of course my own opinion based on the origins of the Shire as “more or less a Warwickshire village” and Tom Bombadil as “the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside” (the latter from letter #19 to Stanley Unwin, 16 December, 1937, referring explicitly to the poem published in The Oxford Magazine in 1934).simon wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:16 pmI don't see those conclusions as very firm.Troelsfo wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:26 pm
Firm conclusions that can be drawn with regards to Tom Bombadil:
- Tom Bombadil was created externally to the Silmarillion legendarium as “Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside”.
- Tom Bombadil got imported into the emerging The Lord of the Rings story early on, very appropriately as a neighbour to the “Warwickshire village of about the Diamond Jubilee” of the Shire (a description of the Shire, which Tolkien prefixed with “more or less”).
It is, in my view, doubtful that Tom Bombadil was created as such in those poems.simon wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:16 pm Tom B. was created in a couple of poems of the early 1930s, in one of which he is visiting a place in Devon. The key poem, published in The Oxford Magazine in 1934, includes Goldberry and Old Man Willow and a Barrow-wight, but nothing to link it especially with the Oxford countryside.
According to the Tolkien family lore, Tom Bombadil was (also) a wooden doll owned by one of the Tolkien boys (there have been conflicting suggestions as to whose doll it was – if memory serves, both John and Michael have been mentioned) about which Tolkien told extemporised stories to his children. The connection to the Oxfordshire and Berkshire countryside may have emerged from those stories and have been put into the background in the poem ... I don't know and such is mere conjecture on my part, but it is definite that Tolkien did indeed, in December 1937 (just about the time he was struggling to get started on the second Hobbit), see Tom B as “the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside.” I would guess that this view of Tom Bombadil is quite close to some of the narrative impetus in his original sub-creation, but I cannot think of any evidence earlier than the December 1937 letter.
Thank you, @Simon!simon wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:16 pm To say that Tom B. got imported into 'the emerging LOTR story early on' is technically correct but potentially misleading. TB was evidently conceived in late 1937 and 1938 as a major part of the new hobbit story, which while certainly a sequel to The Hobbit was not really the story we know as LOTR until 1939 at the earliest and, really, summer 1940. In fact, the initial conception of the new hobbit story is, more than anything, a sequel to the 1934 poem - from the start of writing JRRT had in mind that Bilbo's heir would not only meet TB but get entangled in his earlier adventures (Old Man Willow and a Barrow-wight). Most of the nonsense talked about Tom Bombadil stems from an inability to recognize that he was written into a story that was never completed because it became a quite different story (while the whole story between Crickhollow and Bree remained almost unchanged).
You have explained my purpose with that sentence much better than I could myself
My whole point was to emphasise that Tom Bombadil got imported into the story (of The Lord of the Rings) at a point where that story was still a very different thing than what we know today, and I really like your point that, at that point, being a “second Hobbit”, the story was closer to being a sequel to the 1934 poem than a story form the Silmarillion world. It is easy to overlook the vast changes that The Lord of the Rings went through as Tolkien struggled to find his way forward, and your description here stresses that point excellently.
Perhaps rewriting that list of firm knowledge would be better:
- Tom Bombadil was created externally to the Silmarillion legendarium no later than 1934.
- Tolkien viewed Tom Bombadil as “the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside” prior to importing Tom B into the Silmarillion legendarium.
- Tom Bombadil was imported into the emerging The Lord of the Rings story early on (likely early 1938 or, possibly, during the Christmas holiday of 1937), at a stage where the story was very different from the published version.
Re. 2, I think this aspect was present in the stories told to his children – if not in the original conception of Tom B, then before the poems were made.
Last edited by Troelsfo on Mon May 18, 2020 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The love of Faery is the love of love” J.R.R. Tolkien
- Points: 409
Weathered Ent
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:51 pm
Some info on the names of Tom Bombadil that might offer some clues.
The name Tom Bombadil is said to be of Buckland origins and doesn't have a translation.
1. To the Men of the Vales of the Anduin and Rohan, Bombadil was known as Orald, meaning very ancient in old English.
2. To the Elves and Dúnedain, Bombandil was known as Iarwain Ben-adar, which is translated as oldest and fatherless.
3. The Dwarves called him Forn, a reference to his ancient age.
The character is said to have been inspired by a doll that Tolkien's son Michael toyed with.
The name Tom Bombadil is said to be of Buckland origins and doesn't have a translation.
1. To the Men of the Vales of the Anduin and Rohan, Bombadil was known as Orald, meaning very ancient in old English.
2. To the Elves and Dúnedain, Bombandil was known as Iarwain Ben-adar, which is translated as oldest and fatherless.
3. The Dwarves called him Forn, a reference to his ancient age.
The character is said to have been inspired by a doll that Tolkien's son Michael toyed with.
Huorn of Fangorn
- Points: 4 777
Tree
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
@Troelsfo - you are of course correct on your qualifications of my qualifications (or to the extent I think not I am loath to get in to intense nit-picking). (Although I will say that I think your identification of 'the Shire' overly local. East Anglia is always overlooked by those who know JRRT was a west-country man. But the Marish is surely in some way the Cambridge fens). But in case you (or anyone) is interested, I'll indicate my thoughts on TB since carefully reading halfir's great post.
Where halfir goes wrong, I think, is that he quarries and mines the relevant HOME volumes for clues to TB rather than carefully trace the evolution of a story in them and only from the perspective of the stories so revealed (for there is more than one) frame his conclusions on TB. (This criticism is of similar kind to that which JRRT made about readings of Beowulf in his 1936 lecture.) Now, it is easy to criticize another for failing to grasp something and so I should confess that the point I am about to make I myself completely overlooked for the first 18 months or so of my reading of HOME VI (Return of the Shadow). Indeed, it was only in thinking about what halfir was doing with this volume that I saw what I had missed.
I think the most significant thing about Return of the Shadow is what it does not include. Christopher Tolkien gives numerous early drafts of LOTR. For example, we can trace the fearfully complex history of the long-expected party through umpteen versions. But the story between Crickhollow and Bree is passed over very rapidly. Christopher Tolkien explains that this is so because this part of the story altered very little over the next decade of writing. In my initial study of this volume I naturally focused on all the twists and changes that are revealed by the drafts Christopher Tolkien does give us. But what is surely more significant than any of these particular changes is the fact that JRRT evidently knew exactly what he wanted from TB, penned it rapidly in one go, and then hardly changed any of it.
The inference I draw from this is that in this part of the story we see JRRT's original vision for a sequel to The Hobbit. What this means for understanding Tom Bombadil, I believe, is that we would do better thinking about him in relation to the original adventure of Bilbo Baggins than in relation to the Silmarillion stories.
Incidentally, what also emerges from this is a vision of LOTR as a tale of sequels. The 1934 'Adventures of Tom Bombadil' introduces the Barrow-wight, Goldberry, and Old Man Willow. In 1938, when JRRT took a party of hobbits into the Old Forest, he was in effect writing a sequel to these 1934 adventures. Without going into the reasons behind the 1939 decision to place borders around Tom Bombadil (nicely traced by halfir), I think it fair to say that the new hobbit story only became LOTR once the hobbit Trotter transformed into Aragorn the heir of Elendil, at which point the story became the sequel to the 1936 'Fall of Numenor.'
Where halfir goes wrong, I think, is that he quarries and mines the relevant HOME volumes for clues to TB rather than carefully trace the evolution of a story in them and only from the perspective of the stories so revealed (for there is more than one) frame his conclusions on TB. (This criticism is of similar kind to that which JRRT made about readings of Beowulf in his 1936 lecture.) Now, it is easy to criticize another for failing to grasp something and so I should confess that the point I am about to make I myself completely overlooked for the first 18 months or so of my reading of HOME VI (Return of the Shadow). Indeed, it was only in thinking about what halfir was doing with this volume that I saw what I had missed.
I think the most significant thing about Return of the Shadow is what it does not include. Christopher Tolkien gives numerous early drafts of LOTR. For example, we can trace the fearfully complex history of the long-expected party through umpteen versions. But the story between Crickhollow and Bree is passed over very rapidly. Christopher Tolkien explains that this is so because this part of the story altered very little over the next decade of writing. In my initial study of this volume I naturally focused on all the twists and changes that are revealed by the drafts Christopher Tolkien does give us. But what is surely more significant than any of these particular changes is the fact that JRRT evidently knew exactly what he wanted from TB, penned it rapidly in one go, and then hardly changed any of it.
The inference I draw from this is that in this part of the story we see JRRT's original vision for a sequel to The Hobbit. What this means for understanding Tom Bombadil, I believe, is that we would do better thinking about him in relation to the original adventure of Bilbo Baggins than in relation to the Silmarillion stories.
Incidentally, what also emerges from this is a vision of LOTR as a tale of sequels. The 1934 'Adventures of Tom Bombadil' introduces the Barrow-wight, Goldberry, and Old Man Willow. In 1938, when JRRT took a party of hobbits into the Old Forest, he was in effect writing a sequel to these 1934 adventures. Without going into the reasons behind the 1939 decision to place borders around Tom Bombadil (nicely traced by halfir), I think it fair to say that the new hobbit story only became LOTR once the hobbit Trotter transformed into Aragorn the heir of Elendil, at which point the story became the sequel to the 1936 'Fall of Numenor.'
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.
- Points: 4 777
Tree
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
I think that is pretty much on the right lines. I know it is not popular to bring in external factors here but I also cannot but think of what happened in terms of world events. JRRT began the sequel to The Hobbit in the week before Christmas, 1937, and the basic story from Bag-end to Rivendell was penned in 1938. Only in 1939 (I learned this from halfir's great study) did JRRT have Gandalf declare that TB has borders that he never passes beyond, thereby in effect writing him out of the wider story. To my mind there is something going on here with regard to JRRT's thinking about the dark turn of contemporary European history. In 1938 the evil magic of the Necromancer would find a limit in the spirit of the Oxford countryside. But after September 3, 1939, I think that JRRT came to feel that evil magic must be confronted rather than dismissed. (I think this is the road that lead him to recast the enchantment of Tom Bombadil's house as the enchantment of the Lady Galadriel.)Flame Fried Ent wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 4:57 am
LOTR was originally supposed to be no more and no less than a sequel to the Hobbit. Yet it developed into the way that Tolkien got his mythology published in some form. We all know the difference in tone between the Hobbit and LOTR. What if Tom Bombadil was nothing more than an extension of the "Tra-la-la-lally down in the Valley" Rivendell Elves and the "Attercop!" Bilbo? Something that was meant to refer back to the more lightheartedness of the Hobbit? Then, as the story developed, he was kept as a bit of a throwback, but also came to represent a transition between the Hobbit and LOTR, the peacefulness and innocence of the Shire and the evil and adulthood?? of the World Outside. A bit of of a look at who is out there; a safe introduction to the myriad Others (a la Joseph Campbell variety, not the GRRM variety)?
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.
- Points: 170
Crafts Master
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:13 am
Just a question about Goldberry, more specifically her answer when asked who Tom is. "He is". Now, whether intending it or not, this inevitably will bring to mind God's answer to Moses "I am what I am". Is there anything to suggest Tolkien deliberately made Goldberry's answer so indicative of God's answer? Obviously, Tom isn't meant to be Eru but, as I say, I always found it curious that such a clear allusion to the Bible was made.
- Points: 455
Councillor of Imladris
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:57 am
isn't intense nit-picking part of what we're here for ...? :smiley10:
To be fair, I think Tolkien was mostly thinking of the Hobbiton area, when he made that comment in the letter in question (no. 178 in Letters; to Allan & Unwin, 8 December 1955)
That was very interesting, thank you, @Simon!
I think you are quite right in your assessment of the story – and also of @halfir's examination. Criticism of this kind is part of the process, and should be welcomed – and, based on my own experiences with discussing with him, I am certain that @halfir would indeed have welcomed your perspective.
Your further point about the history of The Lord of the Rings as a “tale of sequels” is brilliant, and I agree fully with your identification of the transformation of Trotter into Aragorn (and not just Strider) as the pivotal moment in the evolution of the story. Seeing in thereafter as a sequel to The Fall of Númenor is really intriguing ... in many ways this rings true to me – also because the removal of Valinor in The Fall of Númenor can be seen as heralding the escape or fading of the Elves in Middle-earth, so that The Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Fall of Númenor both in terms of the history of the Men of Númenor and in terms of the history of the Eldar.
“The love of Faery is the love of love” J.R.R. Tolkien
