# What IS Tom Bombadil?



## Telchar

*Tom Bombadil*

Tolkien never said exactly who it was but he gave a few hints, and that has caused many theories on what he is.. So, what do you think he is?

*This thread is now merged with 'What Was Tom Bombadil' originally in The History of Middle-Earth section* Ancalagon.

*This thread is now merged with numerous Tom Bombadil threads scattered hap hazardly over the forum in the last two days from Stuff and Bother and the Movie Forum* Grond

[color=008000]This thread now merged with other Tom B threads.[/color]


----------



## Beorn

I think he was just a magical person. Tolkien said,


> "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists);
> ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
> (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 174)





> Tom was originally a doll (with blue jacket and yellow boots) owned by Tolkien's son Michael. The doll inspired a story fragment, such as he often invented for his children's amusement. That fragment was in turn the basis for the poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil",


source: www.tolkien.cro.net

I think he's just a guy who wasn't anything, he just was. He had some, what you could call powers, but he didn't fit any specific race


----------



## Uminya

I think he cannot be anything other than a Maia or a product of the Ainuindale. I liken him to Ungoliant as in their origin. No one knew where exactly Ungoliant came from, but I believe that she (as are all other creatures of unknown origins) was a product of the Discord of Melko in the Ainuindale. Iarwain was most likely a result of the part Yavanna's people sang in the Music.

In my opinion, the suggestion that Tom is Aule (and Goldberry is Yavanna) is ridiculous, and should be disregarded, but he might perhaps be a Maia.


----------



## Lantarion

I agree, and so he would fall under the category of "earth spirit", because he was too care-free and transcendentalist to be a Maiar, not that the Maiar were materialistic or anything (  ) but Bombadil was way more close to nature to be a very important god, I think.


----------



## Telchar

> Within the Tolkien household Tom Bombadil was originally a Dutch doll belonging to one of Tolkien's children (Carpenter, Tolkien, p. 162; Grotta-Rurska, Tolkien, p. 101).





> Tolkien later wrote a poem about him called "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil," published in Oxford Magazine in 1934, long before the writing of the Lord of the Rings began. When Tolkien decided to introduce Tom into the trilogy, little needed to be changed about him or his poem except for the feather in his hat - changed from peacock to swan-wing, since peacocks do not live in Middle-earth. (Tolkien, Letters, pp. 318-19





> In a letter written to the original proofreader of the trilogy in 1954, Tolkien reveals a little about what Tom's literary role or function might be. Early in the letter he writes that "even in a mythological Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are.
> Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (Ibid., p. 174).


----------



## Telchar

> Finally, there is Tom's singing. Tom's inability to separate song from his other activities, speaking, walking, working, suggests that it is very fundamental to his being in a profound way that distinguishes him from all other beings encountered in the trilogy. The wizards, for example, who are Maiar, chant (in the modern sense of the word) rather than sing, and never unconsciously. This continuous singing may be an indication of Tom's high status. The world was, after all, brought into existence by a group of singers, the Holy Ones, some of whom became Valar. Second, Tom's basic song is structurally related to Legolas' "Song of the Sea" (Rings, 3:234-35 ), suggesting the possibility that Tom's is a corruption of an original piece of music from the Uttermost West common to both. Third, Tom's songs, although seemingly comic and nonsensical, have power in them to control individual elements and things in the forest. When told that Old Man Willow is the cause of the Hobbits' problems, Tom replies, "that can soon be mended. I know the tune for him" (Ibid., 1:131 ), which I suggest means something like, 'don't worry. I have the plans for that thing and can fix it right away." This is the kind of knowledge that a Vala, who sang the Music, would likely have, and singing would be the natural way to apply it.(tbgh)


----------



## Talierin

This states my opinion on Tom pretty clearly. (Arku-this is what I was going to send you)
__________________________________________________
Who is Tom Bombadil?
*An Essay by Gene Hargrove 

An earlier version of this paper was published in Mythlore, no. 47 (August 1986). 
This version takes into account criticism of the essay and my response in Beyond Bree.


Within the Tolkien household Tom Bombadil was originally a Dutch doll belonging to one of Tolkien's children (Carpenter, Tolkien, p. 162; Grotta-Rurska, Tolkien, p. 101). Tolkien later wrote a poem about him called "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil," published in Oxford Magazine in 1934, long before the writing of the Lord of the Rings began. When Tolkien decided to introduce Tom into the trilogy, little needed to be changed about him or his poem except for the feather in his hat - changed from peacock to swan-wing, since peacocks do not live in Middle-earth (Tolkien, Letters, pp. 318-19). 

Many readers of the Lord of the Rings consider Tom's presence in the first book to be an unnecessary intrusion into the narrative, which could be omitted without loss. Tolkien was aware of their feelings, and in part their judgment was correct. As Tolkien wrote in a letter in 1954, ". . . many have found him an odd and indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already invented him. . . and wanted an 'adventure' on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out" (Ibid., p. 192). Judging by these remarks, critical readers are correct about the arbitrariness of Tom's introduction into the story; however, as Tolkien continues, he deliberately (nonarbitrary) kept Tom in to fulfill a particular role, to provide an additional dimension. 

In a letter written to the original proofreader of the trilogy in 1954, Tolkien reveals a little about what Tom's literary role or function might be. Early in the letter he writes that "even in a mythological Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (Ibid., p. 174). Later he adds that "Tom is not an important person - to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'." He then goes on to explain that
each side in the War of the Ring is struggling for power and control. Tom in contrast, though very powerful, has renounced power in a kind of "vow of poverty," "a natural pacifist view." In this sense, Tolkien says, Tom's presence reveals that there are people and things in the world for whom the war is largely irrelevant or at least unimportant, and who cannot be easily disturbed or interfered with in terms of it (Ibid., pp. 178-79). Although Tom would fall if the Dark Lord wins ("Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron," Ibid.), he would probably be "the Last as he was the First" (Rings, 1:279). 

In trying to grasp what Tolkien has in mind here it is very important, I believe, to distinguish between an enigma and an anomaly, for Tolkien's interest in Tom involves the former while reader dissatisfaction treats Tom more in terms of the latter. An anomaly is something discordant, unrelated, out of place. It is in this sense that someone might claim that Tom could be left out. An enigma, on the other hand, is a mystery, a puzzle, something which seems to be discordant, unrelated, out of place, but isn't. This distinction becomes pivotal in the discussion of Tom Bombadil when one considers that on three occasions in the story the question of Tom's identity or nature is pointedly brought up, twice by Frodo in Tom's house and later at the Council of Elrond. If there is no answer to the question, then Tom is anomalous. If there is, then he is, as Tolkien claimed, enigmatic. 

When one takes into account the manner in which Tolkien composed the Lord of the Rings, especially the care he gave to sorting out the historical connections between people, things, and events, I personally find it inconceivable that there is no answer within the framework of the story to Frodo's question: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" Although Tolkien didn't want to tell his readers directly, it seems to me certain that he himself knew very well. Tolkien was very protective of what he wrote, including his errors. When he found something miswritten in his manuscript, he was more likely to ponder, in terms of Middle-earth, how his characters came to make such an error, or what special significance this might have, than simply to correct it. Thus, a mispelt foreign word was more likely to remain as an example of regional dialect than to be changed. Problems with the names and identities of characters were solved in a similar manner. There are, for example, two Glorfindels in his history of Middle earth, one who died fighting a Balrog in the First Age, and another from Rivendell who lent Frodo his horse in the race to Imladris. This situation was, if not a problem, at least a bit unusual, and required special attention from Tolkien, since in general Elf names are unique to particular individuals. Rather than simply renaming one of the Elves, Tolkien concluded
that they were the same person and that he had stumbled onto a rare case of reincarnation among the Elves. He then devoted some time to an examination of the theological implications of this special case (Becker, Tolkien Scrapbook, pp. 92-93). 

Given this general approach in writing the trilogy, I submit (1) that it would have been impossible for Tolkien to have brought up the issue of Tom's identity and nature three times and not to have continued thinking about it until he had an answer, and (2) that, although he might not have wanted to tell his readers the correct answer, feeling that enigmas are important, he would nevertheless have left some clues for those who wanted to pursue the matter as he had. The balance of this essay is an examination of those clues. Although the evidence is circumstantial, it is, I believe, convincing. 

Beginning as early as Issac and Zimbardo's Tolkien and His Critics, published in 1968, Tom Bombadil has almost universally been regarded as a nature spirit. In that volume, Edmund Fuller states that he is "unclassifiable other than as some primal nature spirit" (p. 23). According to Patricia Meyer Spacks, Tom has natural power for good and he "is in the most intimate communion with natural forces; he has the power of the 'earth itself"' (p. 84). R. J. Reilly claims that Tom is "a kind of archetypal 'vegetation god"' (p. 131) and argues that "when Tom Bombadil speaks, it is as if Nature itself - nonrational, interested only in life and in growing things were speaking (p. 139). This view of Tom, as a nonrational nature spirit, as a personification of nature itself, has been the dominant view ever since. Ruth S. Noel in The Mythology of Middle-earth, published in 1977, in perhaps the longest and most elaborate discussion of him, begins with the remark that "Tom Bombadil is a character like Puck or Pan, a nature god in diminished form, half humorous, halt divine" (p. 127) and she concludes with the remark that Bombadil and Goldberry are undisguised personifications of land untouched by humans, underlaid by a hidden but potent power, representing both the danger of wild land and its potential to serve man" (p. 130). Anne C. Petty in One Ring to Bind Them, published in 1979, summarizes all of the above with the proclamation that Tom is "the nature deity par excellence" (p. 38). 

As nearly as I am able to determine, the textual basis for the idea that Tom is a nature spirit is the discussion of him at the Council of Elrond, specifically, the following remarks: "Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself" and ". . . now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them" (Rings, 1:279). I suspect that many people have concluded from the second passage that Tom, as a nature spirit, has gradually become hemmed in with the diminishment of the Old Forest. The passage, however, says no such thing. His limits are not set for him by the boundaries of the forest; rather he set them himself. Furthermore, the passage does not state that he cannot cross the boundaries, only that he will not. The claim that he cannot is not even factually correct: Tom frequently visited Farmer Maggot in the Shire and presumably had previously made similar visits to others "down from days hardly remembered" ("Bombadil Goes Boating" and Rings, 1:143). With regard to the first passage, it does not say that Tom is or has the power of the earth. It is ambiguous. The statement, "Tim does not have the ability to drive that far, unless that ability is in his car," does not mean that Tim is a car. Likewise, the fact that Tom does not have the power to defy Sauron need not be because such power is not in the earth. I will provide a better explanation in due course.


----------



## Talierin

It is possible that the nature spirit theory has been held so long because no one could think of an alternative. Consider Jarred Lobdell's treatment of Tom Bombadil in England and Always, published in 1981. Declaring Tom to be the "least successful creation" in the trilogy, he continues: 

Standing alone, he would be a nature spirit.... But he is not standing alone. . . . He is not the genius of the earth, since he is restricted to one part of it. . . . He is apparently a man, since he is clearly not an Elf or a Dwarf or an Ent or a Hobbit or one of the fallen races, but he is not one of the Men of the West. I suppose one could save the appearances by making him an angel, of a different order from the Istari, or by making him a god, but in both cases we would be in conflict with Tolkien's mythology. (pp. 62-63) 

Lokdell eventually concludes that Tom is an anomaly: "Although I find him an anomalous creation, I can make shift to account for him theologically - but only with the uneasy feeling that making shift is all that I am doing (p. 63). 

While I can agree that Tom is not a nature spirit, a Man, an Elf, a Dwarf, or a Hobbit, I see no reason why Lobdell should reject the possibility that he is an angel or a god - in terms of Tolkien's mythology, a Maia or a Vala. We know from the Silmarillion that Orome once hunted in Middle-earth, Ulmo had dealings with the Elves there, Olorin walked among the Elves unseen before he was Gandalf, and Melian spent a great deal of time in Beleriand with Thingol. There is thus ample evidence for occasional visits of such beings, even for the most frivolous or personal reasons. 

Moreover, Tolkien draws some literary connections with regard to Tom that help support his divine status. First, as Noel has noted (Mythology, p. 128), Tolkien makes reference in "Bombadil Goes Boating" to a story in the Elder Edda about Odin, one of the most powerful Norse gods, thereby associating Tom with him. Second, in "In the House of Tom Bombadil" Goldberry answers the question "Who is Tom Bombadil?" with the simple statement "He is" (Rings, 1:135). In terms of medieval philosophy this would mean that existence is a predicate of Tom Bombadil and that he is therefore God. Although Tolkien denies this implication in a letter, written in 1954 (Letters, pp. 191-92), saying that Goldberry, like Tom later, is only making a point about the nature of naming, I remain haunted by the remark. Just as the reference to Odin does not necessarily mean that we must conclude that Tom is Odin, the allusion to medieval philosophical terminology in describing him need not be interpreted as a Christian theological crisis. While Tolkien's denial clearly rules out the possibility that Tom is Iluvatar, I do not see that it eliminates the possibility that he is an offspring of Iluvatar's thought, a Vala or a Maia, for I see nothing theologically troublesome with existence being a predicate of part of God. 

Finally, there is Tom's singing. Tom's inability to separate song from his other activities, speaking, walking, working, suggests that it is very fundamental to his being in a profound way that distinguishes him from all other beings encountered in the trilogy. The wizards, for example, who are Maiar, chant (in the modern sense of the word) rather than sing, and never unconsciously. This continuous singing may be an indication of Tom's high status. The world was, after all, brought into existence by a group of singers, the Holy Ones, some of whom became Valar. Second, Tom's basic song is structurally related to Legolas' "Song of the Sea" (Rings, 3:234-35), suggesting the possibility that Tom's is a corruption of an original piece of music from the Uttermost West
common to both. Third, Tom's songs, although seemingly comic and nonsensical, have power in them to control individual elements and things in the forest. When told that Old Man Willow is the cause of the Hobbits' problems, Tom replies, "that can soon be mended. I know the tune for him" (Ibid., 1:131), which I suggest means something like, 'don't worry. I have the plans for that thing and can fix it right away." This is the kind of knowledge that a Vala, who sang the Music, would likely have, and singing would be the natural way to apply it. 

Although this interpretation of Tom's singing is inconsistent with the general claim that Tom is nonrational, it is not inconsistent with Tolkien's own characterization of Tom in two letters in 1954, in which Tom is associated with the pure scientific study of nature. Tolkien writes:
. . . [Tom] is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular emboding of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly entirely unconcerned with 'doing' annulling with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany, not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. (Letters, p. 192; see also, p. 174) 

As the exemplification of pure science, Tom could hardly be nonrational. Tom's purity, moreover, stems from his desire to delight in things as they are, without dominating and controlling them. The former is the aim of pure science, the latter the essential aims of applied science. Tom's knowledge of nature allows him to control nature when necessary, but because such control is not his aim, he is more akin to science than engineering. 

If we take Tom's remark quite literally that he "was here before the river and the trees. . .the first raindrop and the first acorn" (Rings, 1:142), he is saying either that he was in Middle-earth when the Valar arrived or that he arrived as one of the Valar. His remark that "he knew the dark under ths stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from the Outside" refers to the time before Morgoth, the original Dark Lord, had officially turned renegade - the time when the "old" or original stars were made. Since the world was incomplete at that time and nothing lived on the earth except the Valar, it is hard to believe that Tom is anything but a Vala. 

One interesting hint that Tom is a Vala may be tucked away in the confusing claim that Tom is "the oldest" even though Treebeard is at the same time supposed to be "the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the Sun." In The Road to Middle-earth, published in 1982, T. A. Shipley, who considers Tom "a one-member category," struggles with this "inconsistency" and concludes that the claim that Treebeard is the oldest living thing, if true, implies that Tom is not alive, just as the Nazgul are not dead (p. 82). Although the analogy is most likely not correct, it is suggestive. The word living probably means minimally that Fangorn is biotic, that is, an element belonging to the living system of the earth, the biosphere. There were in fact two classes of beings "living" in Middle-earth, who, as beings from outside of Ea, were not part of this system: the Valar and their servants, the Maiar. Their bodies were "veils" or "raiment," appearances, in which they were self-incarnated (Road Goes Ever On, p. 66). As noted in the essay, "Istari," in Unfinished Tales (p. 389), the Maiar who became the wizards of Middle-earth - and who had the same nature as the Valar - were converted to living beings temporarily by the special consent of Iluvatar: "For with the
consent of Eru they ... [were] clad in the bodies of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain. . . ." The need for this conversion suggests that the Valar and Maiar were indeed nonliving, but in a manner very different from the Nazgul. Whereas the Ringwraiths were former living beings who were kept in existence unnaturally through the power of their rings in association with the One Ring, the Valar and Maiar were beings from another plane of existence (the Void) who, as a result, did not completely fit into the world of Middle-earth. Instead, of placing Tom in an anomalous category of one, or associating him with the undead, Shipley's "inconsistency" may simply be a hint that Tom has extraterrestrial status as a Vala or Maia. 

Someone might, of course, want to object that Tom Bombadil really doesn't look or act like a Vala or a Maia, appearing and behaving instead more like an overgrown Hobbit. I submit, however, to the contrary, that there is no particular way that the Valar and Maiar were supposed to look. Rather they appeared in whatever way they chose, wearing their "veils" or "raiment" in a manner similar to the way we wear clothing. In "The Voice of Saruman," for example, Gimli tells Gandalf that he wants to see Saruman so he can compare the two wizards. In mused response, Gandalf informs Gimli that there is no way for him to make such a comparison meaningfully, since Saruman can alter his appearance at will as it suits his purpose (Rings, 2:181-82). Rather than decreasing the possibility that Tom is a Vala, his hobbitish appearance actually increases it, for it suggests that Tom has the ability to "fit" his surroundings. If a Vala wanted to visit with Hobbits, he would, of course, appear to them in a manner that was somewhat humorous and familiar, thereby, putting them at ease. In this way, it can be argued that Tom's Hobbit-like appearance counts in favor of him being a Vala or a Maia, not against it.


----------



## Talierin

Robert Foster in the Complete Guide (p. 496) thus seems to be on the right track when he suggests that "it is possible that he is a Maia 'gone native'." The only problem is that there is no Maia in the Silmarillion who matches Tom's general character. It is only when one turns to the Valar themselves that potential candidates emerge. 

Because most of the Valar are married, determining the possible identity of Goldberry can be a help in establishing Tom's. There are three possible Valier who might have enjoyed living for a time in the Old Forest: Nessa, Vana, and Yavanna. Nessa, who loves deer and dancing, does not fit too well, since neither of these is Goldberry's specialties. Her husband, Tulkas, the best fighter among the Valar, moreover, is probably too warlike to be Tom. Vana, who cares for flowers and birds, also does not fit very well, since Goldberry is concerned with a larger variety of plants, and birds have no special role. Orome, Vana's husband, furthermore, is a hunter, especially of monsters. If he were Tom, there would have been no wights on the Downs. With Yavanna, however, we have just the right emphasis, for she is responsible for all living things, with a special preference for plants. Since she is Queen of the Earth, it is easy to imagine her watering the forest with special care, as Goldberry does during the Hobbits' visit. 

In the Silmarillion (pp. 20-21) Yanvanna's appearance is characterized as follows: 

In the form of a woman she is tall, and robed in green; but at times she takes other shapes. Some there are who have seen her standing like a tree under heaven, crowned with the Sun; and from all its branches there spilled a golden dew upon the barren earth, and it grew green with corn; but the roots of the tree were in the waters of Ulmo, and the winds of Manwe spoke in its leaves. 

When we first meet Goldberry, she is clad in green: "her gown was green, green as young reeds, shot with silver like beads of dew" (Rings, p. 172). When Tom officially introduces Goldberry, he says, "Here's my Goldberry clothed all in silver-green. . . ." When she says goodbye to the Hobbits, she is once again clad in green and Frodo in calling for her refers specifically to this color when he starts to look for her: "My fair lady, clad all in green!" (p. 187). This characterization of Goldberry's customary dress supports that hypothesis that she is Yavanna. 

To be sure, when we first meet her, her feet are also surrounded by water, seemingly supporting the water nymph story. This circumstance, however, is not inconsistent with her tree image, which, as just noted, involved having her feet or roots in "the waters of Ulmo." 

As the farewell continues, moreover, a description analogous to the tree description is given: 

There on the hill-brow she stood beckoning to them: her hair was flying loose, and as it caught the sun it shone and shimmered. A light like the glint of water on dewy grass flashed under her feet as she danced."

Although still in human form, her flying hair hints at "the winds of Manwe" and the reflection of the sun from her hair suggests that she is "crowned with the Sun." The "glint of water on dewy grass" suggests the spilling of the golden dew on the earth as well as "the waters of Ulmo." When the Hobbits last see Goldberry, she is much more like a plant: "they saw Goldberry now small and slender like s sunlit flower against the sky: she was standing still watching them, and her hands were stretched out towards them." In this case, she is probably more flower than tree because Hobbits in general like flowers and are afraid of trees. The "sunlit" image is strikingly similar to Yavanna's primary nonhuman appearance. 

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. For instance, it was believed by many people that Rohan was selling horses to Mordor. Gandalf never reveals that he is a Maia. The eagles are never revealed as Maiar (though they are "Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles" who "could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world" (Silmarillion, p. 35). 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. There are, finally, two accounts given by Tolkien of the origins of the Orcs, both of which cannot be true. Thus, the fact that some people believe that Goldberry is Riverwoman's Daughter does not absolutely, literally have to be true.

Just as Goldberry is very similar to Yavanna, Aule the Smith, shares many common characteristics with Tom and this identification helps explain some of the events that occur in Tom's house - especially his control over the ring without any fear or temptation. Aule was the maker of all the substances of the earth: minerals, gems, and metals. During the creation of Middle-earth he was involved in nearly every aspect of its making. He prepared the sea beds to receive the waters of the ocean and prepared the land for plants and animals. As the Maker he developed and taught all arts, crafts, and skills. Of all the Valar, he had the greatest interest in the Children of Iluvatar. So impatient was he to see them that he made the Dwarves. According to the "Valaquenta" in the Silmarillion (p. 27), although Aule and Melkor were most like of all the Valar in thought and power, their attitudes toward the products of their labor and the labor of others were significantly different. While Melkor carefully guarded his works for himself and destroyed the works of others out of jealousy, Aule delighted in making, not possessing, and "he did not envy the works of others, but sought and gave counsel." It was, in fact, Aule's lack of possessiveness and his willingness to submit his work to the will of Iluvatar that saved the Dwarves from destruction and made it possible for them to receive the gift of free will from Iluvatar. 

When one carefully considers the special moral characteristics of Aule, the similarities to Tom are most striking and revealing. Like Aule, Tom is not possessive. Although his power to dominate and control is always stressed - he is the master - he does not interfere with other beings except when they directly interfere with him. Although he has the power to possess whatever he may desire, he does not chose to possess or own the forest. As Goldberry explains, the animals, plants, and natural objects of the forest are all allowed to belong to themselves. This distain for ownership or possession is the reason why Tom is able to handle the ring without fear. Ultimately, all other powerful beings encountered in the trilogy, unless they are already fallen, are afraid to touch the ring lest the desire to possess it should turn them to evil. Since Tom does not want to own or possess anything, it has no power over him. We simply see his interest, curiosity, and delight as he studies the craftmanship involved in its making. Indeed, Tom approaches the ring critically, almost with
scorn. While all others refer to the ring as precious in a reverent sense, Tom's use of the word, "Show me the precious ring" (Rings, 1:144), suggests irony or doubt about its value. Since the lack of desire to possess or own was extremely rare among the Valar and the beings of Middle-earth, no over Vala is said to exhibit this moral trait, it seems reasonable to assume that Tom and Aule are the same person.


----------



## Talierin

It is also important to note the tremendous power and control that Tom has over the ring. He is, first of all, able to overcome its normal effects. When he puts it on his finger, he does not become invisible. When Frodo puts it on his finger, Tom is still able to see Frodo: he is "not as blind as that yet" (Ibid.). Second, Tom is able with ease to use the ring in ways that were not intended by its maker, for he is able to make the ring itself disappear. (It is possible that Sauron himself might be unable to do this, for the ring embodied a great part of Sauron's own power, drained from him during its making.) Such power over the ring, displayed almost as a parlor trick, I submit, cannot be accounted for by classifying Tom Bombadil as an anomalous nature spirit. The ability to dominate the ring suggests a Vala; the ease with which it is dominated suggests the ultimate maker of all things in Middle-earth, Aule the Smith, of whom both Sauron and Saruman were mere servants in the beginning before time. 

If Tom is Aule, however, two other questions need to be answered. First of all, what are he and Yavanna doing in the Old Forest to begin with? As far as Yavanna is concerned, she is probably just visiting with growing things and vacationing with her husband. Aule, on the other hand, is probably there for the purpose of studying Hobbits. We should not forget that of all the Valar Aule was the one most eager to see the Children of Iluvatar. He is also the only one to make sentient, rational beings of his own. Given his interest in such creatures, it is not unreasonable to assume that, like Gandalf, he found Hobbits fascinating. As Hobbit songs about Tom Bombadil suggest, moreover, he had plenty of contact with Hobbits in Buckland and the Marish, no doubt
allowing ample opportunity for Hobbit study. 

Second, if he is Aule, and he is such a fine and wonderful god, why doesn't he choose to be more helpful? Put another way, why isn't there power in him to fight the enemy? The answer to this question is simpler than one might at first imagine. When Ulmo rises from the sea in "Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin" to give instructions to Tuor, who is supposed to deliver a message to the Elves of Gondolin, he hurries with his directions fearing that his own servant Osse will hurl a wave upon the shore and drown his emissary. As he puts it in Unfinished Tales (p. 30): "Go now. . . lest the Sea devour thee! For Osse obeys the will of Mandos, and he is wroth, being a servant of the Doom." Although Ulmo's actions are contrary to the will of the rest of the Valar that even his own servant will not help him (and is actually prepared to act against him), Ulmo, nevertheless, insists that he is not really opposing the other Valar, but rather is merely doing his "part": 

... though in the days of this darkness I seem to oppose the will of my brethren, the Lords of the West, that is my part among them, to which I was appointed ere the making of the World. (p. 29) 

The key phrase is "to which I was appointed ere the making of the World." First, it makes it clear that Ulmo is not acting defiantly at all, merely following orders, just as his servant would be following orders if he hurled up a wave and killed Tuor. Second, it refers to the time of the song which created the world. It is this song, I believe, that contains the conflicting instructions both Ulmo and Osse are following, different parts, elements, or themes of the whole. If I am correct, then Ulmo's power to help the Elves is both limited by and partially determined by the Music of the Ainur, insofar as it established the existence of the earth and determined its major events. While Ulmo may have had free will as he sang his part of the song in those distant times, he is now bound by what he sang and cannot go beyond or change his part. If Tom is Aule, then he too is bound by his part in the song and although sympathetic and concerned, he can only help the Hobbits and the Free Peoples of the West in little ways. 

This account of Tom as Aule is not really inconsistent with Tolkien's claim that Tom has renounced power in a kind of "vow of poverty" and that he exemplifies "a natural pacifist view." At the time of the singing of the Great Music, it is true that Aule, along with most of the other Holy Ones, eventually stopped singing, leaving Melkor to sing on alone. However, they did not stop because Melkor's thunderous and discordant singing defeated them, but rather because they did not wish to compete with him and considered the song spoiled by his behavior. It was not defeat, since obviously by singing together the others could have overcome him. Rather it was a rejection of the conflict itself - hence, a pacifist position. It was indeed the Third Theme sung by Iluvatar, representing the part of the Children of Iluvatar, that was to overcome Melkor's disruption. Concerning the "vow of poverty," Aule has indeed taken such a vow - as exemplified by his attitude toward his work and the work of others - his lack of excessive pride, jealousy, and possessiveness. 

In contrast, if Tom is a nature spirit, then no vow of poverty has been taken, and there is no natural pacifist view. According to the nature spirit thesis, as Veryln Flieger puts it in Splintered Light, published in 1983: "Tom Bombadil, on whom the Ring has no effect, is a natural force, a kind of earth spirit, and so the power over the will which the Ring exerts simply has no meaning for him" (p. 128, note). As a natural force, Tom has the same status as a falling rock or the wind or the rain - he is blind activity with no direction or purpose. As such he is not a moral agent, and cannot therefore make moral decisions. The moral dimension is thus completely absent. Tom is immune to the influence of the ring not because of his high moral character, but because he is not capable of having a moral character at all. 

If Tom is Aule, however, there is a moral dimension, indeed, a heightened one, for Tom's appearance in the story, although only a "comment," serves as a sharp and clear contrast to the two evil Maiar, Sauron and Saruman, both of whom were once his servants before turning to evil and darkness. Unlike their former master, these two followed the ways of Melkor, envy, jealousy, excessive pride, and the desire to possess and control. As Tolkien explained to his proofreader, Tom's role was to show that there were things beyond and unconcerned with domination and control. On the surface, this view of Tom seems to make him unrelated to all other things and events in Middle-earth - indeed, anomalous. As Aule, however, Tom is not beyond and unconcerned anomalously, but rather is located at the core of morality as it existed in Middle-earth, as the ultimate exemplification of the proper moral stance toward power, pride, and possession. In fact, in terms of the moral traits that most fascinated Tolkien both as an author and as a scholar, Tom Bombadil is Tolkien's moral ideal.

(Sorry this is so long, but it's a good essay!)


----------



## Rosie Cotton

Wow Talierin! Thanks for putting that up! I don't have time to read it all now (homework to do, and a cello to practice), but I read some of it and it seems pretty interesting. I'll definately read the whole thing when I have a chance!


----------



## Kementari

Wow! There were some VERY strong points. I liked the point about observing hobbits, since they have such an important role, they should get more attention. 
Tom as Aule is possible... But, Tom was said to have been in Middle-earth since the beginning, before the elves awoke; and it was Orome who was the first to see the elves. Orome is another possiblity... he is more like Tom in character, Tom doesn't have a smithy in his house, does he? but if he is a Vala he never mentions anything about Valinor. 
Most of this is just based on the fact that Goldberry is described alot like Yavanna. I wonder what is meant by River-Daughter? She has more to do with water than Yavanna would...
I think Tom is just a maiar, but his part in the song must have been about nature and having his own little kingdom to rule, where there were no big problems... it doesn't say he fought in any wars with the Valar...
My God, this is confusing  I will stop rambling, as is my wont...


----------



## Telchar

I dissagre a bit on some points, I don't belive he's Aule, I agree with Kementari about the possibility that Orome might be Tom. Anyway, he's imortal, he's older than Fangorn, so he got to be a spirit with some sort of power over the nature, and I belive all the Ainur had that..


----------



## LotR_Girl

Well,I've read that about his son Michael(I like that name)while I was reading Roverandrom...So,Tom is his son's toy!HaHahaaaaaaaaa!!!!LoL,im kidding...


----------



## Aerin

I don't want to seem ignorant of what you are talking about, but I have never tried to classify Tom Bombadill in any category. He never seems to entirely fit into any mold. Explaining Tom Bombadill to myself has always consisted of "Tom Bombadill is....Tom Bombadill!"


----------



## Tar-Ancalime

Tom Bombadilo, was to me and earth/spirit guy. I sensed him to be lighthearted not like any of the valar or marair(sp) more mysterious than most of the characters. He kind of came and went in sense.


----------



## Gothmog

The question asked, what is Tom Bombadil. The answer in the words of Goldberry. He Is. This means What you see is Tom Bombadil.

I think that he is an Ainur of the order Maiar and came to Arda at the begining with the Valar and the rest of the Maiar. When the rest went to Valinor to make their new land protected from Melkor he probably stayed behind. Gandalf seemed to have known Bombadil from long before the time of LotR. So he may have known him at the time of the first building of the lands. This could be why he wanted to talk with Bombadil after his task was ended.


----------



## Tar-Ancalime

i have to agree,weren't they the first, as described in the creation of the earth in Auninur(sp)


----------



## Beorn

I just got through In The House of Tom Bombadil, and, well, he seems like Ilu...

And, as Goldberry also said, "He is the master"


----------



## Tar-Ancalime

true, true. Why'd they take out poor old tom?

Also goldberry said

"Tom bombadil was here in the begining and therfor he shall be here in the end" 

Well it went something like that, it could've been Mithandir who said that oh well.


----------



## Gothmog

Mike, that is a very interesting idea. It would be a good way for Iluvatar to keep an eye on what is happening on Arda without interfering too much.


----------



## Tar-Ancalime

indeed a very,very good idea.


----------



## Beorn

Now here's a question, what is Goldberry? She is the river-daughter, but what species would that be???


----------



## Tar-Ancalime

didn't Lotr say she was an elf of some sort,High~nolodorian maybe?


----------



## Iluvatar

While I agree that it would be nice to imagine Tom Bombadil as Iluvatar keeping tabs on his creation, Tom remains a remarkably poor selection for the job. Tom cared only for his very small realm of power, and would not leave it and cared for little or nothing of what was beyond it. He strikes me asas a self-serving and rather minor maia.


----------



## Beorn

You say that he only cared about himself and his little territory?



> (Frodo)'Did you hear me calling, Master, or was it just chance that brought you at that moment?'
> Tom stirred like a man shaken out of a pleasant dream. 'Eh, what?' said he. 'Did I hear you calling? Nay, I did not hear: I was busy singing. Just chance brought me thenm if chance you call it. It was no plan of mine, though I was waiting for you. We heard news of you, and learned that you were wandering. We guessed you'd come ere long down to the water: all paths lead that way, down to the Withywindle....'


FotR 123-124

So, he frequently recieved news of the outside world...He didn't get the news from the trees themselves because,


> As they listened, they began to undertstand the lives of the Forest, apart from themselves, indeed to feel themselves as the strangers where all other things were at home. Moving constantly in and out of his talk was Old Man Willow, and Frodo learned now enough to content him, indeed more than enough, for it was not comfortable lore. Tom's words laid bare the hearts of the trees and their thoughts, which were often dark and strange, and filled with a hatred of things that go free upon the earth, gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning: destroyers and usurpers. It was not called the Old Forest without reason, for it was indeed ancient, a survivor of vast forgotten woods; and in it there lived yet, ageing no quicker than the hills, the fathers of the fathers of trees, remembering times when they were lords. The countless years had filled them with pride and rooted wisdom, and with malice. But non were more dangerous than the Great Willow: his heart was rotten, but his strength was green; and he was cunning, and a master of winds, and his song and thought ran through the woods on both sides of the river. *His grey thirsty spirit drew power out of the earth and spread like fine root-threads in the ground, and invisible twig-fingers in the air, till it had under its dominion nearly all the trees of the Forest from the Hedge to the Downs*


FotR 127-128
These trees were evil, and Tom was good, so they wouldn't tell him...The only other living thing he speaks about in the forest are Barrow Wights, and they would never tell him, or speak to him.

To re-enforce that he could be Iluvatar:


> 'Fair lady!' said Frodo again after a while. 'Tell me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil?'
> 'He is,' said Goldberry, staying her swift movements and smiling.
> Frodo looked at her questioningly. 'He is, as you have seem him,' she said in answer to his look. 'He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.'
> 'Then all this strange land belongs to him?'
> 'No indeed!' she answered, and her smile faded. 'That would indeed be a burden,' she added in a low voice, as if to herself. 'The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves. Tom Bombadil is the Master. No one has ever caught old Tom walking in the forest, wading in the river, leaping on the hill-tops under light and shadow. He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master.'


FotR 122
And, I don't believe that anything ever says exactly what the boundaries of his land (well I can't really say his land after the above quote) are.


----------



## Tar-Ancalime

I think if tom bombadilo ruled all he would be so stressed he'd need prozac weekly.


----------



## Iluvatar

Mike B:

Sure, Tom got information about the outside world, and we know he had a fairly good relationship with Farmer Maggot. But I disagree with you about the significance of his hearing about things outside of his narrowly defined domain. He wouldn't escort Frodo beyond those borders despite knowing the enormity of Frodo's task and the dangers being faced. At the Council of Elrond Gandalf explicitly stated that Bombadil would not take guardianship of the Ring unless he were begged by all the free peoples of the world. So I'm sticking with my suggestion that Bombadil was an insigificant - albeit goodhearted - Maia.

Iluvatar


----------



## Gothmog

Iluvatar,

At the momment I have an open mind on this idea of Mike's. But I have a couple of points to make.

You Said:
"While I agree that it would be nice to imagine Tom Bombadil as Iluvatar keeping tabs on his creation, Tom remains a remarkably poor selection for the job. Tom cared only for his very small realm of power, and would not leave it and cared for little or nothing of what was beyond it. He strikes me asas a self-serving and rather minor maia."

We do not know how much attention Tom paid to the 'outside' world and we do not know if Tom needed to leave his 'small realm' to gain information. What is so poor about this selection if you do not want to be bothered by others.

You also said:
"He wouldn't escort Frodo beyond those borders despite knowing the enormity of Frodo's task and the dangers being faced. At the Council of Elrond Gandalf explicitly stated that Bombadil would not take guardianship of the Ring unless he were begged by all the free peoples of the world. So I'm sticking with my suggestion that Bombadil was an insigificant - albeit goodhearted - Maia." 

If Tom were Eru Iluvatar, then he would only intervene in Arda in gravest need when the task is beyond the abilities of those who live in Arda, as when he changed the shape of the world. So if his intent was just to watch the events in Middle-Earth then Tom Bombadil would be a perfect choice, no one would think he was anything special. Don't forget, the view of Eru about the results of Melkor's rebelion in the great song is somewhat different to the views of most of us.

I will give more thought to this view of Tom and look forward to seeing others answers to Mike and yourself.


----------



## Tar-Ancalime

everyone has really good points.


----------



## Beorn

> 'Who are you, Master?' [Frodo] asked.
> 'Eh, what?' said Tom sitting up, and his eye glinting in the gloom. 'Don't you know my nameyet? That's the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself, and the nameless? Bu you are young and I am old. *Eldest, that's what I am.*Marky my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees. Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big Peopl, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, *Tom was here already, before the seas were bent.* He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - *before the Dark Lord came from Outside.*'


And no, that dark lord is not Dengen....

The *bolded* items are things that indicate he may be Iluvatar. I'm not 100% sure (I tried to finish the Sil as quickly as possible), but if he was there before Melkor, in the first age, that would make him at least a Vala.


----------



## Talierin

I still don't think he is Illuvatar.

This is just a thought I'm throwing out. What if Tom was placed upon Arda by Illuvatar or one of the Valar right after Arda was created, before there was plants and etc, to prepare it for growing things?


----------



## Iluvatar

Mike B:

Maybe Tom was Iluvatar; maybe he was a Vala. You have good points, albeit ultimately not thoroughly convincing (to me at least). However, your logic suggesting that he must at least be a Vala if he was here before Melkor is faulty. My understanding is that the Maiar and the Valar both arrived on Ea at essentially the same time. While the Maiar were less powerful than the Valar they were not slaves of the Valar, and so Bombadil could have went to Arda very very early in Ea's history.

Iluvatar


----------



## Cian

Tolkien wrote:

"The One does not physically inhabit any part of Eä."

"There is no 'embodiement' of the creator anywhere in this story or Mythology."

Peter Hastings, citing the description of "he is", said that this seemed to imply Bombadil was God. Tolkien responded: _"I really do think you are being too serious besides missing the point_"  Goldberry and Tom were referring rather to the mystery of _names_.

Tolkien wrote a lot about Bombadil in _Letters_ actually, but didn't describe him as _Vala_ or _Maia_ either ~ but a purposed "enigma" rather, which is good enough for me.

Spelled sideways (sorta) Bombadil's very name might reveal his true origin: 
mad Bilbo!


----------



## Lantarion

LOL 
I could imagine Bombadil as a hobbit, if he wasn't one of the eldest living creatures on M-e, and if he was a bit smaller.


----------



## Thorondor

I do not think that He is a nature spirit, I have some quotes i will get them later.


----------



## Thorondor

Many think that Tom Bombadill was a nature spirit because of the quotes:
LotR page 259


> Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless *such power is in the Earth itself.*


LotR page 122


> *He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.*


But what of this quote taken from the Silmarillion?
p.10


> Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Iluvatar beyond the comfines of the world; but others and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took leave of Iluvatar and descended into it. But this condition Iluvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that *their power should thence forward be contained and bound in the world, to be within it, forever, until it is complete, so that they are its life, and it is theirs*. And therefore they are named the Valar, the Powers of the World.


Now who would be the one that fits these descriptions? For me that would be Aule, but I do not deny that it might be someone else.


----------



## Thorondor

Now to the master of wood, water, and hill part. . .
Sil, page 20


> His(Aule) Lordship is over all the substances of which Arda is made. In the Beginning he wrought much in fellowship with Manwe and Ulmo, and the fashioning of all the lands was his labor. He is a smith and a master of all crafts, and he delights in works of skill however small. . .(page 35) Of him comes the love and knowledge of the Earth and of all things that it contains. . the weaver, shaper of wood, and worker of metals; and the tiller and husbandman, though these last and all that deal with things that grow and bear fruit must look also to the spouse of Aule, Yavanna.


Lastly there is the quote from LotR page 259:


> And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind.


This from the Sil(page 8) seems to describe Aule the same way:


> Of the fabric of Earth had Aule thought. . .but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work.



There that is my opinion. But I do acknowledge that he may be someone else. It all just depends on what you research. If it was a definitive answer, then there would not be this thread.


----------



## gil-estel

*What is Bombadil??*

Just wanted to know what you thought-i just can't work it out


----------



## Greymantle

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118&highlight=bombadil


----------



## gil-estel

Sorry. never say that before


----------



## gil-estel

or saw that before


----------



## Greymantle

It's alright. Just pointing it out in case you wanted to take a look.


----------



## gil-estel

Cheers. Just did. It was good. Thanx again


----------



## Telchar

Well, think this poll is worth voting on, since it's hard to decide who belive what in the other thread..  And there are many new members that might belive something else..


----------



## Greymantle

Might I request that more options be added?


----------



## gil-estel

Can anyone suggest new threads? Kinda stuck on the ones i put there in the first place


----------



## Gothmog

If you mean other options, have another look at the view given on the other thread on this subject and put in the extra options posted there. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Talierin

Unfortunatly, the mods are the only ones who can change the poll options once you have posted.... I've tried many times to change them, without success......


----------



## Beren Erchanion

No other choice than a maia: he's doing magic so he's not an elf and don't even think of a sleepy Valar in the Middle-Earth far is the time when they were playing like elves in the Middle-Earth we don't need more choices he's a maia (well maybe are they Beren and Luthien?)


----------



## Telchar

He's more powerfull than Gandalf when it comes to controlling the Ring, remember that Gandalf didn't even want to hold it, except when he threw it in the fire and took it out again.. And another thing, Tom could see Frodo when he used the Ring.. So I strongly doubt he was a maia..


----------



## Grond

Tom is described as an enigma by Tolkien in his letters. (The direct quote is in another Tom thread in this very forum.) Tom is the eldest of Earth and, unlike the other Maia facing it, he neither fears the ring(Gandalf) nor desires it (Saruman and Sauron). It seems to have no control over him nor does it seem to have any effect over his domain. (He could see Frodo after Frodo had put on the ring). So Tom is a none of the above. He isn't an Elda, Maia, Vala, Man, Hobbit......he's just........"Tom!"


----------



## Beorn

Well, I'll dig this thread out, again, because I was looking through the Encyclopedia of Arda, when I noticed Iarwain Ben-Adar. I'd never heard of this (but I bet it was in the Sil), so I checked it out, and found it to be Tom (as you probably know), and thought of this thread. Most of the stuff in this post is from the E of A and I noticed nothing was posted on this thread about it

Firstly, lets start off with some of the elvish words that can be extracted from his name:

Iaur-'old' as in Iant, Iaur; cf. the Elvish name of Bombadil, Iarwain.
Ben-without
Adar-Father

And, not from his name:

Iluve-'the whole, the all' in Iluvatar
Atar-father

So he is Oldest Without Father, and Ilu is All's Father. So, if Ilu is all's father, then he doesn't have a father...If Ilu had a father, then we would know that his father would be the father of All....
Does anyone see the link?


----------



## Gandalf White

Personally, I could never stand ol' Tom. Sorry!


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Mike B and stuff from E of A _
> Iaur-'old' as in Iant, Iaur; cf. the Elvish name of Bombadil, Iarwain.
> Ben-without
> Adar-Father
> And, not from his name: Iluve-'the whole, the all' in Iluvatar Atar-father
> 
> So he is Oldest Without Father, and Ilu is All's Father. So, if Ilu is all's father, then he doesn't have a father...If Ilu had a father, then we would know that his father would be the father of All.... Does anyone see the link?



That Bombadil is not the All-father _Ilúvatar_ is one thing Tolkien revealed in _Letters_ Imo, on this subject. Tolkien was happy with "enigma"

On the Elvish:
_Pen_ "lack, be without" ~ Ben-adar is the lenited version of *Pen-adar.
_Iarwain_ may contain a superlative (old-est) or may be the compound _Iar(g)wain_, meaning "old-new". The name appears in FotR.


----------



## Capt. Yosarian

Seems to me the best arguments are for Tom's true identity being Aule or Iluvatar. I think of the reason for Tom limiting his territory to Old Forest being that if you want a change of sceenery and don't want too much interruption on your vacation then you would spend it in a place that would be conducive to that. Also if he were a Valar or Eru then he would know that helping out the hobbits would be just tampering with things that do not require his meddling. 

I also hold the idea that it might be that everyone so far has gotten the identity crisis the wrong way around. Ilvatar or Aule show their true form as Tom Bombadil! Oh the irony of it all!


----------



## Merry

Without reading the Sil, it is difficult for me to make an educated guess at who TB really is. I got the impression that he was part of the earth and was lord over his domain without being tied to a certain race.

TB's magic is certainly enhanced by his mysterious beginnings.


----------



## ratodelmorte

*the inklings and nigglings*

a great story"leaf by niggle" the other stories contained in the 
this tome, such as bombadil and goldberry?
who were they?
the ring had no power over him, and thus he was not ishtari,
he must have been older, one of the ainur...or, if you'll excuse 
my humour, Iluvatar,himself....perhaps, but it would explain certain things, the barrow wrights having no power over him, old man willow bending to his SONG....these are just a few examples, tidbits of information i throw out to you, my fellow ardans.
the story of leaf by niggle, upon after reading the posthumous writings of Tolkien, show the confussion of how to draw the line between doing one thing and wanting to do another...niggle goes into transcendence when he travels by train, after his entermant where he worked(the purgatory a god must face when he allows the other to be part of the song)[or as being an auther, creating and destroying the creation within the book that which he/she is writing],to the meadows and feilds, the mountains....all in the realm of the creation.


----------



## Chuncky Choopie

*Tom Bombadil*

I will never know what Tom Bombadil is, or was,... I personally think that he was a delineation of Tolkien. The creator of this wonderful world but no more than a mere spectator. 

But Why Should I Speak?
Why Should Anyone Listen To Me?
For I Know Nothing...


----------



## ratodelmorte

*tis all jibberish*

a very good insight, perhaps the role of author is what you meant by saying bombadil was a spectator...often the writer 
of a story wishes to see his/her world realized...fulfilled....but another clue...to the bombadil/iluvater factor. Joseph Campbell in his books on mythoi, the heroic cycle would agree with you.
In his later years, Tolkien made draft after draft of pages on the silmarillion and his lost tales, his manuscripts were hard for his son christopher to put together, jumbled-out of order, he worked 
on constantly revising. perhaps he felt if he added himself to the story he would see it better, but then again all this mental masturbation makes my typing fingers hurt and i want to puke.

I still believe bombadil-whether god, auther,both-was Iluvater


----------



## nyriel

*who´s Tom?*

hiya Grond!
I absolutely agree with you! Tom Bombadil is just Tom Bombadil and nobody can denyy ittt
Nyriel


----------



## Aredhel

I have never read the book, so I can't say.


----------



## Greymantle

Then hurry up and read it, before all hope is lost.
Is this our first sole movie-member (with the exception of Thunder)?


----------



## Glamdring

<<Bombadil and Goldberry>>
I think Tolkein meant them to be entirely of ME. That is why the Ring had no power over them and Bombadil would have eventually lost the Ring if it had been given to him. They were like the mountains - a part of creation but not relevant to the Elves and Men. Their power was that of the land and the natural world. There is a definite hint in the Appendices (if I remember) that the start of the Fourth Age was the end of the world described in the LOTR and that all beings and attributes of previous worlds were doomed to fade away.

"Leaf by Niggle" is one of my favourite works. The story shows how someone can become obsessed with a creation (like Tolkein was) and how the creation can eventually lead to his downfall. That was the criticism of Niggle - he was so involved in the Leaf and the Tree that he neglected his duties to help his neighbours who paid him back by using the painting as a temporary roof (if my memory serves me correctly).


----------



## Flame of Utumno

I don't believe Tom is just a freak of nature. All creatures on Arda were ultimately created by Iluvatar, and among his many creations, Tom is closest in form to a Maia, (one that decided not to live in Valinor). I like the mystery surrounding him and also his poetry from the The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, but during the War of the Ring, I really think he could have done more in terms of fighting Sauron and helping others rather than just taking care of himself. (He really needs to get a hold of himself and sober up a bit...)


----------



## Godflesh

*Who is Tom Bomadil*

I wonder how old Tom Bombadil are, he is he, The Silmarillron dont mention him at all, pretty strange if you have read Tom Bomadils own general "discription" on himself. He should be older then the ents and the world itself.


----------



## Old Man Willow

Actually, I have read a small book before on Bombadil (actually more of a childrens book) consisting mostly of poems and pictures about his coming and life. I can't really remember much except about the ocean maybe and that Tolkien wrote it. You could probably find it in a library.


----------



## Centin

*Tom Bombadil*

I always thought of Tom Bombadil as a sort of avatar of Tolkien in ME. I think he wanted to really put a part of his personality into the books and did it with Bombadil.


----------



## Merry

I am in the process of reading the Silmarillion and my answer is a little more educated. I think that Tom was not one of the original Valar but one of the Miair (sp) who remained on M-E to complete/ protect the creation of Eru via the Valar.

But since it does not clearly indicate who he is, my comments are just guesses.


----------



## vidsa

Tom Bombadil is the worst character in the movie


----------



## Bryheinnen

*Bombadil*

To me, Bombadil is one of the most fascinating characters in the book, and it always frustrates me when people dismiss him as an incongruity in LOTR.
Tom is Eldest and Master. I don't believe he is one of the Valar. I think he is the power of the earth itself. He is Cronus to Manwe's Zeus. He might be best compared to one of the precursors of the Olympian gods in Greco-Roman mythology, the titans.
Not original with me; some have made the obvious comparison of Bombadil to Melchizedek of the Old Testament, an enigmatic character of great spiritual authority, who is "The King of Salem" (a reference with a double meaning---the king of the city that was to become Jerusalem, but also, literally translated, the "king of peace") and perhaps the prefiguration of the Christ to come. Jesus makes it very clear that his preisthood is not the same as that of the Levutes, but that he is "A priest of the Order of Melchizedek".
Tom perhaps represents what Camus called "the tender indifference of the universe", an order above the ordered morality of men. A leopard is good in that it hunts the deer, even though that seems cruel to us. He is clearly good, but also answers to a clearly different morality and order of things than the other characters in the book. He is above their struggle, though not entirely indifferent to it
He has somewhat of a smaller-scale analog in Merlin in the last book of Lewis's space trilogy, THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH.
Don't know if that shed any light or not. More questions than answers. Let me know.


----------



## Evenstar

The aspect of Tom being Illuvator is an interesting idea that I never thought of before. I'm not sure if I'm totally sold on it though.

I think Tom is closest to an Earth spirit. Kind of like a child of Earth. I know it says he is father-less, but maybe that means he had no physical father or that he is not a son of Illuvator. Doesn't it fit that the River-Daughter should be with the Earth's son? In a way Bombadil reminds me of Cahadras or the monster in the lake. There are constantly forces that are older and more powerful than Sauron, Gandalf and the inhabitants of the ME that Gandalf mention in the book. I believe Bombadil is a force that is older than all the inhabitants and maybe he is not Illuvator himself. He simply came as a child of the Earth.


----------



## ReadWryt

Since Tom started life (outside of Middle-earth) as the spirit of a woodland that was dissapearing, perhaps one should take into account the love of the wild country side that spawned him in Tolkien's mind.


----------



## Old Man Willow

Evenstar,


Not necessarily more powerful than Sauron, just indifferent to and unaffected by his powers. 


I agree with those who say Bombadil is more than just Tolkien's fancy of his child's doll, though it may have spawned the idea. Perhaps Bombadil IS the only one of his kind? The Valar, as well as the Maiar came across to Middle-Earth, correct? If that is the case, then Bombadil is surely not one of them. He and Goldberry made it plain and clear in LOTR (yes, without having to consult the Sil) that he originated from Middle-Earth itself. And having no ancestral lineage, it is impossible for him to have made an exodus to Middle-Earth. This would in fact exclude him from being Valar and Maiar. And the term nature-spirit can be interpreted many different ways. I think Bombadil was created to be never fully understood, a creative yet somehow connected insert by Tolkien. And whoever said that it makes sense for the river-daughter Goldberry to be with 'father' of the earth Bombadil, I agree. 






_Whither do you wander, along the Withywindle.........???_


----------



## Eonwe

I always thought he was a great Maia of Yavanna, and I reconciled his powers with the fact that Yavanna grew the two trees.

But I remember somewhere reading that someone thought he was a manifestation of Illuvatar 

One thing is for sure he is really bizarre and yet really simple. I thought he seemed a little scared about the barrow wight stuff (like he put out the treasure to break the spell, why couldn't he break it himself?)


----------



## Orin

*Janitor of Arda*

Tom's the guy who, originally, was supposed to keep the place clean and looking sharp. You know, he took care of the minor landscaping that the Elves couldn't be bothered with, cleaned up and disposed of the mine tailings from the Dwarves, and the Men, boy what slobs! In order to remain inconspicous and, above all, Neutral, Tom was immune to the petty annoyances of magic, politics, power and the like that governed the rest of the races of Middle Earth. 

As time went on, the World grew, the job got too big for Tom to do alone, and gradually, he was forgotten. He cut his responsibilities back more and more with each passing age, until he was left with a sphere of control that included the bit of the Old Forest around his home. In a sense, he was the caretaker of the place, and the place got too big and no one bothered to tell him he wasn't needed anymore. How's that for a theory?


----------



## Curufinwe

*definately a maiar*

It says so in the book , 'A Guide To Tolkien'.


----------



## Greymantle

So what? One would assume that Tolkien's own words would outweigh this!
The only definitive word is that Tom B. is an enigma, which means that there is no definitive answer! We can all speculate about what we personally thought he was in the conext of M-e; however, in terms of an actual answer: there is none! If Tolkien himself decided that Tom was an enigma, then this is as right as you can get.

Hehe...btw, the singular form of "Maiar" is "Maia." Sorry, I just love to be nit-picky sometimes.


----------



## Curufinwe

I'm illiterate sometimes. should of known.


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Curufinwe _
> *I'm illiterate sometimes. should of known. *


As far as Tom being a maia, I would have to agree with my friend Greymantle on this one. The letters of JRRT absolutely point to Tom being a none of the above. He was simply a character developed in another story that fit in here and whom JRRT wanted to use.

Cian has the exact quote from the letters somewhere.


----------



## Greymantle

I finally ordered _Letters_ this afternoon (along with _A Tolkien Reader_, _Unfinished Tales_, and the Tolkien Ensemble's _A Night in Rivendell_... detect a certain theme? $50...My parents have finally decided I'm totally insane, with some justification). So I'll be able to quote soon enough!


----------



## ReadWryt

I don't think Tom can be pidgeon holed as anything from the origins of Middle-earth, being that he was not originally from there. Since he was a creation separate from, and later inserted into, Middle-earth there is no way to guess "what" he is. *Shrug*


----------



## Iluisa Olórin

I agree with you, ReadWryt. I think we forget that this is a story that Tolkien developed; not everything can be identified as belonging to a group - whether Valar, Maiar or Elves - nor should it need to be. Tom is neither of these, nor part of any group. Tolkien himself did not identify him and that was his intention; Tom, as a character alone, is appropriate to the story.

Out of interest, how do people think Tom's recollection of the Men of Westernesse in Fog on the Barrow-downs in FotR significent?


----------



## Iluisa Olórin

I think we forget that this is a story that Tolkien developed; not everything can be identified as belonging to a group - whether Valar, Maiar or Elves - nor should it need to be. Tom is neither of these, nor part of any group. Tolkien himself did not identify him and that was his intention; Tom, as a character alone, is appropriate to the story.

Out of interest, how do people think Tom's recollection of the Men of Westernesse in Fog on the Barrow-downs in FotR significent?


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by lhutton _
> *...Out of interest, how do people think Tom's recollection of the Men of Westernesse in Fog on the Barrow-downs in FotR significent? *


They simply point out that Tom was there...Tom saw it happen. I would imagine that if Tom spoke to Farmer Maggot on a fairly regular basis, he would have spoken to the Men of Westernesse. Elrond did say at the Council that of old, Tom was know as "...Orald by Northern Men."

As far as relating any significance to it, I think it simply adds to his being identified as an enigma. He has been a part of and seen all things of Middle-earth... from the subtle light of the lamps...to the darkness when they were cast down...from the brighter light of the Trees...to the darkness of Ungoliant and Melkor...from the light of the fruit of the trees (sun and moon)...to the next darkness when Melkor is again released and the Final Battle is fought.


----------



## Ståle

The fact that the Ring does not have any power over him suggests that he probably was not a Maia. Gandalf was a Maia, and he would not touch the Ring. Then again, he was a Maia in a weaker from, and perhaps when he become embodied, he lost much wisdom and power.

Still, I think Tom is Aulë. My points are those of the Essay posted earlier. It's really a great read.


----------



## Curufinwe

*tom's wife*

We do agree that his wife was a maia though , probably a maia of Ulmo right?


----------



## Curufinwe

*Eru*

Would Eru of ever walked on Ea ,in any form that is?


----------



## Grond

I'm not sure that Goldberry was ever addressed. (Whistles for lore expert Cian for help from the Letters of JRRT). I personally would like to think she was a Maia and if she was, being the "daughter of the River" she would be of Ulmo's Maiar.

I'll look more tonight. I have been concentrating so hard on old Tom that I completely forgot about good ole Goldberry.


----------



## Earnil

I don't think Tom could be either Aule or Iluvatar. Because I remember reading somewhere that the Ring was soo powerful that it could even affect the Valar, and also that it wouldn't be safe even in the 'Undying Lands'.

Instead I think Tom is the personification of Arda. Because for one thing, the ring does not affect him. If he was Arda personified then the Ring being forged from him wouldn't have been able to affect him. And also Tom doesn't really care for anything except himself and the natural world, and also Goldberry, which would mean that if he only cared for himself, and considering to he cared also for Arda then perhaps that would mean Tom is Arda personified.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

The essay above is splendid. However, it seems unlikely to me that Bombadil is Aule. The difficulty of identifying him as Aule is that Aule loves to make things. Aule is most akin to Melkor of all the Valor and consequently of all the Valor most like Sauron, Melkor's servant, the difference being that Aule loves the making more than the possessing of artifacts. 

Like Aule Bombadil clearly takes little delight in possessing which he understands as a tremendous burden. Even the brooch he takes from the barrow treasure is to ornament Goldberry and remind him of her who wore it long ago. However, there is no indication that Bombadil loves making things. His only love seems to be Goldberry. 

He seems to delight in the creatures of the world. However, he has no concern for the great happenings of the world. In this too he differs from the Valor. For the Valor have a great love of the First Born especially and the followers to a lesser degree. Aule especially loved to teach the Elves; indeed (if my memory serves) he loved teaching the inhabitants of Arda so much that he created a race whose only interest would be learning his arts, namely the dwarfs, which rather displeased Illuvatar. Tom may delight in men and hobbits and elves and even learn of their doings from people like farmer Maggot, but he has little interest in collaborating in their affairs. He has so little concern for the affairs of others that one would almost think him completely self absorbed living in his own world, but that he so willingly helps the hobbits in their need. 

It is clear that Bombadil is not concerned with the affairs of Arda. He also does not seem to be interested in making things. Yet he does manifest one concern for Arda in his brief appearance (and I have not read his tales so I do not know whether others appear there). He brings Goldberry the last of the lilies so that she can preserve them for spring. However, even this seems to be a concern more of the River daughter than of Tom. Goldberry (who may be Maiar) still remains Tom's only real concern. 

From this my conclusion is that Tom Bombadil is not Valar nor Maiar. For the Valar create Arda through their music and they and the Maiar come to Arda to form it according to their vision and both to delight in and direct the affairs of Children of Illuvatar. Tom doesn't seem to have any direct interest in creating artifacts or in fashioning and tending the flora and fauna of Arda or directing and aiding the affairs of Elves and Men. 

This is also a good indication that Tom Bombadil is not Illuvatar from whose thought came the Ainur and who directed their music and who is father of the First Born and the Followers. Illuvatar is the father of all and is extremely interested in the affairs of all mentioned. Although his role is most subtle and mysterious and his purposes moreso, he is very interested in all the affairs of Arda. He is surely the mysterious power at work greater than the ring refered to by Gandalf. It was he I think, perhaps through Ulmo (who knows the secret foundations of the world and directs the currents of the Great River and beneath the Misty Mountanins and who also knows more secrets of Eru than any other) Illuvatar arranges for Bilbo's finding of the ring. His subtle providence and no 'chance' brings Tom Bombadil to the rescue of the hobbits from Old Man Willow. His hand is certainly involved in the happenstance of the fellowship of Gollum and the two hobbits in their journey to Mordor. Illuvatar is very subtle in his direction of the affairs of Middle Earth and none know his mind completely, but he is most interested in the affairs of Men and Elves and hobbits. 

Concerning Bombadil as being fatherless, we should note that Illuvatar is father of all and alone truly fatherless. Tom Bombadil may be known to the elves as fatherless, but he is known by many names. He does not so name himself. The elves call him fatherless, but they could call the Valar and Maiar fatherless too. It is strange that Bombadil should be so named. Perhaps, the elves call Bombadil fatherless because he came into being with Arda and to the Elves it seemed he should have a father, whereas the Valar and Maiar came to Arda from outside and are not coeval with Arda. No, he is not Illuvatar.

The most intriguing aspect of Tom is his mastery of the world. He knows the world very well. He knows the tune for every creature, it seems. And since, as someone else remarked, Arda was created by music, it might be said that in knowing the tune for each, Tom truly knows what each thing is. He is master because he knows things deeply and also from the beginning. Tom Bombadil is, but what or who he is, I do not know. He knows and Eru.


----------



## Earnil

I heard an opinion from someone else on the Tolkien Online messageboards that they think Tom could have been a dischord in the Great Music that created Arda. I can't remember exactly what it was they said, but it definitely said something about Tom possibly being a dischord in the Great Music that the Ainur made.


----------



## Earnil

I read somewhere that Tolkien got the idea for Tom from a doll one of his children had, and he first wrote The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, then later when writing LOTR he introduced Tom into it.

And as for Goldberry, I believe that she could be the daughter of Uinen, one of the Maiar of Ulmo. Because Uinen was a Maiar of the oceans and waters of Middle Earth, so perhaps that could mean the she is the river-woman that is mentioned. But I have noticed one flaw in my theory, Ainur could not reproduce, and so I have come up with Goldberry being a creation of Uinen and Osse, or maybe Uinen and Ulmo, and being kind of like the eagles, having spirits akin to the Maiar in them.


----------



## gaffer

it's kind of generally accepted that tom bombadil and goldberry are both maiar spirits, among the first to inhabit middle-earth.


----------



## Bucky

Funny, I just started a thread elsewhere on whether Bombadil or Treebeard is older.

I also am reading FOTR & today was in the chapters with Tom....

Goldberry says "He is"
Reminds me of Moses at the burning bush when he asks God what name should I say you sent me by?
God says "I am".

So, from that can we assume Tom always was & always will be?
Is he Illuvator in a human form? I doubt that. If he is, did he, like the Istari, place certain bodily restrictions on himself?

He can't be Elf.
Why?
Because he states he was there & "knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside". 
No Elves born by then.
Didn't Elbereth create the stars?
The 13 original Valar were there before Melkor, the Dark Lord. (it says in the Silmarillion that Melkor saw what the Valar had done...and descended upon Arda), so he could be one of them or Maiar the Valar brought with them.
If so, I think Orome or Ulmo would be most likely.
But, this doesn't fit into the fact that the Valar dwelt in Valinor, not in Middle Earth, especially in the 3RD Age.


Or, is he the very embodyment of Middle Earth in a person's s body? He does have a unique connection to & mastry of the natural world.


----------



## Iluisa Olórin

What if he's of a race Tolkien didn't identify?

Tom Bombadil was never identified and that was Tolkien's intention; to suggest that he might be a Maia or a Vala, an Elf or a spirit or Ilúvatar himself, is futile.


----------



## Curufinwe

There is so many theories that could comply with Eru and tom like tom could be Gaia or eru in human form or they could be the same or Eru could of made the world for tom etc. I dont think we will ever know.


----------



## J'ohn

Ah, I dunno, Gaffer...

Certainly, as Tom himself says, he was around "before the Dark Lord came from the Outside"...This can only refer to Sauron [some people believe it might refer to Melkor, but he was the first one to enter Arda, after all!]. So, Tom is either a Maia or a Vala. However, the Maiar seem to be influenced by the One Ring, and they desire to have it and keep it, once they own it. As Gandalf has said [Gandalf is a Maia, anyway], "Do not tempt me!". And still, Tom gave back the Ring to Frodo without hesitation.

It is my personal belief that Tom Bombadil is a Vala, more precisely, Aule.

Of course, one can claim that Tom is Illuvatar himself, but who knows? *shrug*

SBS


----------



## gaffer

i don't know; that's kind of a stretch. first of all, we'd have to be on the same wavelength that, if you're theory was right, he'd be one of the vala that have already been named...there couldn't be one that wasn't accounted for. secondly, i would think that, if one of the vala was missing or at least known to be in middle-earth, it would be pretty well-known, at least to someone like gandalf. (after all, tom got to middle-earth before the itsari and they would have known if aule or someone was already there) just my opinion.


----------



## Bucky

Actually, it could, and most likely does mean Morgoth, not Sauron when Tom says that about 'when the Dark Lord came in from the outside'.

Tom prefaces that by saying 'before the dark knew fear', meaning Morgoth hasn't come to import evil to Middle Earth.

I wrote about this elewhere last night.
In the Silmarillion, it says that the Valar came down, made all this nice stuff, & 'Melkor looked down, saw what they had done & decended in wrath upon Arda'.

So, the Valar were there before Morgoth.....

If Tom's one of the Valar, he is about as opposite of Aule as could be.....


----------



## J'ohn

~L~ All right, all right, don't jump out on me! I was just making a hypothesis...If the Bombadil issue were so easy to resolve, it wouldn't have been the grand mystery it is... 

Gaffer, I think that Elrond indicates that Tom Bombadil goes by many names, and the Valar themselves go by many names, so nominology isn't really an issue...

I'm sure Gandalf would have known about Tom being a Vala, but, think about it. If he did know, would he tell anyone? "Hey, fellas, there's a Vala living in the Withywindle, let's all pay him a visit and ask for autographs and favours!"...
Naaaah...

Bucky, you seem to be very knowledgeable on the issue...I'd be glad to hear your suggestion on the issue...

I would like to state, though, that if we want to be nit-picky about Tom's speech, then it should be pointed out that "Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn"...from that, one can judge that Tom can't be a Maia that arrived in Arda belatedly.

From what I remember from the 1st Book of Lost Tales, when [Part III, I think...or is that IV] it refers to the Valar coming to Middle Earth, Manwe and Varda in particular, it is written that "Now swiftly as they fared, Melkor was there before them...".
I take that as a clue that Melkor was the first "creature" to enter Arda.

Admittedly, your quote from the Silmarillion would counter that [is the Silmarillion more valid than the Books of Lost Tales? Which comes chronologically after LotR?], but I've always thought that te Valar came and went in Arda for some time...and while Melkor was back in the Outside, the Valar crafted the world...

After all, Treebeard claims to be the oldest living thing to still walk beneath the Sun... Tom also says he's the Eldest...That seems to be quite a conflict... except if Tom isn't "living", in the strict sense of the word... so, he's either Eru, a Vala, or a Maia.
Tom can't have been around before Melkor, because, I believe, Melkor was the first one to enter Arda...And, in any case, the hobbits don't know of any other "Dark Lord" exept Sauron. If Tom referred to Melkor, he should have used a different nomination, one that hobbits would be able to understand [in the Two Towers, it becomes obvious that the hobbits know about the theft of the Silmarills by Melkor (Morgoth)]

So, it's Maia, Vala, Eru. Maiar are influenced by the Ring, and Tom isn't, so he can't be a Maia.

Ultimately, he must be either a Vala or Eru. If he IS a Vala, then I think that it boils down to Aule. He can't ne the warlike Tulka or Orome; Manwe sounds too important to visit Middle-Earth; Ulmo most likely has never dwelt on land; Irmo and Mandos are the spirit guardians, so they can't really go outside Valinor. Guess who is singled out...

I think that Aule looks like Tom in many aspects. He is not posessive, and he is very interested in the Children of Illuvatar. Gandalf found the hobbits fascinating, so, why wouldn't a Vala that likes the Children of Illuvatar, also like to be close to hobbits? If Aule were to appear to hobbits, wouldn't he look much like Tom, always happy and dancing and singing?

Singing...that is a key element...the Ainur were the ones that sang the melody which spun Arda... And the Valar were the greatest of the Ainur... In some way, Tom controlled the Old Willow Man with singing..."I know the tune for him", Tom said.

I still rest my case that Tom is Aule... Not too probable, but possible, nonetheless...

SBS


----------



## Branwen

...Tom is older than Treebeard,because look what he says about himself in LOTR:'Eldest,that's what I am.Tom was here before the river and the TREES...'Treebeard is an ent but before the Elves taught him to talk he was nothing but a tree.
You maybe are right that Tom is Aule...But only maybe,cause somehow I feel it's impossible to find out who Tom really is.He's an enigma of Arda,and that's all we can be sure about...


----------



## J'ohn

Hmmm...I haven't thought of that, really...I thought he was refering to his territory, the Old Forest... Not Middle-Earth in general...Feh...

I agree, though, Tom is an enigma, and certainly one that is not in our hands to solve!

SBS


----------



## Branwen

exactly.Still,we can try cause it's simply interesting!(Playing detectives)


----------



## Tyaronumen

I do not think it very likely (well, actually it is extremely UNLIKELY) that Bombadil is Aule.

Aüle is, if you recall, basically Tolkien's equivalent of the Greek Hephaestus or the Roman Vulcan... ie. he is a smith god. He created (with unwanted "help" from Morgoth's chaotic doings) the earth, mountains, and rocks... shaping the land, etc... ie. he is the Vala most concerned with the "stuff and form" of Arda -- rock and metal.

He created Angainor, which chained Melkor for three Ages, and forged the vessels which now hold the sun and moon.

Later, we discover that he creates the Khazad, who clearly take after Aule in their love of metals and working the Earth...

He also trains the Noldor in smithcraft, indirectly enabling wonders such as the Silmarils, etc.

NOW: Bombadil does none of these things. While Tom seems to love his land and is the Master, he seems more content to live and let live amongst the trees. Now in the Silmarillion, you may recall that Aule and Kementari are speaking, and she worries about the Khazad cutting down trees... Aule says something to the effect of: "Yet they will need wood" and then returns to his work...

Bombadil seems to lend far more *attention* and concern to the children of Yavanna than Aule... I also notice that Bombadil is far more of a "space-cadet" type than Aule is portrayed as being... Bombadil is portrayed as a very merry fellow and his boots were yellow. We don't see much mirth or cheer from the Valar, and admittedly we don't know if Aule even wore boots. 

Bit about the boots was probably a bit too facetious.  Hmm.. but anyhow, look at the *followers* of Aule that we know about... these followers being Sauron and Curunir, both of whom were the chief of Aule's people at various times. Now does Bombadil *seem* like the type to have followers (if, indeed, he has any, since we see them not) who are easily turned to evil because of their over-powering desires to make new and wonderful things?

Also, Aule was tempted, similarly to Curunir and Sauron, in his creation of the Khazad. His love of creating and wish to share with others appear to have been his primary motivators so Iluvatar forgave him, but nonetheless, he gave in at least partially... We never really see Bombadil cave in to jack-squat or demonstrate any signs that he may have been tempted... as you note, he doesn't even appear to have cared about the Ring!

Final note... Goldberry. Goldberry is clearly "The River's Daughter"... Yavanna is certainly not ANY river's daughter in any way, shape or form. And if she were to go in disguise (with Aule), I doubt she would do so in the guise of The River's Daughter, which title seems to tie Goldberry more closely to the people of Ulmo than to those of Kementari.

Just my opinions! 

I prefer Goldberry's answer on this subject... It is, in my opinion, the only valid response that can be given to identify anything accurately: "He is."


----------



## Branwen

I agree...
(One more thing according to which Tom couldn't be Aule:in Elvish,'aule'means 'invention'.To my mind it has nothing to do with Tom...)
By the way:here is one more thread where people discuss about who is Tom Bombadil.So,one guy has written:'when writing books,people often put themselves into their books.Maybe Tom is Tolkien himself?'
I think it's avery interesting idea,isn't it?...


----------



## A Ranger

I formally beleived that it was impossible for Tom to be Aule as well up until quite recently while re-reading my copy of The Fellowship of the Ring I noticed something Tom had said as he parted with the hobbits " 'I've got things to do,' he said: ' my making and my singing, my talkign and my walking and my watching of the country.....". The key word in that is _making_. As for Tom beinging more 'out there' then Aule I think I think i may have figured out why this may be. I believe that he was cloaked in flesh as the istari were, this makes all the peices of the puszzle of Tom come together. Imagine suddenly having a human body, with all the feelings that come along with it, it would be enough to put anyone through a loop. The biggest problem with Tom being Aule was always that he couldn't stand against Sauron, but if he was cloaked in flesh he would be weakend. The may evidence to my theory is Goldberry's song, "He (Frodo) stood as he had at times stood enchanted by fair elven voices; but the spell that was now laid upon him was diffrent: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to the mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange."


----------



## Branwen

alright,that sounds pretty possible for Tom to be Aule.But,how to explain these words about Tom:'he'll be the Last as he was the First'(LotR)?Aule certainly wasn't the first,the first was Eru.On the other hand,this may only mean that Tom was the first to come to the Middle-earth,then everything suits. Oh,and one more 'but'(I think someone has already mentioned that)-Goldberry.Aule's wife is Yavanna,so logically,Goldberry=Yavanna.Well,THAT is really impossible,cause Golberry...wait!!!Look:'in the Valian Years,Yavanna planted the seeds she had prepared for so long...'Seeds!And Goldberry loved plants,especially flowers,so much!So probably,Goldberry could be Yavanna...Just,how to explain 'she was the daughter of the River?...'


----------



## Lantarion

As Tom is an enigma, I don't think it would be right to try to categorize him in any slot created by Tolkien; he himself did, indeed, create Tom as a mystery, a kind and jolly guy who is extremely knowledgable and powerful under a calm, amusing surface.
So, I wouldn't call him a Maia or a Vala(although I see it as a possibilty that he is of the latter); in the very popular poll- thread about Tom Bombadil (I think it was in this forum, or in the Hall of Fire) there is a very interesting option: 'nature spirit'. I think Tolkien didn't create Tom as anything in particular. Perhaps he was an unexpected turn of events; perhaps he came unannounced, without Iluvatar knowing. For where did Eru come from?
I think it should be left at that, that Tom is a complete and utter mystery, but a humorous and jolly character nonetheless.

Oh, and Branwen:


> 'Treebeard is an ent but before the Elves taught him to talk he was nothing but a tree.


Treebeard was not just a tree; he was a promonent figure among the Ents, who were Olvar. They were Maiar, in a sense, as Gandalf is a Maia, but with different power. They were set upon Middle-earth to protect the trees (the highest of the Olvar).


----------



## Branwen

Alright,Tom's an enigma for US.But Tolkien himself knew who is Tom Bombadil of course;I think he just might not have wanted to tell his readers the correct answer,maybe feeling that enigmas are important.Still,I believe Tolkien has left some clues for those who want to find out the true about Tom.We just gotta keep on searching.....

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

(and about Treebeard-my mistake...)


----------



## J'ohn

Pontifex...I think it's no use wondering why Tolkien put Tom in there, and described him as he is... He became an element of the world of Arda, and as such we must judge him...

I agree, perhaps Tolkien just thought to implement Tom when LotR was just a "sequel to The Hobbit"... but then again, one would argue why he _stayed_ there...

Your nature spirit proposition, though, is exquisite! In fact, it made sense to me for a long time...
However, as a nature spirit, he wouldn't have been able to exit his "territory", his "area of infuence"...the Old Forest. But he does, still, and plenty of times, and he even goes to urban areas, like his visits to Farmer Maggot...That's why I discarded the spirit thing...

As I can see, Branwen, you found out about Goldberry! 
Yes, I think that Goldberry really is Yavanna...
Well, when I think of Goldberry, three female Vala come to mind...Yavanna, Nessa and Vana. Of those three, Yavanna is the one who cares about plants most... Let me find my Silmarillion...there's a description of her there...
A-ha!
"In the form of a woman she is tall, and robed in green; but at times she takes other shapes. Some there are who have seen her standing like a tree under heaven, crowned with the Sun; and from all its branches there spilled a golden dew upon the barren earth, and it grew green with corn; but the roots of the tree were in the waters of Ulmo, and the winds of Manwe spoke in its leaves."

Remember that Goldberry is clad in green more often than not... And, when we first meet her, she has her feet in water...
Also, note the image of her as the departing hobbits see her...it looks strikingly like what Tolkien described Yavanna above...

It is futile to go on talking about this, I know...

But I looooove it! 

SBS


----------



## Branwen

okidokie,so Goldberry is Yavanna,then Tom is Aule....Well,now what?...Can we announce to the rest-hey everybody,we KNOW who Tom is?...
Somehow I don't think so...it was too simple to be true!
OK,to sum up,the main theories about who is Tom are:
-Aule's version
-'nature spirit' version
-Eru version
-Tolkien version
-enigma version
...and for now,the last one seems to be the best....
ah...I think we need some refreshing ideas..


----------



## Bombadillodillo

*"Tom Bombadil is the worst character in the movie"*

Vidsa, 

He is perhaps my favorite person in Middle Earth. My complaint would be that he doesn't make it into the movie. 

Most argue he would be a distraction in the film, but he plays the same role in the book. His role, I think is to raise two important: who is he and why is he? 

Questions Tolkien thinks are too much lacking in post modern culture and thought. He is a mystery and I do not know who Bombadil is, but he makes you wonder. That is the point. 

I am not saying that this is the hidden agenda of Tolkien or the point of the whole book, but if he had any ax to grind against modernity, I do think it comes out most of all in Tom Bombadil. The story is meant to be just that a good story, a tale of wonderful and mysterious deeds, a modern myth and it succeeds. But at the heart of good myth is mystery and Bombadil is just that.


----------



## Chymaera

-Goldberry.Aule's wife is Yavanna,so logically,Goldberry=Yavanna.Well,THAT is really impossible,cause Golberry...wait!!!Look:'in the Valian Years,Yavanna planted the seeds she had prepared for so long...'Seeds!And Goldberry loved plants,especially flowers,so much!So probably,Goldberry could be Yavanna...Just,how to explain 'she was the daughter of the River?...' 

Well Ulmo was passing by and well......  
that is like kissing your sister isn't it


----------



## J'ohn

> _Originally posted by Branwen _
> *-enigma version
> ...and for now,the last one seems to be the best....
> ah...I think we need some refreshing ideas.. *



I agree wholeheartedly!

[puts thinking cap on]

Hey, I know! 

Tom Bombadil is a program...like Agents from the Matrix...he's been sent to monitor Arda...Yes...or maybe he's a virus...or maybe he's an orc...

[takes thinking cap off]
[dips head in cold water]

SBS


----------



## Úlairi

> _Originally posted by J'ohn _
> *~L~ All right, all right, don't jump out on me! I was just making a hypothesis...If the Bombadil issue were so easy to resolve, it wouldn't have been the grand mystery it is...
> 
> Gaffer, I think that Elrond indicates that Tom Bombadil goes by many names, and the Valar themselves go by many names, so nominology isn't really an issue...
> 
> I'm sure Gandalf would have known about Tom being a Vala, but, think about it. If he did know, would he tell anyone? "Hey, fellas, there's a Vala living in the Withywindle, let's all pay him a visit and ask for autographs and favours!"...
> Naaaah...
> 
> Bucky, you seem to be very knowledgeable on the issue...I'd be glad to hear your suggestion on the issue...
> 
> I would like to state, though, that if we want to be nit-picky about Tom's speech, then it should be pointed out that "Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn"...from that, one can judge that Tom can't be a Maia that arrived in Arda belatedly.
> 
> From what I remember from the 1st Book of Lost Tales, when [Part III, I think...or is that IV] it refers to the Valar coming to Middle Earth, Manwe and Varda in particular, it is written that "Now swiftly as they fared, Melkor was there before them...".
> I take that as a clue that Melkor was the first "creature" to enter Arda.
> 
> Admittedly, your quote from the Silmarillion would counter that [is the Silmarillion more valid than the Books of Lost Tales? Which comes chronologically after LotR?], but I've always thought that te Valar came and went in Arda for some time...and while Melkor was back in the Outside, the Valar crafted the world...
> 
> After all, Treebeard claims to be the oldest living thing to still walk beneath the Sun... Tom also says he's the Eldest...That seems to be quite a conflict... except if Tom isn't "living", in the strict sense of the word... so, he's either Eru, a Vala, or a Maia.
> Tom can't have been around before Melkor, because, I believe, Melkor was the first one to enter Arda...And, in any case, the hobbits don't know of any other "Dark Lord" exept Sauron. If Tom referred to Melkor, he should have used a different nomination, one that hobbits would be able to understand [in the Two Towers, it becomes obvious that the hobbits know about the theft of the Silmarills by Melkor (Morgoth)]
> 
> So, it's Maia, Vala, Eru. Maiar are influenced by the Ring, and Tom isn't, so he can't be a Maia.
> 
> Ultimately, he must be either a Vala or Eru. If he IS a Vala, then I think that it boils down to Aule. He can't ne the warlike Tulka or Orome; Manwe sounds too important to visit Middle-Earth; Ulmo most likely has never dwelt on land; Irmo and Mandos are the spirit guardians, so they can't really go outside Valinor. Guess who is singled out...
> 
> I think that Aule looks like Tom in many aspects. He is not posessive, and he is very interested in the Children of Illuvatar. Gandalf found the hobbits fascinating, so, why wouldn't a Vala that likes the Children of Illuvatar, also like to be close to hobbits? If Aule were to appear to hobbits, wouldn't he look much like Tom, always happy and dancing and singing?
> 
> Singing...that is a key element...the Ainur were the ones that sang the melody which spun Arda... And the Valar were the greatest of the Ainur... In some way, Tom controlled the Old Willow Man with singing..."I know the tune for him", Tom said.
> 
> I still rest my case that Tom is Aule... Not too probable, but possible, nonetheless...
> 
> SBS *


If Tom Bombadil is Aule wouldn't Sauron try to drive him out or even flee from the presence from his former master? I don't believe Bombadil could be Aule for all the Valar were supposed to dwell in Valinor until the return of Melkor and Bombadil would care, for the Valar were known to get angry (look at the downfall of Numenor) and I believe that Aule would have attempted to drive Sauron out for revenge.


----------



## lilhobo

well i aint steep in the lore of the silmarillion but i think tom has to be one of the valar, since he cared enough to come to ME to watch over the children. 

and the Valar havent been interfering in the affairs of men or half elven since the Numenoreans.

Besides we have Gandalf the Wise as the guiding force of the third age anyways


----------



## Lantarion

If Tom was "the First", he would have had to be in M-e before Melkor.. And he is not mentioned in the Sil, I believe.. So why was he send?


----------



## ReadWryt

Did it ever cross anyone's mind that when shoe-horning Bombadil into Middle-earth, a realm he was totally alien to and never intended to be included in at the time Tolkien wrote about him for the Oxford Newpaper he created "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" for, that he never gave any thought to the origins of the plot device he was borrowing from himself and how it relates to the rest of Middle-earth?


----------



## lilhobo

same for Glorfindel......JRR just borrowed a name from the past work and forgets to enlighten us to its origin


----------



## A Ranger

Tolkien loved and put much thought into all he had written, he left Tom in for a reason not just becuase he was out of ideas and needed to throw something in. Tom has an orgin in Tolkien's mind and couldn't help but to uncounciously put clues to what he was into the story, he couldn't help doing it.


----------



## Tyaronumen

> _Originally posted by A Ranger _
> *I formally beleived that it was impossible for Tom to be Aule as well up until quite recently while re-reading my copy of The Fellowship of the Ring I noticed something Tom had said as he parted with the hobbits " 'I've got things to do,' he said: ' my making and my singing, my talkign and my walking and my watching of the country.....". The key word in that is making. As for Tom beinging more 'out there' then Aule I think I think i may have figured out why this may be. I believe that he was cloaked in flesh as the istari were, this makes all the peices of the puszzle of Tom come together. Imagine suddenly having a human body, with all the feelings that come along with it, it would be enough to put anyone through a loop. The biggest problem with Tom being Aule was always that he couldn't stand against Sauron, but if he was cloaked in flesh he would be weakend. The may evidence to my theory is Goldberry's song, "He (Frodo) stood as he had at times stood enchanted by fair elven voices; but the spell that was now laid upon him was diffrent: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to the mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange." *



Yes, but recall that Yavanna *also* "makes"... Ulmo makes... Nienna makes... Manwe makes. Elbereth makes... the Valar had their various parts in creation... the question is *what* was Tom making? Tom's emphasis in the narrative is far more upon singing, talking, walking and watching of the country than making anything concrete... but as to what he makes, we are not told.

Tom Bombadil is MUCH closer in behavior to Tulkas (who is, more or less, a merry fellow... he also did not bear arms, have servants who became corrupt, etc.) than to Aule!


----------



## Bucky

My previous post:

>>>Actually, it could, and most likely does mean Morgoth, not Sauron when Tom says
that about 'when the Dark Lord came in from the outside'. 

Tom prefaces that by saying 'before the dark knew fear', meaning Morgoth hasn't
come to import evil to Middle Earth. 

I wrote about this elewhere last night. 
In the Silmarillion, it says that the Valar came down, made all this nice stuff, &
'Melkor looked down, saw what they had done & decended in wrath upon Arda'. 

So, The Valar were there before Morgoth..... 

If Tom's one of the Valar, he is about as opposite of Aule as could be.....

So, 'The Dark Lord' Tom's referring to MUST be Melkor, not Sauron.

Also, Elrond, I believe, states at The Council of Elrond that "he was known as 'Iarwain-Ben-Adar' & even then, was older that old"
That does not fit into the concept of The Valar forsaking Middle Earth, especially in the First Age.
Only Ulmo didn't forsake ME...

And, Tom himself states he was there when 'the Elves passed westward, before the seas were bent'. Which of the Valar could THAT be?
Only Orome. But, he led the Elves, he wasn't in a fixed place to see them 'pass'..... 

So, he really doesn't fit into any of The Valar.

He's either a physical form of Eru or (my guess) some sort of physical manifestation of Middle Earth itself. 
Tom's word's to Frodo seem to back this up:
"I was here before the rivers and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop & first acorn."
This idea of Tom being a human manifestation seems to be echoed at The Council of Elrond by Galdor: "Power to defy our Enemy is not in him unless it is in the earth itself."

Another point: Tom's first response to Frodo's "Who are you?" is "Don't you know my name yet?"
I strongly doubt that Hobbits would have sufficient knowledge of The Valar to guess Tom's real identity......


----------



## Eonwe

well, any reason why he could not be a great Maia of Yavanna? Didn't she go to ME early, and then her works were put to sleep?

What does it mean, can't be a Maia because a Maia can be influenced by the Ring? If at the last Bombadil would fall to Sauron, doesn't that mean he is less in power than Sauron?

As usual, I am missing something. I guess I vote for the nature spirit, if there is a reason he would not be a Maia of Yavanna.


----------



## Bucky

Glorfindel at The Council of Elrond:

"Could that power (Sauron) be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil fall, Last as he was First, and then night will come."

Notice he says "I THINK".

Nowhere is it definitely stated that Sauron has more power than Bombadil.

Also, Gandalf's statement immediately preceeding Glorfindel that 'such things have no hold on his mind" would seem, if true, to eliminate the fact that he was one of The Valar or their Maiar. Would the enemies of Morgoth & later Sauron space off something as important as the ring?


----------



## Flame of Utumno

Its fun to speculate what Bombadil was. 
(I have always imagined him as a Maia but never a Vala.)

If he was neither Vala or Maia, he might have been a very early thought of Iluvatar that was woven into the Great Music before he wove the Elves and Men into the theme.


----------



## Tar-Steve

Before I gave up trying to id Tom I used to think he was Tulkas (for pretty much the same reasons Harad has given.) I envision Tulkas having Tom's happy, hearty, and uncomplicated disposition as long as he's not in a fight of some kind. I also don't think he would have left ME.

I'm not saying I think he's Tulkas, just he seems to be more Tulkas than Aule to me.


----------



## Bucky

Tom can't be Tulkas, simple as that.
Why?

Because Tom states he was there "before the rivers & trees, before darkness knew fear, before The Dark Lord came in." Read my previous posts for the exact quote...... 

If Tom was there BEFORE Melkor, how could he be Tulkas, who came in AFTER Melkor?


----------



## Eonwe

> _Originally posted by Bucky _
> *Glorfindel at The Council of Elrond:
> 
> "Could that power (Sauron) be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil fall, Last as he was First, and then night will come."
> 
> Notice he says "I THINK".
> 
> Nowhere is it definitely stated that Sauron has more power than Bombadil.
> 
> Also, Gandalf's statement immediately preceeding Glorfindel that 'such things have no hold on his mind" would seem, if true, to eliminate the fact that he was one of The Valar or their Maiar. Would the enemies of Morgoth & later Sauron space off something as important as the ring? *



Well not to argue (I wouldn't do that) but notice also that everyone at the council agrees with Glorfindel including Gandalf. How many times in the book, even as Gandalf the White, does Gandalf say, the only person you could meet more powerful is the dark lord? (to Gimli in White Rider TT, et al)

I (honestly!) don't understand why the ring not having hold on Tom's mind means he can't be a Maia. If you are a Maia of Yavanna, you don't care about something that Aule would like to make (i.e. about power, science, weapons, tools, etc), you only care about things that grow...

Also I think Tom being Tulkas is hi-larious, haha imagine a little guy in yellow boots and a feathered cap fighting Melkor


----------



## Bucky

>>>IOW Tuklas (Tom) helped build ME and Melkor snuck over to ruin it. Classic "dog in the manger" type.

Where's that from?

In The Silmarillion, it clearly states that Tulkas came later & shifted the balance of power against Melkor, who it also states looked down on the Valar & their work & descended in wrath....Blah Blah Blah.....

So, The way I read the text, it's:
1. The Valar come to Arda & began building.
2. Melkor gets jealous & wants to take over by coming in & picking a fight.
3. Tulkas sees what's happening & enters into the fray on the Valar's side.

As previously stated, Tom was there before the Dark Lord descended on ME.

So, if Tulkas wasn't there yet, how could he possibly be Tom?

BTW, What about Tom saying to Frodo "Don't you know my name yet?"
I have seen NO indication that Hobbits (or Frodo in particular) would at this point in the story have sufficient lore or traditions about the Valar or Maiar to deduce exactly who Tom is if he is Vala or Maia.
The average Hobbit (Ted Sandyman) doesn't even believe the Elves are sailing West, let alone know Tulkas from Aule......


----------



## Bucky

I've basically been going by memory & looking up the text as needed.
I'll go back to the beginning & read through until I get to where it says that Melkor descended upon Arda in wrath....

I don't recall Tulkas ever being mentioned prior to it saying he came last & tipped the scales in favor of The Valar, forever earning Melkor's hate......

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. It's only a few pages, I'll try to read it tommorow & report back.


----------



## Garfield

I agree with practicly all the above, but find it pointless.
Ive always seen Tom as a way for Tolkien to put himself into the story. Author meets his subjekts kinda thing. So Tom therefore doesnt have any base in the middle earth world at all...


----------



## Bucky

>>>So Tom therefore doesnt have any base in the
middle earth world at all...

I find that VERY un-Tolkienesque (?).
You're talking about an author who debated just what happened to the Blue Wizards. 
Or what was Gandalf's original identity.
Or 100 other unsettled issues.
He'd say things like "I suspect that...."
Or his son would say "In the end, my father concluded..."

And, that still doesn't answer Tom's questioning Frodo with "Don't you know my name yet?".
That means there IS an answer.


On the Valar's order of appearance:
The Silmarillion says Melkor was there with the Valar 'from the first', 'there was strife between the Valar & Melkor' & he then 'withdrew & departed to other regions'....but did not put the desire of the Kingdom of Arda from his heart'. 
Then, he saw the Valar take shape of majesty & splendor.... Melkor saw what was done & his envy grew....& he also took visable form, but because of his mood & malice.... it was dark & terrible. He descended on Arda in power & majesty greater than any other....(Ainulindale)

Valaquenta: Greatest in strength......is Tulkas. He came last to Arda to aid the Valar in the first battles with Melkor.

The first words in The Silmarillion:

'It is told amoung the Wise that the 1st War began before Arda was full-shaped, and ere yet there was nothing that grew or walked upon the earth; And for long Melkor held the upper hand. But in the midst of the war a spirit of great strength & hardihood came to the aid of the Valar..... So came Tulkas.... 

So, according to Tom's words, "He knew the Dark under Stars when it was fearless, before the Dark Lord came in from the outside".

That would eliminate Tulkas. 

He could still be one of the other Valar.

Or could he?
Tom answers the question himself to Frodo:
"Eldest, that's what I am".


So, we're back where we began.
He's either a physical manifestation of Eru or (as I suspect) Arda itself.....


Actually, this well thought out arguement goes for naught if you read on, which I just did:

After Tulkas came, Melkor again forsakes Arda for a time before sneaking back in & delving Utumno.

So, Tom could have meant before the Dark Lord came in for the 2nd time.
Which means Tom could be one of the Valar, even Tulkas, if that's how you interpret his words. Also notice that Tom said 'Dark under stars", not Dark before stars.
So, is he one of the Valar there by the time Varda made the stars?

Bottom Line:
Tom is something unique, with power. And he's been there for a long time. 
I'll stick with my guess that he's a living manifestation of Arda.

I feel like a dog chasing it's tail.......


----------



## Mormegil

I find the idea of Tom being a Valar, be it Aule or Tulkas ridiculas. If a valar was living in Middle Earth during the rise of Sauron in the Third Age, why would the Istari be needed. Surely a Valar is more than a match for Sauron.
If Tom is a Valar then why does he not get involved with events in Middle Earth during the War of the Ring. He obviously knows that things are happening, he even holds the One Ring at one point. I think that if he were a Valar he would have to get involved to drive the evil out of Middle Earth.

I realise that my views bring us no closer to fing out who tom is, but I think that it is very unlikely that he was a Valar.


----------



## A Ranger

> _Originally posted by Bucky _
> *>>>So Tom therefore doesnt have any base in the
> middle earth world at all...
> 
> I find that VERY un-Tolkienesque (?).
> You're talking about an author who debated just what happened to the Blue Wizards.
> Or what was Gandalf's original identity.
> Or 100 other unsettled issues.
> He'd say things like "I suspect that...."
> Or his son would say "In the end, my father concluded..."
> 
> And, that still doesn't answer Tom's questioning Frodo with "Don't you know my name yet?".
> That means there IS an answer.
> 
> 
> On the Valar's order of appearance:
> The Silmarillion says Melkor was there with the Valar 'from the first', 'there was strife between the Valar & Melkor' & he then 'withdrew & departed to other regions'....but did not put the desire of the Kingdom of Arda from his heart'.
> Then, he saw the Valar take shape of majesty & splendor.... Melkor saw what was done & his envy grew....& he also took visable form, but because of his mood & malice.... it was dark & terrible. He descended on Arda in power & majesty greater than any other....(Ainulindale)
> 
> Valaquenta: Greatest in strength......is Tulkas. He came last to Arda to aid the Valar in the first battles with Melkor.
> 
> The first words in The Silmarillion:
> 
> 'It is told amoung the Wise that the 1st War began before Arda was full-shaped, and ere yet there was nothing that grew or walked upon the earth; And for long Melkor held the upper hand. But in the midst of the war a spirit of great strength & hardihood came to the aid of the Valar..... So came Tulkas....
> 
> So, according to Tom's words, "He knew the Dark under Stars when it was fearless, before the Dark Lord came in from the outside".
> 
> That would eliminate Tulkas.
> 
> He could still be one of the other Valar.
> 
> Or could he?
> Tom answers the question himself to Frodo:
> "Eldest, that's what I am".
> 
> 
> So, we're back where we began.
> He's either a physical manifestation of Eru or (as I suspect) Arda itself.....
> 
> 
> Actually, this well thought out arguement goes for naught if you read on, which I just did:
> 
> After Tulkas came, Melkor again forsakes Arda for a time before sneaking back in & delving Utumno.
> 
> So, Tom could have meant before the Dark Lord came in for the 2nd time.
> Which means Tom could be one of the Valar, even Tulkas, if that's how you interpret his words. Also notice that Tom said 'Dark under stars", not Dark before stars.
> So, is he one of the Valar there by the time Varda made the stars?
> 
> Bottom Line:
> Tom is something unique, with power. And he's been there for a long time.
> I'll stick with my guess that he's a living manifestation of Arda.
> 
> I feel like a dog chasing it's tail....... *




If he is the physical manifestation of Arda, then why would he not fight against a major threat to all of creation like Sauron?


----------



## lilhobo

mother earth is always described as a female in all mythologies....and she is always decribed as being gentle, and embracing rather being terror

a valar wouldnt necessarily have to or want to interefere in the lives or men or elves in the 3rd age


----------



## Branwen

...um...Remember,someone guessed Tom could be a 'nature spirit'?...Well,I've found something that (maybe)supports this idea:in 'The Return Of The King',when hobbits go back to the Shire.When they pass Bree,Gandalf separates and tells them:'I'm preparing for a long conversation with Bombadil,a conversation I've never had before.He(Tom) is moss-grown,and I am a rolling stone.But my rolling has stopped,we'll have lots to tell to each other.'Then Frodo says:
-It would be nice to see our old friend again.I wonder how is he?...
And Gandalf answers:
-Good,as always.He has no bigger problems and, I guess,he doesn't really care for what we've done or seen,unless our staying with ents. 
So:if Tom were a Vala,Tulkas or a Maia,he'd certainly care about what has happened during the War of the Ring.Tom is only interested in ents(so NATURE).So,maybe he could be a 'nature spirit'?...
On the other hand,these Gandalf's words can be interpretted differently...I'm just guessing.
P.S.I'm sorry for the mistakes if I've made some.I've read LotR in my native language so this quote might be a bit incorrect.


----------



## Tyaronumen

"Don't you know my name yet?"

I don't necessarily see Tom saying this as meaning there is some hidden answer... I take it more in the Zen sense of: "Stop trying to explain everything and experience THIS."... he may have been trying to HELP Frodo to get over need to categorize Bombadil. Too bad Frodo didn't have a historical tradition including the Buddha et al. to give him the proper context. 

**


----------



## Thorin

Well, whatever we don't know about TB or who he is, we at least know this:

1) The ring of Sauron, a Maia, has no power over him, nor does it interest him
2) He can obviously teleport himself (appearing at the Barrow Downs when summoned), so he doesn't necessarily follow physical laws
3) He was in Arda before the elves awoke and seemingly when the world was formed
4) He is the keeper of the forest and land
5) The war of the ring, between elves, men, dwarves, and orcs and the destruction of Sauron do not interest him
6) Ents would interest him

From this I think, like Branwen, we can conclude that he was probably not Maia or Valar, though he existed before any living/created being on Arda. Branwen may have a point about a nature spirit. He could have been a special creation of Eru.

Don't you just love these enigmas?


----------



## Eonwe

well someone is going to say, "get over it Eonwe" but here goes

Aragorn speaks of Gandalf the White, by saying something like he could go wherever he wished much quicker than Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas. Perhaps this is a power of a Maia?

The only one interested in Ents, and here from the beginning (before the sleep of Yavanna?) would be someone associated with Yavanna hmm (like a Maia)? If he's a nature spirit, why would Gandalf want to talk with him before going West to Aman?

someday I'll get over it


----------



## Evenstar

Well, I don't think that Tom is a Valar or Maiar. I think thats been pretty much proven. And Eomer I agre with you that he is not just a nature spirit because he seems more than that. I think that he is a son of the earth, there is a quote tha supports this somewhere, he was forn of the earth because he is "fatherless." This also fits because he is with Goldberry the rier daughter. I do not think that Tom himself is a personification of Arda but perhaps this union represents ME- you know earth and water. 

I guess in the end all youcan say for sure is that Tom just IS. Or, heres an idea for you. What if he was the first living tree, or some such nature thing, and became very ALIVE.  That would explain why he was iterested in ents. Somewhat like Old Man WIllow.


----------



## Eonwe

um I missed the part where it was proven


----------



## Evenstar

You're right...Not proven, but perhaps accepted by most?


----------



## Eonwe

HAHA! yes I can accept that


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

*Re: who´s Tom?*

I think Tom Bombadil is maybe Iluvatar. He is his own master and they say he was the first and he has the eyes to peirce anything ring of Sauron hearts anything. That forest is one of the oldest in M.E and he is also good at making music and controls everything by music didn't Iluvatar do that as well?


----------



## Flame of Utumno

I think its a bit far fetched to suggest that Tom Bombadil was an incarnation of Iluvatar. 

The question I'd like to ask is whether we should consider him to be a creation of Iluvatar or not?


----------



## Gary Gamgee

*Is Tom Bombadil the Personification of the Secret Fire itself?*

This might sound a bit wierd and I don't know how valid it is but since i started reading these pages this idea just won't leave me alone. I should also say that having read LOTR three times I am just starting The Silmarillion for the first time, so all this could be complete nonsense but I have to get it off my chest. Please let know what you think especailly if you think i'm a complete nutter talking rubbish.

Well here goes...

"and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the world"

So Illuvatar sent the Fire into the world and we know that the Ainur concentrated much of their creation on one small planet, Earth. It is reasonable to assume then that that is where the Fire is. But where exactly? The Old Forest?

Tom said that he was the Eldest. Glorfindel also said that Tom was the first but the ents said that they were the eldest living beings. I think the important word here is 'living'. Is Tom not a 'living' thing? The Secret Fire would not itself be alive but the giver of life. And would indeed be The Eldest.

What about Gandalf?

"I am the servent of the Secret Fire..."

After the defeat of Sauron Gandalf was no longer concerned with ME, his work was done. Even his beloved Shire, now under siege, was not of much interest to him. Indeed the one and only thing he wished to do before he left was to talk with Tom.

"Such a talk as I have not had in all my time. He is a moss-gatherer, and i have been a stone doomed to rolling...and we shall have much to say to one another"

Is Tom where Gandalf gets his power from, is Tom the Secret Fire? i really don't know about this but then again...


----------



## Bucky

>>>>Even his beloved Shire, now under siege, was not of much interest to
him. Indeed the one and only thing he wished to do before he left was to talk
with Tom. 


No, it's not a lack of concern or interest.
Gandalf tells the Hobbits 'you are among the great of ME" & that they can handle things themselves, that's what they've been trained for & my time is over. "I was the enemy of Sauron."

He IS concerned, he tells the Hobbits to hurry to the Shire before the gates are locked for the night.

On the Secret Fire thing, interesting.
But, how's Goldberry fit into that?

And, Gandalf's power isn't from a source, it's inherently in him from his creation.


----------



## thorongil

I find it very hard to belive that Aule himself had any interest in walking upon the earth. I do belive that Tom was a maia and that the reason that the ring didn`t have any effect on him was that he had not by far the same interest in Arda as the maia Olorin and Curumo,maybe because he he lived in "his own little corner" of Arda for so long (probably since the Ages of Starlight). Anyway it`s the most common opinion that Tom was the maia Iarwin Ben-adar. Please exusce me for my bad english and grammar. I`M TIRED!!!


----------



## Gary Gamgee

Bucky as for Gandalf's interest in ME after Sauron's defeat I think you are right, of course he was concerned. What i was trying to say was that his work was done and he wanted to go to the west but he greatly wanted to talk to Tom and i find that very interesting.


----------



## Inwe

*Tom Bombadil*

Here's a thought. Tolkien always had a reason for his characters. Maybe Bombadil is whoever people want him to be.


----------



## Bucky

Too simple......

If that was the case, close down the discussion board.


Tolkien pondered MANY of his own creations himself, searching for answers.

Was it the same Glorfindel who helps Frodo escape to the Ford as the Glorfindel in Gondolin (who dies with the Balrog)?

He states in UT that the idea that the Black Riders were afraid of water was a difficult idea to sustain.

Many others, like the previously mentioned Blue Wizards, etc...

If Tolkien has Tom ask "Don't you know my name yet"?, then there is an answer.


----------



## Mormegil

INWE, 

I like that idea. If Tom is whoever we want him to be then it is more interesting, it creates discussion. Such as this thread which is now 4 pages long.
Perhaps Tolkien wanted people to argue over just who or what Tom is.


----------



## thorongil

Tolkien only had a vague idea of the meaning and plans for many of his characters. Many of these characters he meant to explain/develop at a later point in his life. This point he sadly never reached. I think Tom was one of the characters in that kathegory. But it is beyond almost any doubt that Tom was a maia or a vala. My money is on the maia part.


----------



## Bucky

>>>But it is beyond almost any doubt that Tom was a
maia or a vala. My money is on the maia part.

I'd say there's great doubt. 
Read some of my posts.

Tom's words have to be interrpretted in a very precise way to even open the posasibility that he IS a Vala or Maiar.

I go with....

Reading the beginning of the Silmarillion again.

That idea about the Secret Fire needs to be looked into.....


----------



## thorongil

If Tom should be the secret fire,I don`t think he would have had so much contack with elves and ents in the Ages of Stairlight,as it is implied that he had.


----------



## Eonwe

Bucky, what words have to be precisely interpreted BESIDES "Don't you know my name yet" in order to interpret him as a Maia? I have read your posts and I say there isn't "great doubt".

You haven't even considered the fact that Frodo has met with Farmer Maggot, who has had many conversations with Bombadil re:don't you know my name yet


----------



## Bucky

That bit about Farmer Maggot's a bit of a stretch.
Go back & read the text & see if Tom hasn't already told them his name is 'Tom'.

If you wish to claim Tom is Vala or Maiar, you must read his words of 'knowing the Dark under stars before it knew fear, before the Dark Lord came in from the outside" to mean the 1st or 2nd time Morgoth returned to Arda.

If Tom means the 1st time, Tulkas is out. 

If Tom means before Melkor ever came to Arda, all the Maiar & Valar are out.

Also, I haven't seen anyone, including Eonwe, refute the claims in the Council of Elrond that 'If power to withstand the enemy isn't in the earth itself, it isn't in Tom'.
That would seem to indicate a conection to the earth...

BTW, If the Valar forsook Middle Earth (except Ulmo, mostly in the sea), how could one of them stay there through ALL the Ages?
That makes very little sense in the continuity of the whole ME history.


----------



## Eonwe

"Also, I haven't seen anyone, including Eonwe, refute the claims in the Council of Elrond that 'If power to withstand the enemy isn't in the earth itself, it isn't in Tom'. 
That would seem to indicate a conection to the earth... "

Well this quote is OK, but Glorfindel saying that if the full power of Sauron exerted against Tom, Tom would also fall is not an OK quote to use to say he is less than Sauron in might? If Glorfindel says "I think" vs. "isn't" it means the quote is applicable? Who's splitting hairs now?  You just told me because Glorfindel says "I think" it don't mean much? HAHA

What I am trying to say regarding the quote you keep referring to Bucky is that it seems like you are reading more into it than it deserves. MY opinion. Why can't he say what's there to tell more than my name instead of I must not be a Maia or Vala?

Forsaking ME is a fine point, except Istari come back, Sauron sticks around, and Tom is limited to just his small patch of forest.

Have you explained the interest in Ents yet


----------



## Bucky

Whatever.
Where's Harad when I need him?

I do agree that the 'unless the power is in the earth itself' is also conjecture.


----------



## Neithan

I wonder if Tom was Aule,then wouldn`t his interests be more in direction of his original interest as a vala,and not in the direction of trees,flowers and growing things? This in fact indicate that if he was a maia he would be a maia under Yavanna.


----------



## Branwen

...couldn't Tom be some,um,ents' relative?...I mean at some points he is so 'entish':he doesn't care about the War of the Ring(just like Treebeard,untill his forest was damaged);the Ring doesn't attempt him;he is very fond of nature;ents interest him very much....
alright it's probably a nonsense,but I'm just trying to think of something new...


----------



## Neithan

I cant remember having read any place that Tom had a special interest in ents. And when Treebeard heard that the little Hobbits had encountered Tom,Treebeard`s interest didn`t go any furter than of one who`s heard news from an old friend.


----------



## Gary Gamgee

I don't think Tom is a Valar or a Maia as has been said a Valar would not stand for Sauron's efforts to control ME. I also don't believe him to be an Ent with his dashing and singing and his ability to appear when called.

If he was -here i go again- the Secret Fire this would explain a great deal. Think about Glorfindel's assertion that he would fall against Sauron's might. And this...

"(Melkor) had gone often alone into the viod places seeking the flame imperishable; for desire grew hot within him to bring into being things of his own"

Melkor knew that if he found the Fire he would not only rule over the world but be able to create a new one, the song would be sung according to his mind, not to Illuvatar's. Melkor was also Sauron's master for a long time and he would have known of his master's desire and after Melkor's defeat he would have began to desire this for himself. 

Now if Tom is -and it's a big if- the personification of the Fire, Sauron would want to know where he was. And if found would indeed use him to his own purpose's. Then surely Glorfindel's assertion would ring true. Maybe even the purpose of the ring itself is to help in seeking the Fire.

When Gandalf at the Council of Elrond disuaded everyone from taking the ring to Tom, he gave some very good reasons. But maybe he had some secret ones of his own like not turning the Eye towards the Old Forest.

As for Goldberry i think she is as she says she is the Daughter of the River, and what a better marriage than between Fire and Water forever singing to each other in the Forests of the world.

Okay I'm not completely sure about all of this but Tolkien obviously found the character of Bombadil fascinating and important. And I share that.


----------



## Camille

Well Hi I am new at the forum, well about Tom, I remember that in council of Elrond, Glorfindel says (I think he was I dont have my Fellowship copy here) that he coud stands Suoron if the power of earth could do that, But that even Sauron could make horrible things to the hills. well for me that states Tom is related to Earth somehow.
Bye


----------



## Bucky

Actually, Camille, it's Gildor or Erestor that says that.

As for Tom being an Ent or 'Entish' in the beginning, that logic flies right in the face of Treebeard being called 'The oldest living creature on earth".
Tom calls himself 'Eldest, that's what I am". 

So, there must be a difference in their origins, or one of their claims is false.

Besides, if Tom were an Ent, wouldn't he be taller?
That is unless he was just a sapling......


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Branwen, I had forgotten about those words of Gandalf:

'I'm preparing for a long conversation with Bombadil,a conversation I've never had before. He is moss-grown, and I am a rolling stone. But my rolling has stopped, we'll have lots to tell to each other."

This further confirms my opinion that Bombadil unlike the Valar and Maiar is not at all concerned with the happenings and changes in the world about him, or I should say doing anything about them. Gandalf's entire purpose in Middle Earth is to help in the fight against Sauron. He is constantly in action with little time for rest (which he seems to have enjoyed especially in Hobbiton -- in that respect like Bombadil who visits Farmer Maggot). The contrast of Gandalf is excellent. Gandalf is constantly at motion, deeply involved in the commotion of MiddleEarth in this dark hour. Bombadil is completely at rest, seemingly unaffected by the changing world about him and uninterested in things changing from their current form. 

The difference is even more striking when you consider what Gandalf wishes, now that his affairs have come to an end: to have a _ conversation that he has never had before _. It is a conversation such as he has never had before with anyone, not merely with Tom. But it is one he expects to have with Tom. It seems that so long as Gandalf was on his mission, he has never had a chance to really _ rest_ and to speak with Tom about things except as they pertained to his mission. Now at last Gandalf will be able to speak with Tom Bombadil speech like Tom Bombadil's, perhaps simply to speak (or sing) about things. And here perhaps we arrive a little closer to Bombadil's nature. He is not concerned with the ephemeral -- and ephemeral for Tom can mean all the happenings of Arda; since he is the oldest, all changes even those that take a whole age, must seem ephemeral to Tom.

His interest is in the things that are and also the things and people that were. He desired to keep the brooch of the Barrow Downs to remind him of the beautiful Lady who once was. And note it is an interest not in an event but a person. Nor is it an interest in a thing of nature which seems to indicate that Tom is more than a mere nature spirit. Certainly he is interested in nature but he is also interested people. His interest in the Ents in particular seems to stem from his similarity to them. They too are unconcerned with the great events about them, they are almost eldest and they love their own home the woods. But to contrast with Tom they are uninterested (except for the elves who taught them speech) in Children of Illuvatar. 

But to return to the "rest" of Tom. It is characterized by his love for Goldberry and his almost single-minded concern with her. Tom is completely domestic. His only cares seem to be for Goldberry. I have always been struck at Tom's parting words at the edge of the East Road: "Tom has his house to mind, and Goldberry is waiting." It is quite remarkable. For Tom, tending to his house and Goldberry are not merely more important but almost more urgent than the rescuing of the hobbits. The entire of MiddleEarth is on the verge of collapse and his rescue of its only hope is less important than retrieving the last lilies for Goldberry. Only since it "happened" to be on his way he helped the hobbits from their willowy doom. He is the archtypical homebody. He is indeed called "master," a domestic term and not "lord" which is is extradomestic. 

And it is at his home that Gandalf wishes to take his rest, at least for a while and engage in talks with Bombadil. Indeed, it is for the sake of this very rest that all of Gandalf's endeavors are purposed. Not merely for Bombadil's home or a fireside chat, but for all the homes of MiddleEarth and perhaps especially for homely little holes and houses of the likes of Farmer Maggot and the Gaffer. The great action of the age is to dispell the hopes of Sauron whose bent is on destroying the homes of all. But for Bombadil, in order to preserve the home, it is more important to be at home than to be worrying about those outside who wish to destroy it. It is enough of a task for him just to preserve the home he has. 

The question must come to everyone's mind at least when we first read the trilogy: if Tom Bombadil is master, if he knows the tune of every creature of Arda, then why doesn't he do anything about the evil pressing all about him? The response seems much easier now. If Tom spent all of his time fighting the great evils of every age, when would he have the time to learn the tunes of each thing? It is only because Tom is perrenially at rest that he has the time to learn the tunes, or as I would argue, the nature of all things: for since Arda was created by music, then to know the tunes of things is really to know things. And Tom knows them deep down and from their beginnings. His business is to learn the tunes of things, to sing and dance. These are the things we can do when we have leisure, not when we are off chasing orcs and balrogs and rings, which is also why Sauron can never understand Tom Bombadil; for he is always in motion, always trying to grab more power, ever building more armies and greater machinations. Bombadil is the antithesis of Sauron. It is also why he does not seem to be any of the Valar and the Maiar. For they are more similar to Melkor who was one of them. They came to Arda to fashion and furnish it and to mingle with the Children of Illuvatar. Tom is truly at home in Arda. And it is this homeliness that makes him more akin to those whose home is Arda. It would seem that he is more akin to the hobbits even than the elves. For as Ranger above quoted, Frodo's first encounter with him seems to indicate such: 

Frodo "stood as he had at times stood enchanted by fair elven voices; but the spell that was now laid upon him was different: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to the mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange."


----------



## Eonwe

lemme ask a question I don't know the answer to:

Why is Valinor revealed to Frodo in the dream at Tom's house? (i.e. the rain curtain that goes away to reveal a land in sunshine, the same as that at the end of LoTR)


----------



## Grond

A truly masterful post and one of the best I've ever had the pleasure of reading on this or any other forum Bombadillodillo. I stand in awe of your writing style and the content. The author says that Tom is an enigma...something outside the normal rules and laws of Middle-earth. I feel (after reading your post) that the author is himself wrong. He created in Tom nothing less than the great Eru/Iluvatar come to Earth. I've never felt that before, but I see no other explanation.

Eonwe your post only further illustrates my conviction that Tom is Eru. It is he that gives Frodo the vision of his reward for bearing the peril of Middle-earth.


----------



## Bucky

OK, very good points.



You do a good job of describing Tom, but, did I miss the answer in there to Frodo's question: 
"Who are you, Master"?


----------



## Rogar

I have read every post that I could find about old Tom. I must commend many of you for researching this so deeply. I think to find the final answer however would mean to look, not into the history of middle earth, but into the mind and heart of it's creater. The writer himself. I think Tom has served his purpose as a true enigma and a very rich field for debate. Since Tolkien never lets us in on the secret of how Tom got to ME we can envision him however we want. Tom is not ment to be explained and his origins are not ment to be uncovered. (Although the essay and many of your comments have made me raise an eyebrow and wonder "Is that what Tolkien was thinking?") I like the idea of something or someone who falls outside our realm of understanding. I personally (just my opinion) see Tom as a living embodiment of some ancient power that outdates ME. When the singing was begun I think he just hitched a ride... the boundaries which he placed on himself were typical of his character. He was an observer who did not want to directly influence those beings that roamed ME. That is why, in the council of Elrond, it is mentioned that there would be no place for Tom in the world of Sauron. Tom would be forced out by his own rules.. he would have to leave ME rather than directly fight Sauron. He knows of the ring and even has power over it... In my mind he could have taken it and carried it to mordor himself but for the limitations that he had put upon himself. He would have been the first incarnation of life on ME and would be the last to leave. He would stay in his own boundaries as Sauron advanced until Sauron stood unopposed at the border.

GoldBerry... who is she? Well if you were a great power capable of withstanding the alure of the one ring would you live by yourself? Probably not.. you would probably bring with you a similar being or create one from the earth itself. Wonder if ol' Tom sang Goldberry up from the river itself one lonely night as the elves came to ME.....??


----------



## TulKas Astaldo

Hasn't ANYBODY ever considered Bombadil to be Tulkas?

I swear I can't find another person anywhere who's come up with the same theory


----------



## Bombadillodillo

_ Grond wrote: _


> . I feel (after reading your post) that the author is himself wrong. He created in Tom nothing less than the great Eru/Iluvatar come to Earth. I've never felt that before, but I see no other explanation.



I've given some reasons on the other thread why it seems improbable that Tom is Eru but I will try to clarify them.

Illuvatar, to contrast with Tom is very interested in the doings of MiddleEarth. After all he created the Ainur and directed their music. He is the father of his Children and its his new melodies that overcome Melkor (and Sauron). His influence throughout all the ages was most subtle and yet everywhere. His is the 'chance' prompting that Tom mentions which brings him to Old Man Willow. He is the power greater than the ring who (probably through Ulmo) arranges Bilbo's finding of the ring. The subtlety of Illuvatar seems to work most of all through chance. But Illuvatar is very interested in the affairs of each age. Illuvatar is Lord of all. Tom is merely master of his home, even if his home were all Arda (remember he sets his own boundaries).

Moreover, the fact that Tom is called fatherless and oldest, I think distinguishes rather than identifies him with Illuvatar, who is also fatherless. Tom is called fatherless by the elves. I think they have named him thus because to them it seems he should have a father. They could have called the Maiar and Valar fatherless to but they are from outside Arda, whereas Tom is sprung from it, at home in it and coeval with it. The elves would never call Illuvatar fatherless, they would call him father, who is the father of all. 

Tom remains a mystery and Tolkien thought some mysteries must remain unsolved because not all mysteries are knowable. Nevertheless, it is fun to wonder about them. That is I think the point.

_ (Sorry Bucky, I forgot who brought up the secret fire.) _
Bucky, are you talking about the secret fire again? If Tom Bombadil is a mystery, certainly the secret fire is another and greater mystery. However, you could be on the right track. Afterall Gandalf's great virtue is his wisdom along with the encouragement he gives others in the face of things they don't know. And Bombadil does seem to have stored a great wealth of wisdom. But even if Tom is the secret fire, does that explain anything or merely make him more a mystery?


----------



## Harad

Sorry Bucky,
But in this "academic" discussion, Harad the Grey, with whom I agree, (as it was me), thought that Tulkas was as good a bet, as any.

Now all the arguments about whether a Vala would "allow" Sauron to threaten ME are not relevant because in fact ALL the Vala allow Sauron to threaten ME. The Vala change thru time, so Tom as Tulkas would have many of the characteristics as the Tulkas who was one of the chief builders of Arda BEFORE Melkor brought his darkness to it, but not the combativeness anymore. Just the laughter and the power. 



> Then Tuklas slept, being weary and content, and Melkor deemed that his hour had come.



Later Tom (Tuklas) decided not to be caught sleeping again.


----------



## Bucky

Harad, As I said, to even consider Tulkas as a possibility, you must interpret Tom's word's about 'knowing the darkness under stars before it knew fear, & the Dark Lord came in from the Outside" to mean Melkor's SECOND return to Arda.

It does not totally make sense, & a stretch at best.
It's a VERY weak foundation to stand on.

I was referring to that Bomballodillo's (whatever) post that describes Tom in great detail. Great job on that, it was late & I may have missed it, but where is the conclusion as to who Tom is in there?


----------



## Eonwe

ok another weak argument on my part, but since we are still considering Tulkas **sigh** 

Are we sure the "Dark Lord" he refers to is Melkor? I seem to remember someone else with that name, that would be very familiar to the hobbits...


----------



## Bucky

No chance.
Why?
Because Tom says 'before the darkness knew fear".

That would have to be before Melkor came & started evil, which breeds fear, no?


----------



## Eonwe

ok that's right.

What in the Sil talks about when darkness changed to fear? When Melkor appears as a horseman (like Orome) to the elves? Its kind of a vague statement to pin a time on eh?


----------



## Harad

Bucky...
Tuklas was one of the main creators of Middle Earth. So he certainly knew Middle Earth before Melkor's FIRST coming. See that quote: Tulkas created ME, fell asleep, and Melkor crept in like poison ivy.


----------



## Eonwe

Harad -- why would it say in the Council of Elrond that at the end, even Tulkas would fall, if he was the only one left with Sauron around... I mean pretty big stretch eh? He can wrestle Melkor and put him in chains but not Sauron? You have to at least explain *squeek* that *squeek*


----------



## Harad

Simply...
First, the people in the CoE, opined but did not KNOW, that Tom would fall. Many of the eplanations above for Tom (logic, please) would be wrong if Tom actually fell.

Second, Tom was an incarnation. The incarnation of gods can fall without the god itself falling.


----------



## Eonwe

so where's the wrestling gone to? Where's his wife Nessa? When did he go to the Old Forest (after he was ticked off and tried to find Melkor and Ungoliant?)

Isn't it "difficult" to make a GOD's incarnation fall? Is it "not difficult" for Sauron to do?

As far as the logic in CoE, it makes sense if he is a Maia, as I have pointed out. However, Bucky keeps bringing up this dang before the dark knew fear thing...


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Bucky wrote:


> where is the conclusion as to who Tom is in there?



I didn't say because I don't know, though I do lean somewhat to Eru (to vindicate Grond), only because he may have decided to make his home on Arda. And if he made Arda his home, none would question his status as master. But even if Tom were a manifestation of Eru, then he completely hides his interest in the affairs of MiddleEarth. Moreover, Goldberry indicates that Tom does not in any way possess the woods and hills which are encompassed by the boundaries he set himself, because they would be a great "burden." But Eru does seem to take responsibility for Arda and his children though not possessively. Therefore, I think it unlikely though possible that he is Eru. 

It could also be the auther putting himself in the story, making up a character whom he is like and would most like to be in MiddleEarth. But this is mere conjecture. 

It seems that many have forgotten that there are many things in Arda of whom even the Valar and Maiar had no foreknowledge and whose sole author was Eru. Tom is most likely such a being and therefore we shall never be able to characterize him as any of the other beings about whose origins there are fuller accounts.
From the little I have seen of his letters, this seems to be the author's own account of and purpose for Tom. He is a mystery which makes wondering what he is so much fun. 

Perhaps, Goldberry is the key to unlock the mystery of Bombadil.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Harad wrote:



> Tom as Tulkas would have many of the characteristics as the Tulkas who was one of the chief builders of Arda BEFORE Melkor brought his darkness to it, but not the combativeness anymore. Just the laughter and the power.



I had forgotten the laughter of Tulkas. But the problem with Tulkas is that he loved the fight. Tom commands with mastery but that is not to say he loves the struggle. Tom doesn't seem to be concerned with fighting at all. But this is Tulkas' _ defining characteristic _. The only way that Tulkas would be in MiddleEarth at all is if he were asleep, truly asleep, as the Balrog of Moria had been in ages past. For a lot like Harad, Tulkas couldn't pass up a good fight. Moreover, it is likely that Tulkas went to sleep or left Valinor altogether after Melkor's defeat since he had served his purpose.

And do you think Sauron could defeat Tulkas? If there were any doubt I don't think Tulkas would leave it to speculation, he'ld be the most interested in settling any such doubt.


----------



## Bucky

>>>Tuklas was one of the main creators of Middle Earth. So he certainly knew Middle
Earth before Melkor's FIRST coming. See that quote: 

Please quote & from WHERE.

That's what I've been doing.
I haven't seen one direct quote from you to back up your arguement, Harad.
Welcome back, btw.....


Now, Tom's reference that 'before the dark knew fear' is clear to me. Before evil, there's only innocence, nothing to fear. Only good. What's there to fear in good & doing what's right?
Besides, Tom finishes the statement by saying 'BEFORE the Dark Lord came in from the outside" i.e., the Dark Lord brought fear with him.

Read the opening chapters of The Silmarillion (we all should). 
See what Melkor's corruption caused in Arda......


----------



## Harad

its true wrt to the tuklas of before the First Age and the First Age. But everything has been scaled down. Tuklas is now on a "holiday" enjoying the fruits of his labor as Tom. And enjoying Hashberry...er Goldberry. After the First 2 Ages, doesnt he desoive a break?


----------



## Harad

Buckmeister:
Here it is:


> Now it came to pass that while the Valar rested from their labors, and watched the growth and unfolding of the things that they had devised and begun...But Aule and Tuklas were weary, for the craft of Aule and the strength of Tuklas had been at the service of all without ceasing...And seeing now his time he drew near again to Arda, and looked down upon it, and the beauty of Earth in its Spring filled him [Melkor] with hate.



(from Sil "Of the Beginning of Days")
I aint making it up. And thanks for the welcome.


----------



## Bryheinnen

*One paper I read long ago...*

outlined the parallels between Bombadil in LOTR and Melchizedek in the Bible.

Interesting thought, and supportable upon analysis.


----------



## Grond

From _The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien_, September 1954, #153 To Peter Hastings, *"...I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine) and wanted an 'adventure' on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory - or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name - but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting the certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge; Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Even the Elves hardly show this; they are primarily artists. Also T. B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental - and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe..."*

This is from the author's own mouth.... er I mean pen. He wrote it in September 1954. I am continuing my research into Goldberry....(Hot Babe!!)


----------



## Harad

The authors words do not give us guidance in this particular discussion. He doesnt say that Tom could not harken back to a character in a different Age, just that he is not an allegory. JRRT could have made it easy by saying: Tom is a version of XXX or is XXX, but he didnt. What harm to speculate?


----------



## Grond

From _The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien_, 25 April 1954, To Naomi Mitchison, Letter #144, *"...Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control, but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron..."*

That doesn't sound like Eru or Tulkas. So I know that I am wrong in thinking it was Eru now. Tulkas it seems would have no problem in dealing with Sauron... so we're left with the original theme of an enigma. A spirit of total rationality in an irrational world, an entity for which material matters don't matter and for which living one day at a time under his own power over his own destiny is paramount. The Ring was powerless against him, even though Sauron would likely have overwhelmed him. The Rings both The One and The Greats were symbols of that which Tom had forsaken. They had no control because he believed in them not. At least that's my take on it..... but I could be wrong.

Harad, you're on my ignore list so I can't read your comment. I hope this post has answered any questions or redirected your views.


----------



## Grond

Well, I for one am not trying to prove anybody right or wrong, simply providing you with the author's own words. Those may also be subject to interpretation, but it at least narrow the playing field. And.........hey..... I ain't through yet.


----------



## Harad

Thanks for the compliment, but a God...no.

Tom may not survive if ME were destroyed but "survival" of his form is not an indicator of his essential nature. 

BTW, this discussion is not mandatory.


----------



## Grond

And for all the movie fans....... from _The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien_, 30 November 1955, a letter to Mrs. Molly Waldron, *"I think the book quite unsuitable for 'dramatization', and have not enjoyed the broadcasts..."* (referring to the LotR broadcast on BBC during 1955 and 1956.

Sorry this is off post... but I just couldn't resist!! Of course, he didn't get to see "this" movie.


----------



## Harad

And I have seen a letter by JRRT saying that in his estimation, no one will every break Roger Maris' home run record.


----------



## Eonwe

Well phew, I have just read alot. But I have returned. I have seen the post of Grond, and I wonder... Perhaps Tolkien meant him to be father nature. But, heartened by the words of Mr. Greenwood, I seek first evidence in LoTR...

In reading the two chapters in LoTR with Bombadil, I have noticed a few things:

1) Tom says Dark Lord twice. The second time is surely Sauron. If you read it (at least me) you can honestly question whether the first passage is about Melkor. Ok opinion only...

2) Tom continually says he is master. Goldberry (being the submissive wife HEY JUST KIDDING! says the same many times). But when they ask him to help gaurd them from the Black Riders, Tom says he is not master of riders from the black land. So what is he master of? Wood and willow, what is left of the Old Forest.

3) Its all very short, with too many hey dol merry dols give a hoot my hardys to really get anything out of it. However note this passage, where Tom ends a long story: "When they caught his words again they found that he had now wandered into strange regions beyond their memory and beyond their waking thought, into times when the world was wider*1*, and the seas flowed straight to the western shore; and still on and back Tom went singing out into ancient starlight, when only the Elf-sires were awake. Then suddenly he stopped, and they saw that he nodded as if falling asleep." So he stops at Cuivienen. And more, the often quoted passage: "Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the rivers and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn*2*...When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless--before the Dark Lord came from Outside."

And so, seeing the passages in 3 above, might I despair of my Maia theory (Yavanna connection). But Lo! Out of the Quenta Silmarillion, Chapter 1 Of the Beginning of Days, it talks of a First War "before Arda was full-shaped, and ere yet there was anything that grew or walked upon earth". And this is where Tulkas entered to the aid of the Valar from the "far heaven" (with Illuvatar dude). So blah blah Melkor fled before his laughter and forsook Arda. And Tulkas remained, but Melkor *"brooded in the outer darkness"* and it was sweet. And Lo! What happens next? da da da dat da daaaa! "In that time the Valar brought order to the seas and the lands and the mountains, and Yavanna planted at last the seeds that she had long devised." And then they light the two lamps. And at this point Melkor comes back and begins to belch forth darkness from Utumno (fear of darkness, you are here) that he has just built.

And so even though all of you know these passages well, I submit to you that Tom was a part of that first planting, and was meant to Master the Spring of Arda. And what remains of the Old Forest and of Fangorn is the forest that began in the Spring of Arda, before Melkor came in from his outer darkness scaredy pants place.

*1* is before the fall of Numenor I guess (seas bent) and before the War of Wrath when Beleriand sunk (except for Tol Morwen my hearties)

*2* is before the first seeds are planted (funny he would talk about that)

So Tulkas no, earth spirit maybe for those who are not bold (or who read the letters of Tolkien and are thus wise and have less money for it), but Maia it may be. No conclusions yet.

Sincerely,

Eonwe

_The opinions of this commentator are not meant to reflect the opinions of the forum and are to be taken with a grain of salt..._


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Grond, thanks for finding this bit from Tolkien:



> But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, *and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing*, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.



The key to this is taking delight in things for themselves without reference or regard for yourself.


Bombadil reminds me a bit of the story of Archimedes death, at least in as much as Bombadil's preservation was dependent on the success of the ringbearer and the great actions of the day though he had no concern about such things. His oblivion of the great deeds of the day reminds me of Archimedes who also was completely wrapped in the pursuit of knowledge to him more important even than his impending death. The city of Syracuse had been taken by the Romans. Archimedes was a Syracusan.



> [Archimedes] was then, as fate would have it, intent upon working out some problem by diagram, and having fixed his mind alike and his eyes upon the subject of his speculation, he never noticed the incursion of the Romans, nor that the city was taken. In this transport of study and contemplation, a soldier, unexpectedly coming up to him, commanded him to follow to Marcellus; which he declining to do before he had worked out his problem to a demonstration, the soldier, enraged drew his sword and ran him through. Others write, that a Roman soldier, running upon him with a drawn sword, offered to kill him; and that Archimedes, looking back, earnestly besought him to hold his hand a little while, that he might not leave what he was then at work upon inconclusive and imperfect; but the soldier, nothing moved by his entreatly instantly killed him. . . . Certain it is, that his death was very afflicting to Marcellus [the Roman general]; and that Marcellus ever after regarded him that killed him as a murderer; and that he sought for his [Archimedes] kindred and honored them with signal favors."



Sorry it's so long, but it's a great story and no one tells it like Plutarch.


I don't think that Tom is Archimedes but he shows some similarities.. Archimedes had no Goldberry. But then again that would depend on who or what Goldberry is.


----------



## Grond

Eonwe, I like your ideas. I feel that indeed Tom could be a Maia of Yavanna sent first to prepare the way for her coming or he could be an earth spirit sent from the same source. I agree.

Bombadillodillo, Archimedes sounds just like Tom. Maybe what Archimedes was diagramming was the best spot on the river to gather lilies for his lovely lady. Who can tell but the "taking one's delight in things for themselves without reference to one's self, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing..." definately sounds like both Archimedes and our Tom. A really good find.


----------



## Harad

Tom is probably not a Maia because he is impervious to the Ring. I will not repeat the quote of Tuklas building Middle Earth, but it still exists.


----------



## Eonwe

Thanks Grond

Everyone (that means you) -- I am sorry to jump into threads like this and dump my loads. I babysat three kids tonight and someone really pissed me off at work. I will try to keep up on the threads, realizing that others have valuable opinions. Anyway just to let everyone know where I am coming (from)

You guys are posting fast 

esp. Bombadillodillo -- I didn't completely read your posts yet, but I will


----------



## Eonwe

Where does it say a Maia of Yavanna would be affected by the Ring? Would Melian be affected by it?

SORRY edited: Why would Tulkas be interested in the Old Forest? Why would that be his "realm", where he is Master?

You have only one pro-Tulkas quote Harad... cmon read some more


----------



## Harad

Every Maia that is in the story is affected by the Ring. If you want to suppose that other Maia's are not, go for it.

Tulkas BUIILT ME. That means a lot to me. Pride in ownership. His power and his laughter remind me of TB. There is nothing inconsistent with Tuklas, as opposed to all the other suggestions. That is not a proof. Just a statement of plausibility. Repeating irrelevant objections and ignoring what I posted earlier isnt likely to change my mind.

And as far as the power of TB (Tuklas) remember he not only bested Old Man Ribber...er Willow, but he also turned the Barrow Wight into a "long trailing shriek." While laughing.


----------



## Eonwe

"your a looney" -- John Cleese

Your evidence is weak man!

Every Maia in the story

hmm

Gandalf (well ok if we count the Istari as Maia), Saruman (same thing), Radagast -- oops well ok he wasn't in the story much, I guess we could say he would have been

Even in your attraction/addition thread, you show how the EFFECT is inconsistent right? 

Certainly Saruman is affected. He is a maia of Aule, he likes devices... Devices have no effect on someone who is concerned with growing.

BTW I think you are the only one stating what Tom definitively (in the words of Greenwood) is... I'm not ignoring your posts you just know your evidence is weak.

Give me a few more quotes


----------



## Harad

You know very well that isnt my thread..its Foe's. Every Maia...including the Balrogs..just a guess. 

And I made a PLAUSIBILITY argument. I expect more quotes any time now.


----------



## Eonwe

HAHA I forgot!  You got screwed out of some of the best threads. I like very much your POV...

plausibility i can deal with. I am not even up to that point yet, just an Ann Elk


----------



## Bill the Pony

I enjoy this discussion very much, and I am not even going to try to give arguments for either side. There's just one question: I notice that one side (almost) consistently uses Tuklas, and the other side Tulkas. Are you talking about the same guy?


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Bill the Pony _
> *I enjoy this discussion very much, and I am not even going to try to give arguments for either side. There's just one question: I notice that one side (almost) consistently uses Tuklas, and the other side Tulkas. Are you talking about the same guy? *


Bill, I am the one that posted all the quotes from the author and these quotes make it apparent to me that Tom is "None of the Above." But that's just me. It seems anytime and everytime I read something written by the author that is clear to me, someone else thinks it means something else. 

The author has said that Tom is an "enigma" and was not created for this story but that he wanted to include him for this story. (Maybe to please his children to whom the original tale was written. ***Gronds opinion***) Given this premise, it appears that the author didn't consider Tom's status in including him in the tale. That would make him an "other". He doesn't fit. He's not Maia, Vala, Eru or anything spoken of in the Silmarillion. He is something that came out of the third theme that only Eru sang. That's my opinion and apparently no one elses. Just like the old song, "Alone again, naturally!!"


----------



## Harad

> Originally posted by Bill the Pony
> There's just one question: I notice that one side (almost) consistently uses Tuklas, and the other side Tulkas. Are you talking about the same guy?





> Originally posted by Harad the White
> Tulkas BUIILT ME. That means a lot to me. Pride in ownership. His power and his laughter remind me of TB. There is nothing inconsistent with Tuklas,



Being a liberal sort, I use both in the same paragraph.


----------



## Flame of Utumno

After I read 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil', it was clear that Tom was not just an amusement figure for Tolkien's children. Some of the poetry has too much Middle Earth mythology and a seriousness which does not make it a children's book. Therefore, even though Bombadil is an enigma, it is clear that he was deliberately woven into Tolkien's mythology.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Grond wrote: 


> He is something that came out of the third theme that only Eru sang. That's my opinion and apparently no one elses. Just like the old song, "All alone again naturally!!"



* You're not alone. * I agreed with you in my post on page 10. To me it is the best explanation, though it doesn't explain much. 

And after reading your excerpts from Tolkien's letters I am more convinced of it. Although if I read Tom's tales I might have a better idea of who Tom is or if I knew who Goldberry is. 

. . . . 

Another thought has occurred to me concerning Tom. I agree with Tolkien completely that Tom is a kind of natural philosopher though perhaps not quite a philosopher since he is more interested in the things of earth than abstract things and yet he has a very deep knowledge of those things which is why the word philosopher came to my mind. This interest in even the seemingly insignificant things like the water lilies is in harmony with his very homely and jovial manner (consider his entertainment and care for the hobbits during their stay). 

But this interest in watching and observing and to some extant knowing sets him apart from the Valar. The Valar already know a great deal about the things of Arda, for they created them. Indeed their interest is in creating and tending the creatures of Arda and in learning from, teaching and working with the Children of Illuvatar. You see the Valar already have knowledge of the things in Arda (except those hidden from them by Eru). They know them because they made them. Tom to contrast seems to have spent his time learning the tunes of things. He is a quasi-philosophic person, concerned about the things around him and not the stars. He is almost a manifestation of the human soul that desires to know the other, but unlike men Tom seems to have succeeded. 

The word philosopher means love of wisdom and the greatest philosophers knew they did not possess it but loved it and ever pursued it. But Tom seems to really know things deeply and intimately. He knows the harmonies that hold things together and can unbind them. Perhaps, Goldberry is simply a manifestation of Tom's knowledge. Tom is completely devoted to her and spends all his time tending her every need. His devotion is single minded and consuming. But it is also very satisfying, hence his constant singing and unceasing jovial manner.

Just a couple more thoughts.


----------



## Grond

Bombadillodillo, I stand in awe!!


----------



## ReadWryt

*Spits coffee on the screen* Holy Sh....

Bombadillodillo,

I allways thought that this was a silly thread and that people were wasting far too much time concerning themselves with a matter dealing with a character that was invented for the Oxford Magazine and not Lord of the Rings, but what you just said has completely changed my mind. Um, nice post...man was I ever wrong.


----------



## Eonwe

Grond, Bombadillodillo -- help me out here...why does he, and Goldberry say at least a few times, he is Master and "no one has ever caught Tom". I see what you are saying, just that piece of the puzzle seems strange to me, reading the book. What does that mean, he is Master, no-one has ever caught him? (I am not saying this thinking I know the answer, I really don't know)Something that Carl Lewis would say?


----------



## Grond

Eonwe, my only thought on the matter is that Tom, being something apart from the start in the mind of JRRT may have been a type of Leprachan. You know.... "Catch me and get a pot of gold." That would have been like JRRT to add something that had not application in the story much as Tom himself had no real applicability to the story. Just a thought.


----------



## Eonwe

I wonder if he drinks green beer


----------



## Hirila

I think this point is quite clear: 
When the Ainur had ended their song in the Ainulindale Iluvatar / Eru "showed to them a vision, giving o them sight where before was only hearing; and they saw a new World made visible before them, and was globed amid the Void"
So before that there was nothing!

Not even good old Tom existed then. But then he came into the world somehow. 

I like the thought that he is a Ainu / Vala just as all the others that came into the world "officially". Perhaps he just slipped down into Middle-Earth with the others but went his own way and was forgotten by his "brothers and sisters".

What I want to say: Of course he is acreation of Iluvatar just as the Ainu are.


----------



## Ancalagon

I have to say, apart from the occassional crap post thrown into this thread, it has generally been a pleasure to read. Bombaldilololllloooowwwwww? has shed clarity on this enigma that I must subscribe to. Grond has been accurate in defining who he wasn't


> He's not Maia, Vala, Eru or anything spoken of in the Silmarillion. He is something that came out of the third theme that only Eru sang


 which stands alone for all to appreciate. 

Therefore, we are left with trying to define him in our own understanding of how Tolkien may have considered him. Subconsciously I believe Tolkien created Tom as the heart and soul of middle-earth, encapsulated within his own domain. The personification of free-will without hinderance and without ill intent. Tom was the epitomie of all that should be in life; nature untamed, forgetful, care-free, considerate, yet wise beyond comprehension, responsible and master of all within his realm. Goldberry was a wandering, free-minded, free-spirited, devine creation of nature and partner to nature himself. A marriage made in heaven one might say.

Tom is Master and Goldberry is River-Daughter.


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Eonwe wrote:



> why does he, and Goldberry say at least a few times, he is Master and "no one has ever caught Tom".



I gave an account of Tom's mastery above, but now you've caused me to reconsider that view. For I said there that Tom is called master as opposed to Lord because master is a domestic term, not a political term. But it still leaves the question, of what is he master. I would contend that he is most of all master of himself. He has no desire to use his knowledge to rule over others and this takes great self-mastery. As Tolkien wrote, he has taken a sort of vow of poverty, though to Tom it is almost natural. If he ever had a struggle with power, that struggle was long ago resolved and has left no traces in the Tom we see. Tom has great knowledge, certainly greater than any elf or man or hobbit. And yet to Tom knowledge is not power as Francis Bacon declared. Knowledge is for its own sake and yet it can be used on occassion to do many great things, though this aspect of knowledge Tom considers insignificant and perhaps rightly. Tom is master, whereas Sauron is Lord. But Tom's knowledge is greater and so is his mastery for he has mastered himself whereas Sauron's lust for tyranny rules him and leads him to his ultimate oversight (namely that others do not share in his lust for power) and final destruction.

This leads us to the other quote, "no one has ever caught Tom." I do recall the quote but couldn't find it. It must be in the Barrow Downs chapter. There is a similar comment by Goldberry that Tom "has no fear." This is because he is very wise and does know, but we only fear what we do not know or what can harm us. This brings us to Eonwe's quotation again. He fears no one because no one can harm or catch Tom. It is because of his knowledge that Tom is unable to be caught. Tom has a great knowledge of most things, and this is what ennables him to command the barrow wight and old Man Willow. But note Tom threatens to sing Old Man Willow's roots off or sing up a wind to blow his branches away: but he doesn't act on these threats. Tom doesn't use his knowledge to control anything or destroy anything. He only commands or rather scolds and then only in another's dire need, again an example of his self-mastery. But this leads us to why Tom cannot be caught. Whereas Tom seems to know so many things intimately and so has the power to evade the ill will of others, no one knows Tom or understands him. He has a twofold advantage: he knows them and they don't know him. Moreover, just as Tom seems not to be concerned with the affairs of the world about him, the world takes no notice of Tom or has forgotten him or only considers him as an afterthought (as at the Council of Elrond). 

Sorry, I had every intent of writing a short post, but they just have a way of growing.


----------



## Eonwe

Thanks for the answers again Bombadillodillo. The interesting part I see is the master over himself part. So at least *he* is immune to what others attempt to do to him. A mastery of his soul, his ability not to "sin" as it were?

I guess this would reconcile the part of the Barrow-downs where he is asked by the Hobbits to ride with them to protect them from Black Riders, and he says he has no power over the black riders. But they have no power over him, and neither would Sauron. And again, this would help reconcile what the CoE feels would happen if Bombadil kept the ring (if all the free peoples begged him), that in the end he would fall. I would take this to mean that, in the end there would be no mastery of Sauron over him, but the ring would not be protected by him in that case??

I should just leave this thread alone, but I find that I can't...


----------



## Bombadillodillo

Eonwe wrote:



> I guess this would reconcile the part of the Barrow-downs where he is asked by the Hobbits to ride with them to protect them from Black Riders, and he says he has no power over the black riders



That is interesting. Bombadil has no power over the Black Riders, probably because they, like their lord, know only power, one thing Tom knows nothing of. Yet just as Tom does not know the Black Riders, the Black Riders cannot understand Tom or anything not having to do with dominion. Likewise, the ring has no power over Tom and Tom has no interest in the ring. Since he has no interest in power, he has no interest in the ring of power. To him it is a mere trinket. 

This is also probably why if Sauron were to conquer all, Tom would be last, because to Sauron he is most insignificant and unintelligible. They are mutually unintelligible. It is why, as Eonwe already pointed out so well, the ring is unsafe with Tom, just as a lily would be unsafe with Sauron. In the end Tom would fall, because Sauron would have destroyed all that Tom loves. Sauron would not conquer Tom since I don't think he could. Rather, he would destroy all that Tom loves, and Tom's jovial singing would turn to a funeral dirge or his singing end altogether, a great loss indeed.


----------



## Lucie Baggins

*who is Tom Bombadil?*

I've never read LOTR so who is Tom Bombadil?  I don't want a discussion of what race he is, just who is he and where is he in the story?


----------



## Goldberry344

YAY!! Tom Bombadil rocks...but who is he??
Hes the ultimate fairy tale person in the JRRT books. he is a very happy singing old man, he is the oldest. I dont have my book with me, so i cant tell you exactly how JRRT told it, but hes is a very jolly person. He saves the Hobbits 2 times, i think.


----------



## Ragnarok

Hes the Eldest. Some say he is Eru (like me), and some say he is a Valar or Maiar. Truth is, no one knows who he is. In the book, he appears before Bree, and after they leave The Shire.

There's tons of threads about this already. Next time search for one, to make it easier. Cause all the Bombadil posts turn into 4 page topics. But its fun.


----------



## Maindogg

*Tom bombadil*

in what book was Tom Bombadil??? (in case anyone wonders...its the guy in the forrest.)
he was in book one right!!!!!???????????????????????????
me and a friend had an argument a bout it....i meant it was in book one, he meant in book two....would someone plz give us an answer fast!!!!

-Maindogg-


----------



## Mormegil

Tom was in book 1, 'The Fellowship of the Ring.


----------



## Lantarion

The Lord of the Rings; The Fellowship of the Ring; The Ring Sets Out; end of The Old Forest -- beginning of Fog on the Barrow-Downs.

 Hope that helps. That's: Story; Part; Book; Chapters.


----------



## Andquellewen

I was wondering the same thing about Tom Bombadil, thanks for explaining it!


----------



## Pippin

I´ve been wondering, while i was reading the book, i thought that TB willl appear in the rest of the book and that maybe he´ll be very important. 

I really had a surprise when Tolkoine never mention him again, could anyone please tell who or wht TB reallyu was? and if he was an important one in what stories does he appear?

Thanks


----------



## Maindogg

I think Tom Bombadil is a maiar....but i also think he is just Tom Bombadill...  
Tom Bombadil is one of Tolkiens great enigmas....i think Tolkien created him so the readers could have something to wonder over!!...he probably took the inspiration from his son doll...but maybe he had some other inspiration also...

Think of how he acts....a maiar should act kinnda superior to others....a earth spirit shouldnt show it self for people...so maybe he is jus TOM BOMBADIL....there might not be an explenation to who he is....think about that folks....


----------



## Earnil

*Tom is not Iluvatar*

I see a few people who believe that Tom is Iluvatar, but has anyone taken into consideration letter 153 from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. The letter is the reply to a letter a Catholic wrote to Tolkien concerning Goldberry's description of Tom as 'he is', which the Catholic stated as specifically meaning Tom is Iluvatar.

The following is part of the reply letter that Tolkien wrote to this Catholic who was questioning Goldberry's description of Tom.



> _"As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. (Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom and not me as a commentator.) You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name belonged only to the First Person... Lots of other characters are called Master; and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names. See and ponder Tom's words in Vol. I p. 142. You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name - can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to the Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has not asked "What is Tom Bombadil" but "Who is he." We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimites of 'I am that I am' - which is quite different from he is.* She adds as a concession a statement of part of the 'what'. He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.
> 
> I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine) and wanted an 'adventure' on the way. But I kept him in, as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory - or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name - but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory' or an examplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundemental - and therefor much will from 'that point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe.
> 
> 
> *Only the first person (of worlds or anything) can be unique. If you say he is there must be more than one, and created (sub) existance is implied. I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?"_


----------



## Brent

> _Originally posted by Ciryaher _
> *I think he cannot be anything other than a Maia or a product of the Ainuindale. I liken him to Ungoliant as in their origin. No one knew where exactly Ungoliant came from, but I believe that she (as are all other creatures of unknown origins) was a product of the Discord of Melko in the Ainuindale. Iarwain was most likely a result of the part Yavanna's people sang in the Music.
> 
> In my opinion, the suggestion that Tom is Aule (and Goldberry is Yavanna) is ridiculous, and should be disregarded, but he might perhaps be a Maia. *



I sort of agree but I was impressed by the arguments at
http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html
and the essay who is Tom Bombadil ?


----------



## Ged

Great thread, difficult to add anything constructive. My views though:

The letter quoted by Earnil a few posts back implies to me that TB is the only character in Tolkien's writings who does NOT fit into the whole mythology he created. In other words, Tolkien did indeed include him because he wanted the hobbits to have an adventure along the way, pure and simple. 

TB cannot be Eru - since when did God take a wife?

If I had to say, I would go along with the view that TB is the symbolic representation, in physical form, of Middle Earth itself. This is why he is so apparently unconcerned with the actions of the beings who walk its surface. Also why he could not at the end have resisted Sauron's power.

I like to think that Tolkien equated himself with old Tom. 

In other words:

Tom Bombadill is to Tolkien in the book

as

The Bree "burp guy" is to Peter Jackson in the movie.


----------



## Bucky

Now, I dropped out of this debate a long time ago because I felt I had exhausted all arguements. My guess was that Tom is a 'physical manifestation' of ME.
Therefore, I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I was reading the Letters of JRR Tolkien today.
#19, JRR states:
'Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?' 

So, unless Tolkien changed his idea of who Tom was later on, Tom was indeed a 'manifestation' of the natural 'uncorrupted' (civilized or industrialied) world......
Bringing Tom into ME would then indeed make him a manifestation of ME as Erestor supposes at the Council of Elrond when he says "Power to defy the Enemy is not in him (Tom), unless it is in the earth itself."

Now, I also believe Tolkien's comment shows why the Ring had no power over Tom.
Tolkien draws clear lines of 'Natural' vs 'Industialization' throughout his story's of ME.

His stand for 'natural' is embodied in the Elves and the 'Elvish' way of living & relating to ME.
And most evilly displayed in Sauron and Saruman trying to create, currupt, dominate and destroy the natural ways things were in ME.


----------



## Harad

> His stand for 'natural' is embodied in the Elves and the 'Elvish' way of living & relating to ME.



Maybe some Elves. Other Elves like Feanor and Kin were happy to invent things and delve deeply. Look what it got them, you might say? Still without them would Morgoth and Sauron have been defeated?


----------



## Bucky

As I previously mentioned last night somewhere, in letter 131, which is also the introduction or foreward to The Sil 2nd edition, Tolkien spells it all out fairly clearly as to his take on the Elves & the earlier Ages of ME.

If you got them, check it out. 
This is my 1st time through The Letters (although I've had it for years) & I find Tolkien had a strong dislike for 'civilization' encroaching on nature.

Although this is also stated fairly obviously in other places like 'The Hobbit' in his description of Goblins when they first appear.

Or on Saruman. Somebody says "He has a mind for machines....." when talking about his downfall.


----------



## Eonwe

> _Originally posted by Ged _
> *
> I like to think that Tolkien equated himself with old Tom.
> 
> In other words:
> 
> Tom Bombadill is to Tolkien in the book
> 
> as
> 
> The Bree "burp guy" is to Peter Jackson in the movie. *



Ged this is genius. Just wanted to say.


----------



## Beorn

Well, I'm bringing this back up, considering the recent debate...

However, I feel that CupieDavid's thread should not be merged with this because his is more of an opionion.

Anyway, I'll just throw a few logs on the fire, and see if we get anywhere...




> ...As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious [in reply to someone saying that Tom was God and that Tolkien was going to far], besides missing the point. (Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator)...if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of _names_. See and ponder Tom's words in Vol I p.142:
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name -- can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not 'what is Tom Bombadil' but 'Who is he'. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of 'I am that am' -- which is quite different from _he is_* [*Only the _first_ person (of worlds or anything) can be unique. If you say _he is_ there must be more than one, and created (sub) existence is implied. I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?]. She [Goldberry] adds as a concession a statement of part of the 'what'. He is _master_ in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of posession of domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to refrom or remove even the Willow.
Click to expand...

The Letters of JRRT, Letter #153.

Well, being 'master' would be infact the creator of all, hence Eru.

Iarwain Ben-adur (I think that's how it's spelled), the name given to him by elves, translates to 'Oldest and Fatherless.' As the oldest, he had no one above him. The Maiar had beings above them: Valar. Valar had someone above them, Eru. Eru had no one above him, therefore Tom is Eru. As Fatherless, that means that there is no one before him, there was no one that created him, he just exists. 

And, Eru did not remove the evil that sprang from his thought. He let it be. And he let it do what it wanted to do. The same with Tom & Old Man Willow. The only difference I can see here is that Tom helped Merry & Pippin out of the tree, when Eru did not do much to help his lesser beings against evil.

Please don't give me evidence for some other thing, until you rebuke what I've put forth. I've seen a lot of just spewing evidence without disproving any of it....


----------



## Goldberry344

er, ive said this in ever Tom Bombadil thread there is, i think, Tom just is, he's a great fairy tale character, I think that if you try to overanalyze him, he looses his wonder and magic.


----------



## Goro Shimura

> *
> Iarwain Ben-adur (I think that's how it's spelled), the name given to him by elves, translates to 'Oldest and Fatherless.' As the oldest, he had no one above him. The Maiar had beings above them: Valar. Valar had someone above them, Eru. Eru had no one above him, therefore Tom is Eru. As Fatherless, that means that there is no one before him, there was no one that created him, he just exists.
> *



Counterexample: Adam was fatherless, but he was not the Creator.

Children are not created by their human parents... they are "begotten."

Perhaps Adam and Iarwin were created by God but not begotten by a father....?


----------



## Thorin

Another point to consider against Tom being Eru, is that at the Council of Elrond, it was suggested that they give the ring to Tom and Gandalf said that he would not keep it, and wouldn't care about it....It was also said that if Sauron got the ring, even Bombadil would fall....

Eru not caring about the ring of Sauron, Melkor's servant?
Eru falling to Sauron??

I don't think so...


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Beorn _
> Well, being 'master' would be infact the creator of all, hence Eru.
> 
> Iarwain Ben-adur (I think that's how it's spelled), the name given to him by elves, translates to 'Oldest and Fatherless.'



_Iarwain_ ... may indeed include a superlative (old-est), or maybe mean 'Old-new' according to David Salo, compare _Narwain_ "New sun" (Sindarin *gwain) 

_Ben-adar_ (lenited from _*Pen-adar_ ... cf PEN 'lack, be without") "without father"

Anyway ... I dunno if anyone posted the following yet from _Letters_ but if not, into the mix (if so my apologies. Hey 16 pages!):

_"There is no 'embodiement' of the Creator anywhere in this story or Mythology."_ JRRT

_"The One does not physically inhabit any part of Eä." _ JRRT

_" ... the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outsde the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers."_ JRRT


----------



## Hanne

I think he was something like an Ent but older and different.


----------



## Beorn

Well, there is a new, and very convincing (however not entirely for me) essay on Tom Bombadil at The Grey Havens: Bombadil Discovered


----------



## LadyGaladriel

> _Originally posted by Aerin _
> *I don't want to seem ignorant of what you are talking about, but I have never tried to classify Tom Bombadill in any category. He never seems to entirely fit into any mold. Explaining Tom Bombadill to myself has always consisted of "Tom Bombadill is....Tom Bombadill!" *



Thats what i always think. He just seems to exsit. He has the love of his life with him so what should he care about . a ring that Sauron needs to enslave everyone ? Nah!! Course not. he seems to me like a jolly old fellow that gives enjoyment to millions like me.
Tom is the best! (aplaude's please!)Lol


----------



## Elfarmari

If I had to place Tom Bombadil as belonging to some race or being one person, I'd say he was Illuvatar (sp?) watching his creation and subtly helping some people. Since Tolkien explicitly stated that Tom Bombadil is NOT Illuvatar, I guess Ill have to accept it.  

If Tolkien had written down all is opinions on controversial topics (i.e. Balrogs wings, Tom Bombadil, the Two Towers, etc.), what would we discuss??


----------



## Elu Thingol

*Why doesn't Tom Bombadil turn invisible when he puts on the ring?*

I was wondering how come the ring has no effect on Tom Bombadil. Also, how come it seems that he has some sort of control over the ring. It is said that the ring has power over all living things so is Tom living? What exactly is Tom? Has he more power than Sauron? The ring doesn't even tempt him.


"It seemed to grow larger as it lay for a moment on his big brown-skinned hand. Then suddenly he put it to his eye and laughed....THen Tom put the Ring round the end of his little finger and held it up to the candlelight. For a moment the hobbits noticed nothing strange about this. Then they gasped. THere was no sign of Tom disappearing! Tom laughed again, and then he spun the RIng in the air and it vanished with a flash."


----------



## Eithne

well, during the council of elrond, someone (i think gandalf) says that the ring has no power over him; he's 'his own master'. so i think it just means that he's such a free spirit that it can't tempt him- and he doesn't care about gaining power. he just wants to be in his own house in the woods with goldberry, making his own way and not getting involved in the affairs of others. as for what he is, i have no idea. i think he just has the power of the earth in him... or something to that effect... well, this prolly didn't help, but hey, i tried right?


----------



## Gil-Galad

It's really hard to answer.It's believed that Tom is one of the Valar or Maia who stayed after The War of Wrath in ME.I suppose that Valar and Maiar are in power of the ring.For example when Frodo put the ring on his finger Sauron can see him and Sauron was Maia.I'm not sure whether my idea is correct but anyway......


----------



## Greenwood

Tolkien left Bombadil as an enigma. As such I don't think there can not be any real answer to the question other than Tolkien's own in the Council of Elrond:



> 'Could we not still send messages to him and obtain his help?' asked Erestor. 'It seems that he has a power even over the Ring.'
> 'No, I should not put it so,' said Gandalf. 'Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. ..... '


----------



## DRavisher

Why do you think that Tom is Valar? Gil-Galad. I just find i strange for a valar to settle down in a place and just sitt there. I think that Tom is just mysterious, something that we know nothing about, neither Valar nor Maiar.


----------



## Gil-Galad

Well it's said that after The War of Wrath some Valar and Maiar decided to stay in ME.Now I don't have much time to find where is written(cause I'm too lazy ),but I remember that fact.
Actually Tom has strenght which only a Maia or a Vala would have.There was a post about Tom and his wife and it was said Tom is Vala or Maia try to find it and read it.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Gil-Galad,
I honestly don't believe that Tom is one of the Ainur,he is IMO simply a spirit of the earth,something that was intended to exist
from the very beginning,similar to Ungoliant
And he certainly cannot be one of the Valar/Maiar who remained in ME after the War of Wrath(if indeed any did remain) because Tom states that he was already there when the Elves journeyed West (from Cuivienen),that he was there before the river and the trees and so on....
So Tom was there before any of the Ainur entered Arda.


----------



## Rangerdave

This is a good example of what I call the "what the factor"
Every writter worth his/her ink will intentionally put something in his/her work that causes the reader to step back and wonder. 

There are two reasons why nobody knows why the Ring does not effect Tom. 
1. Tolkien himself did not know.
or
2. He knew, but he's not telling. 

Personally I prefer #2. I like to think that he sat in his Oxford study and thought, "this'll get em".


RD


----------



## Arda's Bane

I personally think that bombadil is infact the (or an) incarnation of illuvatar there is quite alot of evidence to suggest thi. I wouldnt mind debating this with someone but i forsee it ending in a stalemate


----------



## faila

*Tom bombadil*

what, who is he? I saw an essay somewhere that said he was he one. What do you guys think? Ive always personally wondered what he was. Hes not that important in the story except to show that the ring does not have power over every one. But why does the ring not have power over him?


----------



## Ynhockey

I've read all the research on Bombadil, but not this topic... so forgive me if i say anything that was already said.

I have 3 theories:

1) He was one of the Dwarves of Aule, but was given life before all the other Dwarves. Perhaps this is unknows to everyone else because it was an Iluvatar-Aule only secret. This is only a weak theory though.

2) Bombadil was Melkor's first creation and the only good thing Melkor made (probably meant to assist Melkor in furthre creation). When he says "Before the 1st Dark Lord" he probably means that he was there BEFORE Melkor turned dark.

3) Bombadil was an offspring of Melkor's thought (also before he turned dark). He was perhaps created when Melkor sang not in harmony with everyone else and he was just... there... in the void. Until Arda was created.

Anyway, both of my stronger theories have to do with Melkor. IMO it's the only real reason to explain everything that was said in Tolkien's works... so, yeah.


----------



## JoesonofJim

*Tom in The movie??*

So why the hec wasn't Tom in the movie?? I know he doesn't have that much of an important part to the entire story....but still. Tom is damn cool.....I would have loved to see him in the Fellowship movie. Also, The Downs would have been cool too


----------



## Beorn

*Re: Tom in The movie??*



> _Originally posted by JoesonofJim _
> *So why the hec wasn't Tom in the movie?? I know he doesn't have that much of an important part to the entire story....but still. Tom is damn cool.....I would have loved to see him in the Fellowship movie. Also, The Downs would have been cool too *



Because Peter Jackson thought there wasn't enough time for him with everything else he had added in.


----------



## warrior of ice

tom bombadil is an enigmatic character that has no explanation but creats one of the most wonderful parts of the whole triology


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

*Tom Bombadil - Fasinating Fellow "Bright Blue His Jacket Is and His Boots Are Yellow"*

Ever since my dad read the Lord of the Rings trilogy to me, I have always had a fasination with the creature Tom Bombadil. He is probably the most unique character in LOTR. He is neither man nor hobbit nor elf nor wizard. Yet he obviously has a great deal of authority and power in a unique way. The ring has no hold over him. Laughter is his weapon and joy is his shadow. Some say he is ridiculous. I say he his cares do not way heavy on him and he finds pleasure in all aspects of his simple life.

What do you think about him?

~Ariana


----------



## Anamatar IV

not only did the ring have no power over him but he could see frodo even when he had the ring on. Id like to see a battle between sauron and bombadill.


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I don't think that Bombadil had the ability to fight off evil to that extent. But it is quite possible that he didn't have it because he didn't want it. Perhaps that is also why the ring had no sway over him, becuase he simply had no desire for it. It did not tempt him in the slightest.

~Ariana


----------



## Windfola

Tom Bombadil has always been one of my favorite LotR characters. I, too, find him fascinating, and I was sorry that he didn't make it into tFotR installment of the recent movie. I know that the writers had to eliminate a lot of the first volume for the sake of brevity, but Tom did play an important part in assisting the Hobbits on their journey to Bree. If he had not rescued them from Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs (and that dreadful Barrow Wight!), what might have become of our beloved Hobbits? (Speculation, I know.)

Anyway, Tom Bombadil is an intriguing character, and his dealings with the Hobbits make for some enjoyable reading! (And what about that Goldberry girl, eh?)


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I loved Goldberry as well. Perhaps I should start a thread about her. hmmmmmm ...

~Ariana


----------



## Windfola

I always wondered about Goldberry. In "The Tolkien Companion," she is called "a Water-sprite of the Old Forest; the bride of Tom Bombadil and daughter of the 'River-woman' of Withywindle."

Somehow, I didn't get (from tLotR) that she was Tom's wife. He seemed preoccupied somehow with the River Woman, so I always wondered if he and said River Woman had had a thing going on between them once.

What say ye?


----------



## pohuist

I believe that he was preoccupied with River daughter, who happens to be Goldberry. Yes, she is his bride (pick up the Adventures of Tom Bombadil).


----------



## Windfola

Thanks, Pohuist!

I haven't a copy of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, but I will certainly get one now!


----------



## Lady_of_Gondor

I also am a fan of Tom Bombadil. The one thing I find greatest about him is his mysteriousness. When reading the book (especially for the first time), many are struck by wonder when introduced to Tom. You, the reader, generally don't know what to make of him. And trying to figure out what part he plays in the story is as fun as he is himself. This is just me anyway. I like that he is a bit out there! Kinda like me!


----------



## Windfola

Yep, Tom is a bit of a trip--be-bopping around the Old Forest in those big yellow boots and wearing that tall hat with the blue feather sticking out of the band. And those songs!...

I don't know about you, but it makes ME want to cast away my troubles and cavort merrily through the woodlands!

Do Tom Bombadil's apparent eccentricities mask a much more serious purpose--one that we can only speculate about? Who, indeed, is Iarwain Ben-Adar? A wood-sprite? Or someone greater?

I don't have The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, so those of you who do--does that book relate anything of his beginnings?

Please tell all--I wait in quiet expectation....


----------



## Goldberry344

i havent read (nor do i own) the adventures of tom bombadil, but it is on my to do list. i've heard it does answer a substantial number of questions about him. including how the old fellow got hitched to Goldberry.... (i think it goes that she flirted with him and then he went back and wooed her, i dont remember, someone told me when i asked once)


----------



## Bombadillo

it needs no explanation that i am a great fan of tom B.
i have a copy of the adventures of tom bombadil, but i have to read it still, what i can say about the book is that its a collection of poems about tom b goldberry and a lot of stories about a lot of other things, in fact, only 2 stories go about tom.

tom is in my eyes the perfect being he has dropped everything nasty, greedyness, pride, even fear.
he just goes around and lives for ever... whe should all try to be like tom, he is the example of the perfect human being


----------



## pohuist

"The Adventures..." has only 2 poems about Tom, and yes Goldberry flirted with him and all. Unfortunately, it does not add anything about Tom, his origins, etc.


----------



## Goldberry344

that stinks. i'd really like to know what's up with him. but its kinda cool that jrrt doesnt say, it leaves the possibilities open.


----------



## pohuist

Encyclopaedia of Arda gives a lot of background and a link to an essay on some possibilities of his origins.


----------



## Windfola

Hey, pohuist...

What is the Encyclopaedia of Arda? I don't recall it, but it sounds interesting. Could you fill me in please? (Thanks in advance!)


----------



## Diamond Took

I was never really that fond of Tom Bombadil. although i did like goldberry, she was cool.

She reminded me somewhat of myself.


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

> whe should all try to be like tom, he is the example of the perfect human being



I disagree with you there. Tom had many admirable qualities, but in a way he was a bit selfish. He had great strength and ability and yet he did very little in aiding the council. He also was a bit foolish. Remember how Elrond said that if they sent the ring to Bombadil he would most likely forget it and lose it. As much as I love Tom Bombadil, I don't think he was perfect. If you want an example of the perfect human being who really existed look at Jesus Christ.

~Ariana


----------



## Bombadillo

tom bombadil has lost all greed and selfishness, even to the extrend that he doesn't care about safekeeping of things.

and i personally think that christ is not the perfect human beiing, in fact he isn't one.
i can't give you any reasons why i think so, i was reading the bible, but never made it to the new testament.

but Tom wasn't selfish, he just stopt caring about material matters, and so he isn't the best person to hide a ring with, but no person in ME was, is this such a great fault?


----------



## Ceorl

Check this link for a very good essay on the origins and meaning of Tom Bombadil:

"even in a mythological Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (Ibid., p. 174)

http://www.phil.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html


----------



## Lantarion

Windfola, the EoA (Ancyclopedia of Arda) is a very, very informative site indeed which has a considerable list of information on almost everything to be found in Tolkien's written works. Check it out!


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

> and i personally think that christ is not the perfect human beiing, in fact he isn't one.



Don't make a statement like that unless you are going to give reasons for your statement. 

I, believing that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth, say that Christ was the only perfect human being who ever existed. He never sinned and He was and is entirely selfless. He is the Son of God.

As for Tom Bombadil, I still say that he was not perfect. Also, he wasn't human, LOL. He was neither man nor hobbit. I believe he was a Maia, but I may be incorrect in that statement. Anyone know?

~Ariana


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Here is an interesting quote I found when I was browsing through The Fellowship of the Ring.

" 'Fair lady!' said Frodo again after a while. 'Tel me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil?'

'He is,' said Goldberry, staying her swift movements and smiling.

Frodo looked at her questioningly. 'He is, as you have seen him,' she said in answer to his look. 'He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.'

'Then all this strange land belongs to him?'
'No indeed!' she answered, and her smile faded. 'That would indeed be a burden,' she added in a low voice, as if to herself. 'The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves. Tom Bombadil is the Master. No one has ever caught old Tom walking in the forest, wading in the water, leaping on the hill tops under light and shadow. He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master.' "

~Ariana


----------



## Bombadillo

sorry, i know that i don't have any statements to prove my ideas, but it is just an idea in my mind about christ, who, ias i think also was like a mayer or istari, more than only a human being. but just let this subject rest.

but to my opinion Tom B. is an example of total happiness and freedom of mind and the parting mith anything material, exept love.
isn't this something bouddhists and hinduist have tried to reach for thousends of years?


----------



## ToDie4

Does Tolkien ever reveal the origins of Tom Bombadil? I am currently reading the Silmarillion and could find no mention of him, though with all of the name variants in Tolkien, I could have missed it. 

--Mike


----------



## Anamatar IV

hes probably not in the sil because thats mostly elf stuff. Ive wondered too what he is.


----------



## ToDie4

If Tom was a nature or earth spirit, wouldn't that make him (in all probablility) either a Maia or a Vala? Has Tolkien written anywhere of Illuvatar sending spirits to the earth that were not either Maia or Vala? Even if they ended up being something different later (like Olorin or Sauron) ?

--Mike


----------



## Anamatar IV

ask grond. He'll take the time to look through the exact right letter, the exact chapter in the exact right book and he'll post a quote so long that youll just have to beleive him.


----------



## Maeglin

I can't vote 

but anyway i was discussing this just the other day with my sister's boyfriend and i was gonna post this thread but telchar beat me to it.

Anyway I would say bombadil is a spirit of some kind put there by the valar in the beginning to help others in small ways when they need it, and to watch over everything. Hey does anyone think he'll be allowed to sail away into the west? I can't decide on that one.


----------



## LordofNumenor

When I first read LotR, I thought Tom was evil to start with. It was the way they had no idea of time in his home and he was so eager to try on the ring. Also, he was doing something while they were asleep and having nightmares. Once I got further into his part of the story, began to quite like him.


----------



## Gloer

*The Witchking of Angmar*

Tom and teh witchking are the same person. the witchking feels uncomfortable as evil servent of the Dark Lord and occasionally takes secret vacations with false identity, only Elrond is aware but in his wisdom keeps it secret.


----------



## Bombadillo

maybe i said it before, but i will say this again.
the link below shows a rather funny explanation of tom being the reader himself, its quite good. But beware, its rather exeedingly long but special.


bombadil discovered


----------



## Maeglin

*Re: The Witchking of Angmar*



> _Originally posted by Gloer _
> *Tom and teh witchking are the same person. the witchking feels uncomfortable as evil servent of the Dark Lord and occasionally takes secret vacations with false identity, only Elrond is aware but in his wisdom keeps it secret. *



If that is true then why did gandalf tell the hobbits that he wanted to speak to him again at the end of LOTR? But it is an interesting thought.


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Tom Bombadil is compared unto a Buddhist. Ugh! 

I do believe that Tom has reached a state of wonderful care freeness, but was he or was he not created that way in beginning? What is he anyway? Is he man, hobbit, maia, spirit, or is he perhaps someone unique and special without the need for an indentification?

~Ariana


----------



## Tyaronumen

> _Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel _
> *Tom Bombadil is compared unto a Buddhist. Ugh!
> 
> I do believe that Tom has reached a state of wonderful care freeness, but was he or was he not created that way in beginning? What is he anyway? Is he man, hobbit, maia, spirit, or is he perhaps someone unique and special without the need for an indentification?
> 
> ~Ariana *



Why the 'ugh'?

Tom Bombadil fits perfectly into the idea of a Buddhist master -- even to the degree that he cannot be placed into a category of Maiar, Human, etc.

Do you know much about Buddhism, or is your reaction based on "not-knowing" much about Buddhism?


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I am currently studying about a great deal of World Views including Buddhism. And what I do know about Buddhism is that they often talk in circles. For example they believe that Jesus Christ was a great person, and yet they deny that he is one with God. Well as Christ said that he is God, it shows that Buddhists call him a liar and yet they deny this as well. 

Actually the reason that I said ugh! was because Bombadil did not make me think of a Buddhist at all, and it does not really answer my question about who he really is.

~Ariana


----------



## Tyaronumen

> _Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel _
> *I am currently studying about a great deal of World Views including Buddhism. And what I do know about Buddhism is that they often talk in circles. For example they believe that Jesus Christ was a great person, and yet they deny that he is one with God. Well as Christ said that he is God, it shows that Buddhists call him a liar and yet they deny this as well.*



Sounds to me like you might not understand Buddhism completely (and who does? ). "They often talk in circles"... The point is to get you to see what is beyond the words, beyond just what is being said to "what is". 

I have never heard any Buddhists deny that Jesus Christ was one with God. In fact, one of the first precepts of Buddhism is that we are ALL "one with God" -- a very accurate perception, since we are all God's sons and daughters, and since we are all God's creations.

If I have heard a Buddhist ever say anything that could be perceived as negative about Christianity it was: "Don't believe everything you read, everything you're told." However, this was not specifically in the context of a discussion about Christianity -- but a general discussion about life in general. I just tend to believe that it applies just as well to Christianity as the rest of life.

Why should I believe in the Bible? I really have no reason to -- my belief in God comes from PERSONAL experiences, and PERSONAL observations, not because a book told me too.

That is not to say that a person can't read the Bible and experience God, but it is DEFINITELY to say that the Bible is not the exclusive key to Him, as far as I am concerned.

I really have no evidence that Christ said that he was God, nor that any Buddhists have called Christ "a liar"... if you read the Bible and consider this sufficient evidence -- then that is your choice and I certainly do not condemn it. But I do note that the Bible is a text written by human hands, that has been translated (by human hand) many, many times from the original Hebrew/Greek (depending on which parts of the scripture you're reading), and that these translators were under MUCH duress from their lieges (such as King James of England) to ensure that the Bible did NOT speak *too* overtly against the power structure. the changes were NOT great -- just the shifting of an adjective here or there to allow for a slightly different interpretation.

As such, while I might tend to believe that much in the Bible *is* true and accurate, it is also important to realize that there is a lot of 'spin' and interpretation going on there as well.

One of the beauties of Buddhism is that it teaches self-reliance. Don't believe that X is true just because it's been told to you. Find out for yourself! I think that that is a beautiful attitude, and one that early Christians (and this is revealed through Roman -historical- documentation) HEARTILY embraced. You don't find the institution of the church becoming so conservative and dogmatic until several hundred years after the death of Christ. In fact, you don't find any institution of the church at all until Jesus is "dead". Jesus himself doesn't advocate a church, etc. 

Anyhow, this is not meant to challenge your belief -- but to explain a different perspective that I honestly do not think that you understand. Buddhism is VERY different from Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. There is no concept that you must "worship God", there is no "dogma", there are NO REQUIREMENTS. The idea is that any way you can come to understand your place in God's universe is the RIGHT way for *YOU*. The many, many types of Buddhism are all various *devices* to help one attain that understanding, but the devices (burning incense, or the multitude of meditation techniques) are of themselves unimportant. One must be able to discard all that is NOT real/original in ourselves in order to discover that which is real -- which some would refer to as "God". This is not to say that Buddhist's believe "I am God" -- if you hear a Buddhist say that, they are merely acknowledging that "God created me, the Universe, everything. We are not separate from God, or the Universe, or any of it.".

If they happen to say it in a way that you don't understand, or don't agree with? That's okay, because the importance is NOT what is said, it's what lies in the meaning...

To a Buddhist, the idea that God would care whether we refer to Him as "God", "Allah", "Jehovah", "Vishnu", or "Chi-chi" is silly. The important thing is that one *reverance* whatsoever you call God -truly- from your -heart- and not from the cluttered bureau drawer of the mind. That one allow God to enter into one's life and not resist (as so many do).

Anyhow, this is just to try and explain a Buddhist perspective. *I* am not a Buddhist -- but not many people who understand Buddha's point about 'be a light unto yourself' would really bother to be a Buddhist. Or any other religion for that matter. 

To me, and to a Buddhist, it's all about "God" and our connection. How you get to that connection is irrelevant.




> *
> Actually the reason that I said ugh! was because Bombadil did not make me think of a Buddhist at all, and it does not really answer my question about who he really is.
> 
> ~Ariana *



*LAUGH* Then you really really could use more experience of Buddhists. Tom Bombadil's actions, speech, and deeds in the LotR are PURE ZAZEN!!! Now I would never insinuate, nor believe, that Tolkien did this intentionally, but that is the case.

Once again -- this is just to try and explain a bit about Buddhism's perspectives on things...


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Well, I must admit that you do appear to know more about Buddhism than I do. As I said before I am only learning. However, I would challenge you this. what do you believe? I believe that Bible is true and that even though it was written by the hands of men it was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in them. Therefore, even though the Bible has things that we do not always understand and tend to argue about, it is true. I also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and one with God. We are called the children of God because we were created by Him, but we are not His equals. We are sinners and unholy and unworthy to even stand in his presence. We deserve death and eternal separation from Him, but because He loves us, He died on the cross for us to pay for our sins. We can do nothing to save ourselves save to accept the free gift that He offers us. 

Thanks for the information about Buddhism, I will definately look farther into it.

~Ariana


----------



## Tyaronumen

> _Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel _
> *Well, I must admit that you do appear to know more about Buddhism than I do. As I said before I am only learning. However, I would challenge you this. what do you believe? I believe that Bible is true and that even though it was written by the hands of men it was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in them. Therefore, even though the Bible has things that we do not always understand and tend to argue about, it is true. I also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and one with God. We are called the children of God because we were created by Him, but we are not His equals. We are sinners and unholy and unworthy to even stand in his presence. We deserve death and eternal separation from Him, but because He loves us, He died on the cross for us to pay for our sins. We can do nothing to save ourselves save to accept the free gift that He offers us.
> 
> Thanks for the information about Buddhism, I will definately look farther into it.
> 
> ~Ariana *



Hi Ariana -- my beliefs are actually based on my personal observations and experiences, which means that what I profess is a pretty eclectic and odd assortment of ideas from across the philosophical/scientific/religious spectrum of thought. 

I can respect and appreciate your beliefs -- but must note that I personally have never had any experiences that lead me to believe that God believes us to be unworthy to stand in his presence, nor that we will receive any special punishment for closing our hearts and minds to God. My experience is that those who close their hearts and minds to God (or the Universe, Life, etc. He doesn't only go by the English moniker "God") are punishing themselves quite effectively enough.

I do find the idea that God would create us, breathe independence into us, and then condemn us for straying in our ignorance, somewhat hard to swallow -- but again that is just ME personally, and that based upon my personal experiences, which only encompass one human beings relatively short lifespan. 

I guess that I personally feel that God will simply put us into the same hard situations over and over again until we choose to overcome them by opening ourselves to Him/The Universe... I DO think that this is true in the context of our individual lifespans -- but I also would speculate that this might be the case after death as well (indicating reincarnation)... and this is backed up by the spectacular body of scientific evidence that I've gathered to . . . oh wait, no it isn't. I have no idea what happens when we die, obviously. 

I would agree with you that we are NOT His equals -- in the same sense that no part of a human body is the equal of the whole. But I would state that my personal (limited, but deep and meaningful!) spiritual experience is that the Creator is NOT separate from His Creation -- we are ALL "God" in our own way (in the same sense that a blood cell in your body is also "You" to some degree), and the sum of all of us is "God", "The Universe", "Existence", etc -- which is obviously somehow a much greater value than merely summing up all of the various bits. 

IMHO, it's not even possible for us to be separated from God -- not even for the slightest bare moment... even though it is quite possible for us to pretend that we are separate (which, IMHO, causes a lot of pain and suffering)...

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

> but must note that I personally have never had any experiences that lead me to believe that God believes us to be unworthy to stand in his presence, nor that we will receive any special punishment for closing our hearts and minds to God. My experience is that those who close their hearts and minds to God (or the Universe, Life, etc. He doesn't only go by the English moniker "God") are punishing themselves quite effectively enough.



Upon what do you base these beliefs? How do you know that what you are saying is true? 



> I do find the idea that God would create us, breathe independence into us, and then condemn us for straying in our ignorance, somewhat hard to swallow -- but again that is just ME personally, and that based upon my personal experiences, which only encompass one human beings relatively short lifespan.



Why is that hard to believe? When a good father has a son, he will teach him the right way to live. He lays down laws that he expects his son to follow. If the son does not follow them, then he will have to face the consequences. It is the same way with God. He created everyone and gave them instructions that can be found in the Bible. When people fail to follow those rules and guidelines then they and others suffer the consequences. God doesn't want His people to suffer, but nor is he a dictator who forces people to obey his every whim. He is gentleman, and gives us the right to choose if we will obey him or not. 





> guess that I personally feel that God will simply put us into the same hard situations over and over again until we choose to overcome them by opening ourselves to Him/The Universe... I DO think that this is true in the context of our individual lifespans -- but I also would speculate that this might be the case after death as well (indicating reincarnation)... and this is backed up by the spectacular body of scientific evidence that I've gathered to . . . oh wait, no it isn't. I have no idea what happens when we die, obviously.



What do you believe will happen to you when you die? I mean have you actually sat down and seriously thought about it? And if you haven't, don't you think you should? And if you believe in reincarnation, once again, how do you know that what you are saying is true?





> I would agree with you that we are NOT His equals -- in the same sense that no part of a human body is the equal of the whole. But I would state that my personal (limited, but deep and meaningful!) spiritual experience is that the Creator is NOT separate from His Creation -- we are ALL "God" in our own way (in the same sense that a blood cell in your body is also "You" to some degree), and the sum of all of us is "God", "The Universe", "Existence", etc -- which is obviously somehow a much greater value than merely summing up all of the various bits



What makes you think that we are all part of "God" "The Universe" etc? And what makes you think that the universe and God are all one thing? Is it not a possible concept that before there was time or life there was and still is an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the earth, the universe? It sounds to me that you have a very New Age view of life and "God".





> IMHO, it's not even possible for us to be separated from God -- not even for the slightest bare moment... even though it is quite possible for us to pretend that we are separate (which, IMHO, causes a lot of pain and suffering)...



So you believe that we suffer because we are pretending that we are separated from God? Upon what do you base this belief? Do you believe that you and I and the universe and all that exists are "God" as a whole but as separate units? 

Thank you for taking the time for such a drawn out reply. I hope you don't take offense by mine.

~Ariana


----------



## tom_bombadil

Bombadil and goldberry are by far the best charechters they are funny pleasent charecthers and toms songs always make me laugh.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Tom's (and Goldberry's for that matter) mysteriousness is the most appealing feature of his. Some people find him irritating and annoying but to me he's just swell.


----------



## Tyaronumen

> _Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel _
> *
> 
> Upon what do you base these beliefs? How do you know that what you are saying is true? *



Well, I base them upon real life experiences, and upon several years of intensive religious exploration (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Taoism)... 

How do I know that what I'm saying is true? Well, what I'm *SAYING* isn't true -- the words are just symbols that communicate in a limited fashion. Beyond the words is the meaning... trees throbbing with life, flowers of brightest shades, the beautiful melody of a spring day... In every day experiences, my way of living is validated.

As for my beliefs? Well, beliefs are tools. Use them while they are useful, while they resonate with meaning. When you've used them, and learned, and grown, often times, you then outgrow your beliefs, and acquire new ones to learn from, use, and outgrow...

So I wouldn't claim that my beliefs are true -- but my whole body resonates with the world around me, and I feel almost constantly in harmony with all of my surroundings. This in stark contrast to how I might have felt about things, say, 15 years ago.




> *
> Why is that hard to believe? When a good father has a son, he will teach him the right way to live. He lays down laws that he expects his son to follow. If the son does not follow them, then he will have to face the consequences. It is the same way with God. He created everyone and gave them instructions that can be found in the Bible. When people fail to follow those rules and guidelines then they and others suffer the consequences. God doesn't want His people to suffer, but nor is he a dictator who forces people to obey his every whim. He is gentleman, and gives us the right to choose if we will obey him or not. *



Well, having had a good father, I can tell you now that a good father doesn't just 'lay down the law'. A good father finds ways to help his children understand WHY the law is the way it is -- not just "Do this -- or you will BURN FOR ALL TIME." That's a bit of extremist parenting, if you ask me.

Now first of all: The Bible as a document did not exist when Jesus was alive, although the Old Testament itself was in existence in the Judaic religion. So are you saying that everyone who lived before the Bible was created (first instances of a -codified- Bible seem to come from Roman times -- several hundred years after Christ was crucified) is at this very moment burning in Hell? Isn't that a bit extreme, considering that there WAS no Bible to follow? How about the vast majority of humanity that WASN'T in Palestine to receive the Old Testament or the words of Christ, etc. during this era? Are THEY burning in Hell because God made them Chinese or Ameri-Indian instead of Semitic?

I just don't know that I can really believe that the Bible is God's ONLY communication to mankind. Especially considering that God's presence is OBVIOUS (well, at least to me ) in texts such as the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada.

God IS a Gentleman (and a Lady, I suspect ) -- and gentlemen don't condemn you to eternal damnation with no chance of redemption. A gentleman is inclined to give an individual a chance to learn from his/her mistakes, and to make redress in the world with his/her improved perspective on life...




> *What do you believe will happen to you when you die? I mean have you actually sat down and seriously thought about it? And if you haven't, don't you think you should? And if you believe in reincarnation, once again, how do you know that what you are saying is true?*



I *definitely* have SERIOUSLY contemplated death, not to mention having witnessed it in several less than savoury circumstances. 

The only scientific and valid conclusion one can have about death is "I don't know", however. As I said before, I have no idea really what happens when we die, and even if I *would* be inclined to believe in reincarnation, or the Heaven/Hell dichotomy, I would have no basis on which to claim it to be truth.

Actually, I think that death is a great mystery... I have watched people as they pass from this life, and it is a *great* mystery. I have seen my grandfather, whom I roomed with until his death, slip away peacefully into the night, and I've seen a person decapitated on a motorcycle when the guy had to slam on his brakes because a car cut him off (the biker wasn't exactly driving "smart", either -- WAY too fast in traffic) and he flew off and hit the freeway guard rail... My aunt died from a brain tumor and her ashes are now in the Atlantic...

With my Grandfather, he heard my Grandma Bella calling to him, and he said, "Coming, dear..." and passed away. I'm inclined to "believe" that she DID come for him, with the grace of God... but I don't KNOW, of course! 

Scientifically, there is far more to indicate that we simply go to the dirt when we die... of course, science grows, changes, evolves as we learn more about the universe, so it may come to be that it is just as likely that we go to Heaven/Hell, or are reincarnated once we discover some scientific 'key log' that allows us to explore these concepts more...

But I just don't really know...! I *HAVE* experienced real ghosts, but do I know how to explain them...? Are they really *spirits* of people, or maybe echoes, or is my brain interpreting a natural force that it can't quite comprehend in the only way it can...?

I just don't know. 




> *
> What makes you think that we are all part of "God" "The Universe" etc? And what makes you think that the universe and God are all one thing? Is it not a possible concept that before there was time or life there was and still is an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the earth, the universe? It sounds to me that you have a very New Age view of life and "God".*



I don't think it -- I experience it, feel it. Live it. I would say that it is NOT a possible (or at least: probable) concept that before there was time (a false concept in and of itself based upon our limited comprehension of 4 dimensions of multi-dimensional space) or life that there was an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the Earth, the Universe.

First of all, there IS the Universe. The scientific concept of the Universe is that it encompasses *ALL*. By definition, this includes God. So therefore, even if "in the beginning", there was "just" God, then we would say that "God is the Universe". If God creates everything else, etc... "God is STILL the universe -- and so is the rest of it too."

God IS the Universe. The Universe IS the Universe. The Universe IS God.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the utter mess of New Age religious belief. It is -scientific observation- of external and internal influences of life. A very personal experience that I am communicating to you. 



> *So you believe that we suffer because we are pretending that we are separated from God? Upon what do you base this belief? Do you believe that you and I and the universe and all that exists are "God" as a whole but as separate units?
> 
> Thank you for taking the time for such a drawn out reply. I hope you don't take offense by mine.
> 
> ~Ariana *



All indications lead me to the understanding that human suffering is based upon a false sensation of isolation that is utterly ridiculous. You are never any more alone -- or NOT alone -- than you were at any given moment in the past, present, or future. 

Many people who "believe" in God can actually tell you of no experiences of God... and many people who "don't believe" in God can tell you of experiences that were quite "sacred"...

What's going on here? What is going on is that every sunrise is an ABSOLUTE miracle that almost *demands* our participation. Every flower that opens. Every child that speaks it's first word...

These are MIRACLES, and are no less significant than someone who walks on water, or creates much from little. To experience these miracles with a truly open heart -- one at that moment touches God.

Most of us don't understand this, so we start taking things like the Big Dipper, ice cream, good music, the United States, etc. for granted... we allow our mental construct to create a programmed response, instead of giving our all and getting it all in return.

Likewise, war, pain, famine, murder -- doom. These are all likewise from God, and are likewise miraculous, albeit terrible from the human perspective.

Yes, my experiences lead me to feel that you and I, and everything else, are all little bitsy-witsies of God all "playing together" in the universe. God IS the Alpha and the Omega -- and everything in between.

But WE make up the bits of God in between. And why that is, I don't know, and what the point is, I don't know, but that is certainly my -personal- experiences to this point.

Peace to you, and all.


----------



## Theoden

Hi, Tyaronumen! I was just reading this debate that you and Ariana are having and was going to add my two cents worth in. Hope you two don't mind. 



> _Originally posted by Tyaronumen _
> *
> How do I know that what I'm saying is true? Well, what I'm *SAYING* isn't true -- the words are just symbols that communicate in a limited fashion. *



I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but I must admit I am lost. Why would you state that what you are saying is not true? I understand your next statement but I do not see it validating this one... could you explain? 



> *
> ... In every day experiences, my way of living is validated.*



What are you basing your standard for living on? On every day experiences? Is any person's life validated simpy by their everyday experiences? 




> *
> ...beliefs are tools. Use them while they are useful, while they resonate with meaning. When you've used them, and learned, and grown, often times, you then outgrow your beliefs, and acquire new ones to learn from, use, and outgrow.*



So having a belief in anything is just a step in the ladder... an ever on-going evolution of thoughts that changes and grows as the mind grows. This is what I understood from your statement above. What happens, then, to the beliefs that "resonate with meaning"? The meaning becomes void once we have learned all we can from it? Why then did we spend the time to believe those beliefs that resonated with meaning if the moment we've grown and learned what we can, we "outgrow" them? 



> * I wouldn't claim that my beliefs are true.*



You have eternity at stake here and you are not even willing to go as far as to claim that your beliefs are true?



> *...having had a good father, I can tell you now that a good father doesn't just 'lay down the law'. A good father finds ways to help his children understand WHY the law is the way it is -- not just "Do this -- or you will BURN FOR ALL TIME." That's a bit of extremist parenting, if you ask me.[B/]*


*

I do not doubt that you had a good father. In fact, you might have had the best father any young person could have asked for. But your father was not God, nor was he omnipotent or omnipresent, nor could he step outside of time and look at eternity as a whole. Ariana seems to be a Christian and if I understand Christianity correctly, this is true for God. So, comparing your father to Ariana's God is a little steep. Besides that point, I have read the Bible, and although there is some blind obedience asked of people, more so than not, God seems to have had some good reasons for saying what He did. If you had read the Bible, you might have also noticed this. 





 The Bible as a document did not exist when Jesus was alive, although the Old Testament itself was in existence in the Judaic religion. So are you saying that everyone who lived before the Bible was created (first instances of a -codified- Bible seem to come from Roman times -- several hundred years after Christ was crucified) is at this very moment burning in Hell? Isn't that a bit extreme, considering that there WAS no Bible to follow? How about the vast majority of humanity that WASN'T in Palestine to receive the Old Testament or the words of Christ, etc. during this era? Are THEY burning in Hell because God made them Chinese or Ameri-Indian instead of Semitic?

Click to expand...


Wonderful question! In fact, I think this is one that gets Christians tripped up alot. I would love to answer it, but in order for me to do so, you will have to answer this question of mine: What will you accept as evidence?




 I don't know that I can really believe that the Bible is God's ONLY communication to mankind. Especially considering that God's presence is OBVIOUS (well, at least to me ) in texts such as the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada.

Click to expand...


So you are saying that because it is "OBVIOUS" to you that God is present in ALL of these books, that makes it so? Even when books like these contradict each other? I am sorry, but if "God" really was present in ALL of these books, I think I could pitch "God" out the window for being a lier.




God IS a Gentleman (and a Lady, I suspect ) -- and gentlemen don't condemn you to eternal damnation with no chance of redemption. A gentleman is inclined to give an individual a chance to learn from his/her mistakes, and to make redress in the world with his/her improved perspective on life...

Click to expand...


You have made the statement several times that you really don't KNOW what truth is or that if what you are saying is true (in fact you denied it), so to make a statement like the one above seems a little odd and out of character. As for as "gentlemen" are concerned, have you ever encountered any gentleman who could span the entire universe in the palm of his hand, or simply speak creation into existence??? Neither have I, so I would not be so hasty as to lable God a "gentleman". Is He gentle? YES. Is He a "He"? YES. God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation. We condemn ourselves. He created us all with the divine ability of a thing called "choice". And He did provide a way of redemption... He came down in the form of a man and lived among men and died by the hands of those He had created. He also rose from the dead and conquered death so that those of us that CHOOSE Him, would have a way of escaping eternal damnation. So in a way, you are right. God does not condemn anyone.





The only scientific and valid conclusion one can have about death is "I don't know", however. As I said before, I have no idea really what happens when we die, and even if I *would* be inclined to believe in reincarnation, or the Heaven/Hell dichotomy, I would have no basis on which to claim it to be truth.

Click to expand...


No, you wouldn't have any solid conclusions because you only believe what you beleive until you have decided it no longer "resonates with meaning". 




With my Grandfather, he heard my Grandma Bella calling to him, and he said, "Coming, dear..." and passed away. I'm inclined to "believe" that she DID come for him, with the grace of God... 

Click to expand...


Here you referred to God as a personal someone who could give grace...




God IS the Universe. The Universe IS the Universe. The Universe IS God.

Click to expand...


...And here you refer to Him as everthing... impersonal and vague. What is your evidence for making the statement above? That is a pretty definite conclusion to come to, especially when you claim you do not know what is truth.




I don't think it -- I experience it, feel it. Live it. I would say that it is NOT a possible (or at least: probable) concept that before there was time (a false concept in and of itself based upon our limited comprehension of 4 dimensions of multi-dimensional space) or life that there was an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the Earth, the Universe.

Click to expand...


I agree. It is because of the fact that I am only the CREATION and not the CREATOR that I cannot comprehend it. I am limited in my dinky little brain... I cannot fathom SCIENTIFICALLY a God who can exist outside of time and space and who has the past, present, and future in His hands. That is simply too much. That is why He gave us a little gift called faith. 
By FAITH...




All indications lead me to the understanding that human suffering is based upon a false sensation of isolation that is utterly ridiculous. You are never any more alone -- or NOT alone -- than you were at any given moment in the past, present, or future.

Click to expand...


A soldier in a POW camp who is starving is suffering only because he has a false sensation of isolation? 




Likewise, war, pain, famine, murder -- doom. These are all likewise from God, and are likewise miraculous, albeit terrible from the human perspective.

Click to expand...


No. these things are not from God and I will debate this issue till the cows come home if you want to. God did not intend for there to be War and Sickness and Hunger and Pain on this Earth. But Man messed things all up. As a result of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden, we have a corrupt and filthy world that is steeped in evil. That is why there is suffering. We brought it on ourselves.




Yes, my experiences lead me to feel that you and I, and everything else, are all little bitsy-witsies of God all "playing together" in the universe. God IS the Alpha and the Omega -- and everything in between.

Click to expand...


You can "feel" like the earth is square or that the Sun is the biggest star in the sky or that eating ice cream day in and day out is healthy, but that does not make any of it true. TRUTH is absolute and so it cannot simply be felt. It is.




Peace to you, and all.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but there is no peace in uncertainty. You have stated that you do not know what is truth, or what happens when you die, or what God is, or what on earth we are doing here on this earth... there is no peace in any of that. True peace lies in the assurance that Christ died for every soul and then rose again from the grave. True peace is resting with in God's plan for your life and holding on to Him... because He is the only thing that was always there, and that will always be there for you. 

So I would ask you to think about what you yourself have said about what you believe and decide what is TRUTH... your eternity hangs on that decision. 

-me*


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I agree whole heartedly with Theoden.

~Ariana


----------



## Tyaronumen

> _Originally posted by Theoden _
> *I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but I must admit I am lost. Why would you state that what you are saying is not true? I understand your next statement but I do not see it validating this one... could you explain? *



Because words are imperfect, and cannot completely communicate 'reality' or 'truth'. The word 'orange', when referring to the fruit, points you to the idea of a spherical object with a somewhat pitted surface that you peel to reveal a fruit within that has wedge-shaped pieces, etc. etc. Basically, the word 'orange' only indicates meaning, and only contains meaning because of our common vocabulary. But the word does not necessarily have meaning in and of itself. That's why I wouldn't say that I'm stating 'the truth'. There are many ways to state 'the truth' that are equally valid or invalid, using different combinations of words that approximate meaning.

What I'm really trying to say is that I make no special claim that my particular combination of symbols, words, etc. is any more true than any other combination of symbols, words, etc. 





> *What are you basing your standard for living on? On every day experiences? Is any person's life validated simpy by their everyday experiences? *



I would say so. To me, it is more valid to self-evaluate to judge how successful one's personal life choices are for oneself than to try to fit into a cookie-cutter template from the psychiatrist, books, etc. 

Obviously, there will be some who feel that their life choices are VERY valid for themselves, even though many others may feel that their choices are very wrong... that is one of the quandries of life.




> *So having a belief in anything is just a step in the ladder... an ever on-going evolution of thoughts that changes and grows as the mind grows. This is what I understood from your statement above. What happens, then, to the beliefs that "resonate with meaning"? The meaning becomes void once we have learned all we can from it? Why then did we spend the time to believe those beliefs that resonated with meaning if the moment we've grown and learned what we can, we "outgrow" them? *



If the meaning becomes void, then so be it. If the belief continues to be of service in your life, providing a framework for operating, etc., than so be it. 

Why ask why? People believe what they believe in -- there is not necessarily a *good* reason for it. But it is certainly possible to have new experiences that help one to realize that certain beliefs are valid, not valid, or lead to new beliefs, or back to old ones, etc.





> *You have eternity at stake here and you are not even willing to go as far as to claim that your beliefs are true?*



In the face of eternity, it is hubris to claim such. Just because everything that I personally have experienced indicates that my experiences are valid (and that, only personally) does not give me the right to claim that my experiences and beliefs are 'true' or 'the truth'.





> *I do not doubt that you had a good father. In fact, you might have had the best father any young person could have asked for. But your father was not God, nor was he omnipotent or omnipresent, nor could he step outside of time and look at eternity as a whole. Ariana seems to be a Christian and if I understand Christianity correctly, this is true for God. So, comparing your father to Ariana's God is a little steep. Besides that point, I have read the Bible, and although there is some blind obedience asked of people, more so than not, God seems to have had some good reasons for saying what He did. If you had read the Bible, you might have also noticed this. *



Hey -- Ariana compared God to a 'good father'. I just ran with it.

As for 'stepping outside of time', how can you step outside of something that doesn't exist in the physical universe outside of mankind's perception of the progression of events? Scientifically, the concept of 'time' that we humans commonly carry around simply does not exist.

If you can look at eternity as a whole, then you are not looking at 'eternity', you are looking at something else.

I HAVE read the Bible -- thank you very much -- and have noticed an awful lot of blind obedience being asked for, also. A lot of the 'good reasons' are left unsaid for your local pastor to interpret.




> *Wonderful question! In fact, I think this is one that gets Christians tripped up alot. I would love to answer it, but in order for me to do so, you will have to answer this question of mine: What will you accept as evidence?*



To be fair, I don't know. I generally will entertain as evidence anything that has some sort of factual, observable base. 

I'm definitely interested in what you answer, though...!





> *So you are saying that because it is "OBVIOUS" to you that God is present in ALL of these books, that makes it so? Even when books like these contradict each other? I am sorry, but if "God" really was present in ALL of these books, I think I could pitch "God" out the window for being a lier.*



Hmmm -- instead of realizing that God's interpreters simply write in the same context that they live...?



> *You have made the statement several times that you really don't KNOW what truth is or that if what you are saying is true (in fact you denied it), so to make a statement like the one above seems a little odd and out of character. As for as "gentlemen" are concerned, have you ever encountered any gentleman who could span the entire universe in the palm of his hand, or simply speak creation into existence??? Neither have I, so I would not be so hasty as to lable God a "gentleman". Is He gentle? YES. Is He a "He"? YES. God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation. We condemn ourselves. He created us all with the divine ability of a thing called "choice". And He did provide a way of redemption... He came down in the form of a man and lived among men and died by the hands of those He had created. He also rose from the dead and conquered death so that those of us that CHOOSE Him, would have a way of escaping eternal damnation. So in a way, you are right. God does not condemn anyone.*



I don't think it's odd, nor out of character. I'm speaking from my own experiences of things -- and make the careful caveat that my own experiences are NOT synonymous with an objective 'truth', necessarily, and that I have no desire of representing it as such.

My experience of God is that (S)He is a gentle-person. Your mileage may vary.

I agree with you when you say that God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation. I also agree with you that we condemn ourselves.

However, nothing I've experienced leads me to believe that He came down as just ONE man, nor that this one man rose from the dead, etc. In fact, *scientific* knowledge makes it quite clear that Jesus 'died' *FAR* more quickly than anyone else being crucified in such a fashion in those days (according to Roman information, it took around 3 days to die by crucification), so I would tend to wonder whether he was actually dead in the first place.

Also no indication that there is eternal damnation/reward -- any more than there is an indication that there is reincarnation, or nothing at all...

So I can't really comment on those.

NOTE: This reply got a bit long, so I had to split it into two parts!!


----------



## Tyaronumen

> _Originally posted by Theoden _
> 
> Part II
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Here you referred to God as a personal someone who could give grace...
> 
> 
> 
> ...And here you refer to Him as everthing... impersonal and vague. What is your evidence for making the statement above? That is a pretty definite conclusion to come to, especially when you claim you do not know what is truth.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a -personal- conclusion. It is my experience. Now, chances are that I was slipped 500 mikes of LSD when I was born, and that everything I've experienced to this point in life has been one long acid-trip, and that I'm actually only one week old and still in the infant care ward while they try to figure out why my pupils are dilated to the size of my forehead. If that were the case, then certainly, my experience would probably be entirely *false*.
> 
> So I won't say that I know the truth. Just what I have experienced. The two are NOT necessarily synonymous. Most people fail to make this distinction.
> 
> In my personal experience, God is both quite personal, as well as impersonal. Very detailed, and very vague. Quite a contradiction -- unless you consider the notion that God encompasses the entire universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree. It is because of the fact that I am only the CREATION and not the CREATOR that I cannot comprehend it. I am limited in my dinky little brain... I cannot fathom SCIENTIFICALLY a God who can exist outside of time and space and who has the past, present, and future in His hands. That is simply too much. That is why He gave us a little gift called faith.
> By FAITH...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith is well and good -- but to conceive of something that can exist outside of 'time' is to try and propose that 'time' itself exists as anything other than an expedient concept of day-to-day living, as opposed to 'merely' being the 4th axis for communicating relationships between objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A soldier in a POW camp who is starving is suffering only because he has a false sensation of isolation? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL -- according to Siddhartha, yes.
> 
> I would amend my statement to say 'emotional suffering', or 'non-physical' suffering, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No. these things are not from God and I will debate this issue till the cows come home if you want to. God did not intend for there to be War and Sickness and Hunger and Pain on this Earth. But Man messed things all up. As a result of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden, we have a corrupt and filthy world that is steeped in evil. That is why there is suffering. We brought it on ourselves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *snort* Well, our mutual views on the matter are clear -- why debate it? Obviously, we disagree. You refer to God as 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', and 'omnipresent'. If so, then whatsoever occurs does so because God wills it. An all powerful, all knowing, all present being doesn't encounter situations that He 'did not intend'.
> 
> It also would seem strange to me that the actions of two individuals thousands of years ago have, apparently, 'condemned' billions to the world as it is today. That's not exactly bringing it onto ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You can "feel" like the earth is square or that the Sun is the biggest star in the sky or that eating ice cream day in and day out is healthy, but that does not make any of it true. TRUTH is absolute and so it cannot simply be felt. It is.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth *IS* absolute -- and can only be experienced. What I feel of God is MY experience. You can challenge it, repudiate it, etc. all that you like -- you cannot invalidate my personal experience of God.
> 
> The true beauty of my spiritual understanding is that it is not based merely upon reading, or being told, etc. It's based upon MY personal experience, and it's validation or lack thereof is completely independent of someone/something elses' 'buy-in'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am sorry, but there is no peace in uncertainty. You have stated that you do not know what is truth, or what happens when you die, or what God is, or what on earth we are doing here on this earth... there is no peace in any of that. True peace lies in the assurance that Christ died for every soul and then rose again from the grave. True peace is resting with in God's plan for your life and holding on to Him... because He is the only thing that was always there, and that will always be there for you. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL -- I'm sorry too Theoden. Sorry that you're wrong about me! I AM uncertain about a LOT of things, but I'm not uncertain about being at peace with myself, my decisions, and my life.
> 
> So do I spend my life in serene contemplation of the universe...? Well, actually, yes!  I work, I ride my motorcycle, I hang out with friends, I get the flu, I go to sleep, etc. Through it all, there is a serene core within that is always one-on-one with my Maker.
> 
> What can I say? I've known MANY Christians who had nothing resembling 'true peace', nor claim it. I've also known a couple of Christians who were absolutely at peace with themselves and their lives. Haven't seen anything to indicate that Christianity has a monopoly on 'true peace', though...
> 
> I do have to note, however, that I do rest within God's plan for my life, and, as I said, always keep my connection with Him going strong. To me, that is independent of the whole issue of Christ, Christianity, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So I would ask you to think about what you yourself have said about what you believe and decide what is TRUTH... your eternity hangs on that decision.
> 
> -me *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to just up and decide 'this is the truth'! Experiences in life are the only real glimpses of truth that we have. For me to take a conglomeration of OTHERS' experiences, cobble them together, and say 'this is the TRUTH', would require me to completely discard an awful lot of objectivity.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


----------



## WizardKing

*who is tom babmaldi?*

who is he , i keep hearing about him?


----------



## Mablung

He was the one who the Hobbits met in the old forest.


----------



## Legolam

And you're probably going to want to call him Tom Bombadil around here


----------



## Beorn

First off, it's Tom Bombadil.

TB is a character that is an enigma in Middle-earth. He lives in the Old Forest, which was in the beginning of FotR. He helps the Hobbits, and gives them food.


----------



## *Lady Arwen*

So you haven't read the book.


TB lives with Goldberry. The hobbits spend 2 night at TB's.


----------



## fingolfin_1987

i voted for other because to me he seems like a mix of each.


----------



## Beorn

I find in interesting that this was never mentioned:

Gandalf was a Maia, and he couldn't see Bilbo or Frodo with the ring on:


> He walked briskly back to his hole, and stood for a moment listening with a smile to the din in the pavilion and to the sounds of merrymaking in other parts of the field. Then he went in. He took off his party clothes, folded up and wrapped in tissue-paper his embroidered silk waistcoat, and put it away. Then he put on quickly some old untidy garments, and fastened round his waist a worn leather belt. On it he hung a short sword in a battered black-leather scabbard. From a locked drawer, smelling of moth-balls, he took out an old cloak and hood. They had been locked up as if they were very precious, but they were so patched and weatherstained that their original colour could hardly be guessed: it might have been dark green. They were rather too large for him. He then went into his study, and from a large strong-box took out a bundle wrapped in old cloths, and a leather-bound manuscript; and also a large bulky envelope. The book and bundle he stuffed into the top of a heavy bag that was standing there, already nearly full. Into the envelope he slipped his golden ring, and its fine chain, and then sealed it, and addressed it to Frodo. At first he put it on the mantelpiece, but suddenly he removed it and stuck it in his pocket. At that moment the door opened and Gandalf came quickly in.
> 'Hullo!' said Bilbo. 'I wondered if you would turn up.'
> 'I am glad to find you visible,' replied the wizard, sitting down in a chair, 'I wanted to catch you and have a few final words. I suppose you feel that everything has gone off splendidly and according to plan?'


Source: A Long Expected Party


Tom B could see Frodo...but Gandalf couldn't....

What does everyone else think of this? 
Just to add some fuel to the fire, and get this thread moving again.

P.S. Cian, please PM me


----------



## BlackCaptain

In a "Characters from Tolkien" book, wich is pretty much an encyclopedia of Tolkiens works, under the topic of Maiar, it sais:



> Many other good and strong spirits came to inhabit Middle-earth. These were perhaps Maiar, like Kelian, yet from the histories this cannot now be learned. Chief of these, in the tales of Middle-earth , is he whom the Grey-elves named Iarwain Ben-adar wich means both "old" and "without father" By Dwarves he was named Forn, by Men Orald, and by Hobbits he was called Tom Bombadil. He was a very strange and merry spirit. He was a short, stout Man, with blue eyes, red face and brown beard. He wore a blue coat, and a tall battered hat with a blue feather, and great yellow boots. Always singing or speakin in rhymes, he seemed a nonsensical and eccentric being, yet he was absolute master of the Old Forrest of Eriador where he lived, and no evil within the World was strong enough to touch him within his realm.



He was therefor a Maiar, but with an unknown past.


----------



## BlackCaptain

and i didnt mean to put "Kelian" but rather, "Melian"


----------



## Maeglin

who wrote the book that you got that quote from? because if it wasn't Tolkien himself or his son or someone else he was very close to, I don't believe it, I think that a lot of things put in books related to Tolkien's works but not actually written by him or his son have made up things in it, they are unreliable.


----------



## Beorn

Yes, that's probably just the opinion of the author. Tolkien even said that Tom B was an enigma. We're left to guess.


----------



## *Lady Aragorn*

well, i think it would help if i read the book. because i have no idea who he is!!


----------



## Elfarmari

*Re: The Witchking of Angmar*



> _Originally posted by Gloer _
> *Tom and teh witchking are the same person. the witchking feels uncomfortable as evil servent of the Dark Lord and occasionally takes secret vacations with false identity, only Elrond is aware but in his wisdom keeps it secret. *


I found this theory under 'Crackpot Tolkien Theories' on _The Tolkien Sarcasm Page_ :

The Truth about Tom Bombadil
From a rec.arts.books.tolkien posting dated 3 May 1996.
At last, the mystery of Tom Bombadil's identity has been solved.
Ready?
Tom Bombadil and the Witch-king of Angmar are the same person.
1. We never hear of Tom at all during the whole of the First Age. The Nine Rings aren't forged until the Second Age. QED.
2. You never see the two of them together.
3. In the first part of Fellowship of the Ring, the Nazgul are sent to the Shire to look for the wandering Baggins. Interestingly, Tom says to Frodo at the dinner-table: "...I was waiting for you. We heard news of you, and learned that you were wandering... But Tom had an errand there, that he dared not hinder" (Fellowship p.137 hardback, emphasis mine: note the fear Tom has of his master, Sauron!).
4. In Tom's questioning of the Hobbits, JRRT notes that "there was a glint in his eyes when he heard of the Riders." (Fellowship p. 144) I think he was concerned that his double-life might have been noticed. Interestingly, Tom immediately changes the subject of conversation!
Furthermore, the One Ring had no effect on Tom - which seems consistent with Tolkien's observations about how the Nazgul would have handled the same priceless object (Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #246): "They were... in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring."
5. It's also interesting to note that Tom could see Frodo clearly while Frodo was wearing the Ring (Fellowship p. 144 hardback) - just as the Witch-king could see Frodo clearly while he was wearing the Ring at Weathertop! (Fellowship p. 208 hardback)
6. Perhaps most damning, however, is the incident with the Barrow-wights (Fellowship pp. 151-155), where Tom - with nothing more than a few simple words (p. 154) - commands the Barrow-wight to leave. And it does, without argument. Why would the Wight be so completely under Tom's control? Because in his alternate guise as the Witch-king of Angmar, Tom ordered the Wight to inhabit the barrow in the first place! Turning to Return of the King, Appendix A, p. 321, "evil spirits out of Angmar... entered into the deserted mounds and dwelt there." Obviously the Witch-king was reponsible for sending the wights there; just as obviously, the Witch-king (disguised as Tom) would be capable of ordering them to leave!
(This is related to another passage, which has since been brought to my attention. On Fellowship page 158 hardback, Tom is guiding the Hobbits back towards the Road when he gazes towards the borders of Cardolan. "Tom said that it had once been the boundary of a kingdom, but a very long time ago. He seemed to remember something sad about it, and would not say much." Since Tom, as the Witch-king, was the one who destroyed the kingdom of Cardolan, it's little wonder that he wouldn't say much about his involvement. Perhaps his remembering "something sad" reveals some remorse at being the instrument of Cardolan's destruction...?)
...Yep: I think we have an airtight case here. 
...It's worth noting that, after the Witch-king was dead, Gandalf said he was "going to have a long talk with Bombadil" (Return of the King, p. 275). Curiously, he never tells anyone about the meeting later... and he's right there at the Grey Havens at the end of the book, undelayed it seems by long conversation. I think we can therefore theorize that Gandalf made it to the Old Forest, but that Tom (once the so-called "Witch-king" had died) was nowhere to be found!
...Of course, all this brings up the curiosity of motive. What would make the Witch-King of Angmar sport such a double identity? I suppose that the Witch-king, once of proud Numenorean ancestry, felt trapped by the guise of evil which Sauron had tricked him into, and in the fullness of time forged this alternate identity for himself so that he could occasionally feel happy, helpful, noble, and more at one with himself and his lineage. The situation is perhaps analagous to a crossdresser who, feeling trapped in a man's body, would occasionally assume the identity of a woman. It therefore makes sense that the Witch-king's other identity would be so peculiarly enigmatic, and perhaps sheds light on JRRT's observation in Letters #144: "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
...Who else would be aware of Tom's double-life, I wonder? Since Tom repeatedly claims to have been around "before the river and the trees", and indeed even claims to be older than the Ents (Fellowship p. 142), surely the eldest of the Elves would know he was lying. Elrond plays along with Tom in public, being kind enough not to reveal his secret, but also seems to know that Tom and the Witch-king are one and the same; hence his refusal to give the Ring to Tom for safekeeping (Fellowship p. 278-9): "Power to defy the Enemy is not in him."


----------



## redline2200

If Tom is the witch-king, then why didn't he take the ring from Frodo when he saw that Frodo had it? The only purpose of the existence of the Nazgul is to OBTAIN THE RING. He would have surely taken it when tempted with it. I mean come on, you can't really believe that Tom Bombadil is the second most evil thing in all of Middle-earth! What would Tolkien say if he heard this??


----------



## Elfarmari

I don't seriously think this, it's just an amusing theory that is meant to be a joke (hence 'Sarcasm page' and 'crackpot theories').


----------



## redline2200

Yeah...........you are right, I am an idiot.
I was in a hurry when I read it, and failed to see the context in which it was said. Sorry about that


----------



## olorin the maia

I sort of like the idea of Tom B. being a manifestation of Manwe. Sort of keeping an eye on things in Middle-earth, but refusing to influence or take part in the political struggles.
Gandalf refers to him as "a moss-gatherer, while I have been a stone doomed to rolling," or words to that effect. And the Grey Wanderer then says that they will have much to say to one another. Olorin reporting back to his Superior, but in human form? Just a thought......


----------



## redline2200

Many of you may have seen this is already but here is a very interesting argument on the origin of Bombadil:

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html 

It links Bombadil to Aule, the Vala. I thought this was obsurd until I read this article, and if you are really interested in Tom and Goldberry then I would HIGHLY recommend reading this. It has some very interesting things to say about Tolkien and why he did not tell us who Bombadil really is.


----------



## Elendil01

*What is Tom Bombadil*

I know who he is but don't know what he is. Could someone please tell Me?


----------



## Mirabella

According to whom you ask, Tom (and by association Goldberry) is either Vala, Maia, nature spirit or none of the above. Tolkien himself said Tom was an enigma. Nobody has a definitive answer, but there are many opinions on this board. Do a search for Tom Bombadil, and you will get more hits than you can shake a stick at.


----------



## BlackCaptain

There have been threads beyond count concerning this topic...

I personaly believe he is a Maiar:

The Valar did not want anything to do with ME, so the posibility of him being a Valar is VERY small

Nature spirit is a good idea i guess, but no-where does Tolkien ever mention Spirits of anything, unless they are Maiar or Vala.

I think that being a Maiar suits him best...


----------



## Kahmûl

I also think Tom is a maia and is Goldberry one as well?


----------



## redline2200

I have posted this link a million times, but I will post it again if there is someone who has not seen it:

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html 

This is a very great article that says Tom is the Vala, Aulë. It is a bit long, but I promise that it is very good. Even if you think this is crazy, you should read it anyway; it is professionally written and very intriguing.


----------



## Lantarion

It is well-written, but still it is mostly guesswork and assumptions. I personally think that if Tolkien didn't mean for Tom to be any other character but himself (ie. not another character 'reborn'), then we shouldn't impose hypotheses of his 'true nature'. Of course one is allowed to think and argue, but in the end it will only be themselves that they are convincing.


----------



## Mirabella

Tom and Goldberry are what you make of them. Personally, if it had not been for the fact that the hobbits took swords from the barrow, I would imagine Tom, Goldberry and the barrow wrights to be the result of a bad mushroom trip


----------



## Sam_Gamgee

> _Originally posted by MorgulKing _
> *The Valar did not want anything to do with ME, so the posibility of him being a Valar is VERY small
> *



Actually...... Melkor was a valar, and somewhere it talks about valar coming to ME (prob in the first ages) and if he was a maiar he would not be above the ring due to the fact sauron was the greatest maiar, and also the other valar came to over throw melkor, that prves they care about middle earth, and also when lluvatar created ME with the music of the ainur, they asked if they could go visit the creation, and they wanted to see it, that also proves they care. i think there is a big case tom was a valar.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Actualy, Melkor was expelled from the Valar, and they origonaly made thier home in ME, but they didnt want anything to do with ME when the Ages of the Sun started, or around there. Thats what they sent the Istari for.


----------



## Celebthôl

well heres LOTS of useful info on Mr Bombadil, but as usual it has no final answer,(this is strait from EoA)


> Tolkien himself is uncharacteristically reticent on the question of Tom's identity:
> 
> "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
> The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954
> 
> There are two real approaches to the problem of Tom's identity; we can try to fit him into the cosmology of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, or we can view him more broadly as a literary character. We'll attempt both here, starting with a discussion of Tom in relation to Tolkien's fictional cosmology.
> 
> 1. Bombadil Within Tolkien's Cosmology
> Tolkien's universe is inhabited by a multitude of races and beings: our problem is that what we know of Tom does not fit easily with any of these. He seems almost to have been 'transplanted' from elsewhere. In fact, this is almost certainly what happened, at least in a literary sense, but at this point we are concerned primarily with giving Tom a place within Tolkien's universe.
> 
> Though there are many candidates to choose from, we can at least dismiss most of these immediately. Tom is definitely not a Man, a Hobbit, a Dwarf, or indeed of any mortal kind, and we can also take it for granted, for obvious reasons, that he is not an Orc, a Troll, an Ent, a Dragon or an Eagle! But this still leaves plenty of possibilities:
> 
> Was Tom an Elf?
> Tom's capering, his wisdom, his great age and his love of song undoubtedly give him a certainly 'Elvish' quality. This possibility though, is easily disproved by the following from The Lord of the Rings:
> 
> "'When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already...'"
> Tom's own words, from The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil
> 
> Tom would hardly have said this if he was an Elf himself! This is, incidentally, proof of Tom's great age - the Elves 'passed westward' in the Great Journey some six Ages before he spoke these words.
> 
> Was Tom a Maia?
> This a very common suggestion, to the extent that it is sometimes treated almost as 'fact'. There is, though, no direct evidence for this - it seems to be based on the idea that since Tom can't be a Vala, and there is no other possibility, he must be a Maia. As we'll see, these are both flawed assumptions - Tom might be a Vala, and there is at least one other possibility.
> 
> Though we can't say for certain that Tom wasn't one of the Maiar, there are grave difficulties with this position. The most important of these is that the Ring had no effect on him:
> 
> "Then Tom put the Ring round the end of his little finger and held it up to the candlelight... There was no sign of Tom disappearing!"
> The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil
> 
> There were other mighty Maiar in Middle-earth at the time of the War of the Ring, especially Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf, and all of these were in some sense under the power of the Ring. Yet Tom is unaffected by its power of invisibility, nor does he feel any desire to keep it (he hands it back to Frodo 'with a smile'). Tolkien himself points out the importance of Tom's immunity. On this topic, he says:
> 
> "The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe."
> The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954
> 
> Was Tom a Vala?
> The last of Tolkien's named races (using the term loosely) that might include Tom is that of the Valar, the Powers of the World. A common argument against this is that we know the names of all the Valar, and Tom isn't among them. This doesn't hold water:
> 
> "...[the Valar] have other names in the speech of the Elves in Middle-earth, and their names among Men are manifold."
> The Silmarillion, Valaquenta
> 
> While of Tom himself it is said:
> 
> "'[Bombadil] was not then his name. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless. But many another name he has since been given by other folk...'"
> Elrond, from The Fellowship of the Ring II 2, The Council of Elrond
> 
> It isn't inconceivable, then, that Tom is one of the fourteen known Valar, dwelling incognito in Middle-earth. Though we can't be certain, it seems likely that a Vala would be capable of resisting the power of the Ring, and so that difficulty can be set aside. The 'Vala Hypothesis', though, is not without difficulties of its own, with perhaps the most significant being:
> 
> "'Eldest, that's what I am... 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.'"
> The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil
> 
> All of the beings who became Valar existed before Arda was made, so any of them could with justification claim the title 'Eldest'. But Tom says he 'knew the dark under the stars' (that is, he was in the World, not outside it) 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside'. The term 'Dark Lord' is uncertain here - it might apply to either Melkor or Sauron, and both originally came from 'Outside' the World. If he means Melkor, then this is very significant: consider this description of the entry of the Valar into the World, from the original conception of the Silmarillion:
> 
> "Now swiftly as they fared, Melko was there before them..."
> The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor
> 
> 'They' here refers to Manwë and Varda, who were explicitly the first Valar to enter Arda apart from Melko (Melkor). In Tolkien's original conception, then (and there is nothing in the published Silmarillion to contradict this) Melkor was the first being from 'Outside' to enter the World, and yet Tom suggests that he was already here when Melkor arrived!
> 
> This is only one of the objections to the Vala theory. Another, for example, is that characters who we would expect to recognize a Vala living in their midst (especially Gandalf) don't apparently do so.
> 
> Was Tom Ilúvatar Himself?
> Tom's powers are apparently limitless, at least within his own domain, and this has led a lot of people of suggest that he might be none other than Eru Ilúvatar himself. There are certainly several hints in the text of The Lord of the Rings that this might be the case; he is called 'Master', and 'Eldest', and Goldberry says of him simply;
> 
> "'He is.'"
> The Lord of the Rings I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil
> 
> All of these points might suggest that Tom and Ilúvatar were in some sense the same being. In fact, though, this is one of the very few theories about Tom that we can bring to a definite conclusion. This point is touched on several times in Tolkien's letters, and each time he makes it clear that Tom and Eru should not be confused. Perhaps his most definite statement is this:
> 
> "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 Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 181, dated 1956
> 
> If there is no embodiment of the One (that is, Eru), then Tom cannot of course be such an embodiment.
> 
> Was Tom a 'Spirit'?
> The idea that Tom might be a 'spirit' (as opposed to a Maia or Vala) is certainly possible according to The Silmarillion. Though it seems to be commonly assumed that only the Valar and the Maiar entered Arda, a tantalising glimpse of Tolkien's original vision survived into the published form of the work. Here, discussing the Aratar or eight mightiest Valar, he says:
> 
> "...in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä."
> The Silmarillion, Valaquenta
> 
> This single phrase 'any other order' seems to be a survival of a much older and more detailed account found in the Lost Tales:
> 
> "...brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns, and what else are they not called, for their number is very great... they were born before the world and are older than its oldest, and are not of it, but laugh at it much..."
> The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor
> 
> It is hard not to hear the echo of Tom Bombadil in these words, and perhaps here we see the first germ of his inspiration (the Lost Tales predate Tom's first appearance in print by about a decade). Whether Tom is a brownie, fay, pixie or leprawn, though, is open to doubt - none of these creatures appears in Tolkien's published works, and their function as a bridge to later folklore seems to have been taken up, at least partly, by the Hobbits.
> 
> This version of the 'spirit' idea doesn't address many of the other problems already discussed, though. Why should a 'leprawn' be immune to the Ring when the Maiar are not? Could a 'brownie' have entered the World before the first of the Valar?
> 
> There is another kind of spirit that Tom could be though: a 'spirit of nature'. Tolkien himself seems to support this point of view:
> 
> "Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?"
> The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 19, dated 1937
> 
> This letter predates Tom's appearance in The Lord of the Rings (in fact, this quotation is part of discussion of the possible sequel to The Hobbit), so it is at best circumstantial evidence.
> 
> The idea of a 'nature spirit', though, is certainly possible within Tolkien's universe. Though this area of his cosmology is never directly addressed, Middle-earth seems at times to be full of spirits - at least some trees apparently have spirits, for example (consider Old Man Willow, or the Huorns of Fangorn).[/B]



Thôl


----------



## BlackCaptain

Wow.... thanx for that quote. Im starting to believe a litle bit that Tom is Illuvitar acutaly .... hahah


----------



## Mirabella

> _Originally posted by MorgulKing _
> *Actualy, Melkor was expelled from the Valar, and they origonaly made thier home in ME, but they didnt want anything to do with ME when the Ages of the Sun started, or around there. Thats what they sent the Istari for.  *



But why send the Istari if they didn't want anything to do with ME or didn't care about it? I agree with Sam_Gamgee. Just because the Valar did not meddle with the affairs of ME does not necessarily mean they did not care.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Well they'd send some Maiar over there for some insurance. The Valar didn't want to be involved in ME's afairs, so they sent some Maiar just to make sure that everything went smoothly. They CARE about it, but they don't want to be involved in it's affairs.


----------



## Celebthôl

well they were not allowed to abandon Men totally, but they did not want to get involved so they sent the Istarí, IMHO i think that Eru loved Men more than Elves, though it seems the opposite, who gets the better deal?!


----------



## Sam_Gamgee

im pretty sure i read somehwhere that some of the valar satyed in ME but i dont remeber where so.........and the one reason i dont think Tom is lluvatar.........is that he couldn't leave the forest because the forest was his place and his power was in the forest....... and i think lluvatar would have a place and power in anything he created.

all the info i find on tom seems to make sense towards a valar.....

and also as i said........they did go back to take care of melkor...... so they do go back for certain reasons.....maybe tom came back for a while........talk to gandalf maybe....like in the end of the book gandalf visits tom......who knows


----------



## Tolkien Adictee

From Tolkien Debates:



> _Originally posted by Glorfindel1187 _
> *What exactly do you think Bombadil was? And what was his purpose in Middle-Earth?
> 
> I personally feel that Tom Bombadil was in essence Arda itself. He was there at the beginning when the Valar created Middle-Earth, and he will be there at the end when the Valar destroy it. He will last as long as Middle-Earth lasts, and he will not exactly 'die',but simply 'fade'. I also think that maybe he was sent there personally by Illuvatar to watch over everything in Middle-Earth, both good and bad, which is why he does not concern himself with wars and what not, because it is not altogether his business, he is forbidden to take sides. I think that maybe this is the reason the Ring of power could not be given to him: at the Council of Elrond Glorfindel said 'he would not take the ring. Not unless all of Middle-Earth begged him too, and even then it would not be safe, for he does not care for such things, and would soon throw it away'. I think he does not care for such things because he is not supposed to, it simply bores him, he is worried about himself, which is Arda. And one other quote I have to support him being Arda itself is when Elrond (or was it Glorfindel? I'll have to check again) says at the council: 'if all esle falls Bombadil will fall as well, last as he was first'. This is because he is Arda, and he would only fall because if Sauron took over it would convince the Valar to do something about it, in which case I believe they would destroy what was left of Middle-Earth in the process, for they already destroyed a nice chunk of it already.
> 
> What are everyone elses thoughts on this? *



I agree with this. Tom Bombadil is Arda. For all reasons listed above.


----------



## elf boy

Good to see this is being discussed again... I voted for other because I believe he comes closest to being one of the maiar, but I've heard lots of tolkien quotes and other material that say there isn't enough material to say what he is. He's just someone that can't really be explained.


----------



## JediHobbit

I always just sort of assumed he was a maia.


----------



## LadyRanger

This is my first time reading the LOTR and I just past the Tom Bombadil chapter. 

I don't know what a maia or any other name posted in some of the replies (because I am a new tolkien fan and don't know too much yet) but I think Tom is someone who was just untouched by whatever it is that made others who they were. He was very close to nature making him a humble "being". 

Maybe there's no name for what he is because the rest of the middle earth had forgotten the importance of his ways--which made the place how it is--evil lords, war etc. I'm probably way off but I just thought I'd post something (hehe).


----------



## flame

i dunno who he is, i think he is just a mad person who has a habbit of turning up when poeple are in truobal


----------



## celebdraug

Tom Bombadil is just...Tom Bombadil


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Telchar said:


> Tolkien never said exactly who it was but he gave a few hints, and that has caused many theories on what he is.. So, what do you think he is?



Tolkien said quite specifically (In letter #16, "The Letters of JRR Tolkien") that he was "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside..."

Also (#144): "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

And from the same letter:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the _Oxford Magazine_ about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control, but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."

There are more passages in the book referring to Bombadil, but these I leave to the reader who wants to read them for himself.

Lotho


----------



## Gandalf The Grey

Well, *Lotho;* 

Another point on which we agree.  ... I've read the very same quotes, and the first word that pops into my head to describe old Tom is "enigma." The second being "naturalist." 

... By saying "naturalist" is where I can personalize and add something. For I know "in real life" a naturalist who to my mind is the very embodiment of Tom Bombadil ... right down to beard, boots, song, story, sense of humor / good-natured banter, fiddle-playing, and devotion to his wife!

You see, the Historical Interpreter for the park system where I volunteer is the spitting image of Old Tom, and he hosted a potluck dinner for the volunteers of the voyageur canoe program. 

Here's something I wrote about a year ago after visiting his house:

Wind chimes of azure blue and silver rolled out rich tones on my arrival. Door was open. I let myself in, for all the rest were just sitting down to supper. A hearty meal it was, of ham and spiced green beans with mushrooms, of sausage and stuffed peppers, of white rolls with butter, of pie and cake, beer and coffee. 

We spoke of the ways of chipmunks, and of boating on the river. There came a sad tale, for Tom had gone walking and come across a dead fox that someone had hunted and simply left behind. 

There was a table for children set with candles. The tiny flames seemed to cast a spell to make them well-behaved and keep a decorous quiet ... for we grown-ups had no candles at our table, and it was we elders who were full of boisterous laughter! 

We then went and sat before the hearth where a strong fire blazed. With eyes and smile as warm as the afternoon summer sun, the merry Bombadil asked us each to tell what we were doing to enjoy the winter! The magic of it was such that winter itself seemed to thaw into a golden blending of time, so that I ended by forgetting what day it was. And any who were cold were laughingly encouraged to sit in "the hot seat" closest to the fire ... People took turns, shivering as they came, but not shivering, nor sitting there, for long! 

But there was a more touching magic, the magic of an unspoken wish come true. For two years ago, someone as a surprise had brought a cake decorated with a drawing of Old Tom, his boat, and each one of us volunteers who together form a fellowship. We were each served the slice of cake bearing our image on the frosting, and laughingly devoured it all too soon. So this year, I hoped for the same sort of surprise ... only one more tangible, lasting. When lo and behold! Tom brought out a parcel of shirts bound up with string, and began passing them around to each of us ... and there adorning each shirt was the very same drawing of our fellowship that had graced the cake! 

At last the time came for visitors to depart. Tom, Goldberry and I kept our spirits up at our farewell, though all three of us keenly felt at that time the uncertainty of where my road would lead. Thus, we did not wish to say good-bye, preferring the promise of, "I'll see you again in the spring!" The road of course, goes ever on, and leads to ever more adventure ... But may the road never lead me so far as to keep me from returning to this house and these friends! 

Gandalf the Grey


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf The Grey said:


> Well, *Lotho;* Another point on which we agree.  ... I've read the very same quotes, and the first word that pops into my head to describe old Tom is "enigma." The second being "naturalist." ... By saying "naturalist" is where I can personalize and add something...



By Gad Sir! If that lovely piece is characteristic, then you must have an exceptionally lovely life indeed, and do have a lavish gift for writing about it as well! Thanks for a thoroughly enjoyable post!

Lotho

PS: Come to think of it, I'm reminded of a Tom _I_ know, who lives in a small town in Oregon. You two are cut of the same cloth, you'd really enjoy each others' company — two bon bivants!


----------



## Gandalf The Grey

While characteristic, *good Lotho,* 

... also characteristic of my life has been a nightmare about the One Ring (I actually dreamed a scene from PJ's first movie before ever seeing it in waking life, though my dream was more intense and tangible, the fire more burning, etc.), as well as facing a certain Balrog in a way more vivid than I care to speak of in a public forum or to people who don't know me well, having been called Stormcrow by those whose false ways I've challenged, walking the road alone (being a Ring-bearer) and thus not being spared becoming careworn over the years. 

So it's not all lovely by any means. Still,the good outweighs the ill, adventure yet beckons, beauty remains to those who look up, and Home gleams a promise ahead to those who look West. 

Having rambled overlong just now, ... * bows pardon *

Would you be so good as to satisfy my curiosity and explain a bit more about your friend from Oregon, and why you deem him a worthy candidate to bear the name of Tom Bombadil? And wouldn't you, as I suspect, get along with such a fine bon vivant yourself? 

Gandalf the Grey


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf The Grey said:


> While characteristic, *good Lotho,* ... also characteristic of my life has been a nightmare about the One Ring (I actually dreamed a scene from PJ's first movie before ever seeing it in waking life, though my dream was more intense and tangible, the fire more burning, etc.), as well as facing a certain Balrog in a way more vivid than I care to speak of in a public forum or to people who don't know me well...



Methinks you've been reading LOTR altogether too much, take a break!



> Would you be so good as to satisfy my curiosity and explain a bit more about your friend from Oregon, and why you deem him a worthy candidate to bear the name of Tom Bombadil? And wouldn't you, as I suspect, get along with such a fine bon vivant yourself?



I first met him online: he was the author of the AOL Tour Guide of long ago, in the days when AOL had but a couple of hundred thousand people, and there was a great civility on some of the more cultural boards. It hadn't been overrun by snerts and snots to the point of necessitating IGNORE buttons. Anyway — I emailed him to compliment him on the wonderful racontuer-like style in which he wrote this user's manual — and a long friendship was born! He got me a "job" on AOL: Part of his duties was to field technical questions sent in to him by members. I took that over in return for free AOL, and I did that for quite a number of years.

He loves nature and boating and loves to be on the water or in the forest or the woods, and is quite skilled, gregarious, and at home in either place. He loves good food, good talk, good friends, good drink and green nature. He left AOL to open a holistic clinic in one of the Oregon villages, along with his holistic physician wife. 

My wife and I once took the Coast Starlight train up to see them, and had a great time there. (I wouldn't mind living up there around the Portland area.) 

So that's a short answer for you — I don't want to get too revealing on a public site such as this.

Lotho


----------



## meneldor

I have not a clue, but there were other Ainuric spirits we have no clue about. Tom was born to Arda. Probably only departing when all around him was destroyed. I dont know. It seems to me that all in middle earth show a HUGE amount of respect for him though, even Gandalf. He says at the end of the book that they are going to have a talk like they have never had before, like they are equal or one greater. For Gandalf does not speak like that to the ignorant, only those that will understand.


----------



## e.Blackstar

I think he was something like the Balrogs (except good, of course) and he was created by Manwe or Yavanna or somebody to watch over the trees and plants and stuff.


----------



## Beren&Lutien

First of all when answering 'what is Tom Bombadil' you have to see it from a broader context. Since he was first, the Master, did not get affected by the Ring, is a mystery,... you have to go back to the creation of Arda. The creation was made by a song, by the Valar. Pick one of those to start with, because all lesser (even Maiar) would be under effect of the Ring. The Master... leaves us with one person: Aule.

Second, if he is Aule, and he is such a fine and wonderful god, why doesn't he choose to be more helpful? Put another way, why isn't there power in him to fight the enemy? The answer to this question is simpler than one might at first imagine... 

It is the song of creation, I believe, that contains the conflicting instructions both Ulmo and Osse are following, different parts, elements, or themes of the whole. If I am correct, then Ulmo's power to help the Elves is both limited by and partially determined by the Music of the Ainur, insofar as it established the existence of the earth and determined its major events... 

While Ulmo may have had free will as he sang his part of the song in those distant times, he is now bound by what he sang and cannot go beyond or change his part. If Tom is Aule, then he too is bound by his part in the song and although sympathetic and concerned, he can only help the Hobbits and the Free Peoples of the West in little ways.

This is important because if Tom is Aule, he may not be allowed to do anything what could change the balance of good and evil in middle earth without destroying the harmony. Even if it sounds strange, but the balance of good an evil - or high tones and dark tones - is important for a sound. And Sauron as a dark tone had his counterpart in the good forces of Saruman and Gandalf. An indication for that is, that Gandalf became more powerfull after Saruman joined the dark side. 

I don't say Gandalf could match Sauron face to face. No way. But his power lay in his popularity in middle earth. He was loved of many good people and could motivate them to fight the evil - that was the real power he had. And his hope lie in the hearts of men, because they could switch their minds from bad to good while elves and orks belonged fixed to that part of harmony they were made for. If I am right, the balance depended on a few good or bad men and could switch easy and was very fragile. A huge good power would have desruped the whole harmony. 

Its just like making sweet-sour cabage. Too much acid is horrible, too much sugar, too. And if you nearly hit the point of balance and is only slightly too sour, you wouldn't put a suggarblock into but a few grains. 

Another indication could be that Gandalf left middle earth after Sauron was defeated and Sarumans death. You can have short times with just having high tones or dark tones in a melody, but it never ends without the full harmonic spectrum.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> Second, if he is Aule,



I don't see much sense in equating Tom with one of the Ainur (not just Valar), nor do I see an especial connexion to Aulë the Smith - he is much more of an Oromëic figure in my minds's eye - running wild through the woods and hills and pastures, taming wild beasts and taking care of his own patch of land, but owning none of it. Anyway, no matter how much we try to classify Tom, it's been proven time and time again that he cannot be fitted into a little box. He is unique, a whole category of his own. And like I said before, the most sensible explanation for his existence would be that he came to be through themes of Yavanna intertwining with those of Oromë (two of the Valar that Tom is most akin to IMO).



> Pick one of those to start with, because all lesser (even Maiar) would be under effect of the Ring.



How do you know they would? It may just be that Gandalf and Saruman were tempted by the ring because they were incarnate Maiar, and were thus more susceptible to being lured by its power, in a desire to enhance their own powers (which were diminished in their Istari edition) and more easily achieve their goals of ousting Sauron.

Anyhow, welcome to the forum, Beren&Lutien (Luthien?).


----------



## Annaheru

Hmm, gonna start this up again. Personally I think Tom is an Ainu, I think he (and Goldberry) is from among those of the Ainur who entered into Ea. Moreover I think Tom was only involved with the First Theme of the Music, which became Arda itself. This would explain why he could no more resist Sauron then the earth: he never took part in the Second Theme (the conflict between Melkor and the Valar). If this is the case, then he could have been the first in Arda (Oldest, Fatherless), been uninfluenced by the Ring, and filled all the other qualifications indicated by Tokien.


----------



## Ingwë

Maybe he really is Ainur but Tolkien himself didn`t told us anything. Tom told hobbits he is the eldest, he is their before the trees and before the River. What does it mean? Tom is Ainur or no? Maybe Tolkien wanter to tell us Tom is _from among those of the Ainur who entered into Ea. _I agree and I think we all agree.


----------



## Inderjit S

"I agree and I think we all agree"

Maybe. Or maybe he just is. A Middle-Earthen anamoly, so to speak, a strange creature amongst many strange creatures. Perhaps creature is something of a misnomer though, perhaps 'being' is a more apt term. 

Also, here is similairty between him a Maia-Sauron. Sauron was able to assume power in a certain fixed area (Mordor) in the same way that Tom was able to assume power in the Old Forest-even then, his bounds in the Old Forest were much smaller than his bounds in previous ages. Also what of the strang tongue he was using when he was singing to himself. Not Elvish, for Frodo would have recognised it, perhaps it was Valarin, which was supposed to be similair to Mannish tongues, though uncouth to the ears of the Elves; or maybe it was some long forgotten Mannish tongue. And I often wonder what Gandalf and Bombadil talked about in their long talk.


----------



## Ingwë

*In the house of Tom Bombadil *

He says he was there before the river and the trees. If we reckon that these words men before the creating of Ea then he is Ainur. The First war had begun before the creating of the plants and the animals. Then the Ainurs had already lived in Arda. If I understand these words he really is an Ainur.
But if he is Nature spirit? If he is a Nature spirit he was created by the Ainurs. Or by Yavanna? She had created the ents as shepherds of the trees. Tom is master of the Forest. Threfore he is a keeper of the forest. The ents are shepherds of the trees but I would say they are keepers of the forests. Hence he was created by Kementári to keep the Old forest before it become Old.
I think he is not Valar because if he was he would help free peoples of the Middle earth to destroy Sauron. Tom is a merry fellow; he is disengaged.

I would conclude he was Ainur. I thought he was a Nature Spirit but the text up above disprove this supposition.


----------



## Manwe

Maybe he was originally just a man but he meditated and reached nirvana. He has perfect peaces and so is in harmony ith all living things so he can talk to them and sing songs that control them. Otherwise, he's a hippy  .


----------



## bauglir

I would think he is a Nermir, a spirit who came with the ainu`s and is a spirit of nature.

more info on the Nermir: http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?Nermir
(not much, but it`s something)


----------



## Alatar

I think he is a Maia.

Apart from the other resons i read on a thread (sorry i forgot which one) conccerning the age of treebeard. We know that gandalf is older than treebeard as he was in the music. So when gandalf say's "[treebeard is]the oldest thng that walks under the sun"(or somthing along those lines i dont have the Quote with me).
But we Know that Tom and Gandalf Saruman and Sauron are all older. this means Gandalf excluded tom and himself and the others on purpose because he was only including things that are made in arda.

I am sorry if it was you who posted this orginly i have lost the quote


----------



## bauglir

the characteristics of the nermir really fits bombadil though. The nermir are always laughing and singin and not carim much for the world around them.


----------



## Alatar

I have only read LotR the Sil UT the new shadow and the hobbit. BoLT is in the post.
Can someone with more knowlege on the HoMe tell me adout the neirmir?


BTW vote on my poll one the strongest elf on this forrum!


----------



## Béma

(While I have read a good deal of the previous posts on this question, I did not get to all of them, so forgive me if this has already been said)

The possibility of Tom being a Vala or Maia is a very attractive one to me and I think a decent case can be made with Aule as the culprit, as has been done so nicely here. However, we have to take into account everything Gandalf says about Tom at the Council of Elrond. 

When asked if Tom might take the Ring to keep it safe and hidden, Gandalf says he would not take it unless "all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe gaurdian."

It seems, to me, unlikely that a Vala or Maia, especially one who was so involved in the creation of the world (Aule), which seems to require a certain attention to detail and understanding of how things work etc., would forget something, even a small thing, of great importance. As the rulers, creators, and guardians as chosen by Eru, the Valar should not be forgetful. For someone like Aule, who cares much for the Children of Iluvater, forgetting that the Ring is dangerous would be like forgetting Sauron exists. For me, the fact that Tom "would be a most unsafe guardian" proves that he can not be Aule.

Now, there is the fact that Manwe is incapable of comprehending evil, which coincides nicely with Tom not understanding the need to keep the Ring safe. I originally had something concrete to disprove any connection between the two, but I seem to have forgotten it. In any case, I still think that Tom's carefree and forgetful nature would be uncharacteristic of a Vala.

(Looking back, it's a little rambling, but I hope coherent. Anyway, that's my take on Tom.)


----------



## Alatar

Ithink he is not a vala Cristopher tolkein said that


> Manwe will not desened from the mountain untill the last battle


so if he is not a vala he is a MAIAR. As he cannot be created by the Vala or Maiar as theycan not create life of there own!
oh yeh what is a nermir????????????????


----------



## bauglir

here is some info on the nermir(posted it earlier too)
http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?Nermir
the description of the nermir fits Tom really well


----------



## Alatar

Thanks!


i agree with you now tom is a nermir.

However nermir is just the lesser Ainur. So the rank goes (i think) Vala,maia then nermir


----------



## Ithrynluin

At, first glance, the 'Nermir' theory seems plausable, and one that we could all agree on. Yet, these Nermir are not present in Tolkien's later writings, only in the very earliest conceptions of his mythology, dating as far back as 1917, when JRR was no more than 25 years old.

For example, in _The Book of Lost Tales II_, Melian was a 'sprite', not a Maia. Therefore, it may well be that all these 'lesser spirits' were transformed into what was later to be known collectively as 'the Maiar'.

I'm not saying that the Nermir theory is impossible, just that the professor never seemed to confirm it; what is more, JRRT seemed to have discarded the idea of these sprites, fays, pixies, and whatnot, and seemed to provide a rather unique history and classification for Bombadil.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Isn't it all up to our imagination? I think Tolkien intended Tom to be the one thing that we make him to be, that is, an un-classified thing. His letters seem to imply this, I think, but that's just what I got out of them.


----------



## Sangahyando

I say that he is the embodiment of Iluvatar on Arda


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Tom Bombadil*



Telchar said:


> Tolkien never said exactly who it was but he gave a few hints...



Tolkien intended for it to be a mystery. Not even he knew!

Barley


----------



## Walter

*Re: Tom Bombadil*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Tolkien intended for it to be a mystery. Not even he knew!
> 
> Barley


He did!

Tom Bombadil actually was the Dutch doll of Tolkien's son Michael, which is said to have looked very splendid with the feather in its hat...

...and which "accidently" got stuffed down in the lavatory someday by his brother John.




(cf. Carpenter's _J.R.R. Tolkien - A Biography_)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Tom Bombadil*



Walter said:


> He did!
> 
> Tom Bombadil actually was the Dutch doll of Tolkien's son Michael, which is said to have looked very splendid with the feather in its hat...
> 
> ...and which "accidently" got stuffed down in the lavatory someday by his brother John.



I was absolutely certain I'd read somewhere Tolkien's letters — in addition to everything else he wrote about Bombadil that in the end, he was a mystery even to Tolkien. I knew about the doll, but not its ghastly end... 

But in researching the letters a bit , I came up with this:



> *Tolkien: (Letter #153) * Frodo has asked not 'what is Tom Bombadil' but 'Who is he'. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of 'I am that I am' – which is quite different from he is. She adds as a concession a statement of pan of the 'what'. He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.
> 
> I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine)3 and wanted an 'adventure' on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with doing' anything with the knowledge...



So it seems that _what_ Bombadil is, is not as important as _who._

Barley


----------



## Walter

Barley, we did some sort of survey quite some time ago, you can find it here.

Also Gene Hargrove's essay here may be a worthwile read...


----------



## lotr_lukyfer

It seems to me illogical to suggest that Tom is one of the Maiar, considering how all the Maiar concerned with the Ring behaved in regards to it. Saruman fell because he wanted it. Gandalf refused to take it, because he knew he _would_ fall. And Radagast simply chose not to deal with the issue, and that _was _his fall, in a sense. If Tom were a Maia, he would most likely have fallen under its dominion the moment he set eyes on it. And yet he was able to wear it, with absolutely no effect, ill or otherwise, upon his will.


----------



## lotr_lukyfer

And Tom is said in the Letters to be an Enigma, not an Anomaly.


----------



## Illuin

Yes, Enigma is right. Anomaly is Star Trek:


*Capt. Picard*: *Are you saying that it worked? We collapsed the anomaly?* 

*Q*: _*Is that all this meant to you? Just another spatial anomaly, just another day at the office?*__* *_


----------



## Prince of Cats

lotr_lukyfer said:


> It seems to me illogical to suggest that Tom is one of the Maiar, considering how all the Maiar concerned with the Ring behaved in regards to it. Saruman fell because he wanted it. Gandalf refused to take it, because he knew he _would_ fall. And *Radagast simply chose not to deal with the issue, and that was his fall, in a sense*. If Tom were a Maia, he would most likely have fallen under its dominion the moment he set eyes on it. And yet he was able to wear it, with absolutely no effect, ill or otherwise, upon his will.




As far as I can tell Radagast was oblivious to the ring's reappearance

And who among the maiar have we seen to fall under spell like you suggest at sight of the ring? Gandalf saw it plenty of times and I'm pretty sure he's the only maia we see with the ring (other than Sauron of course) so I don't see any textual backup

I think it's also worth noting that the Istari were bound to their human-like forms and perhaps that affects their temptation. The only other Maia we see coming in contact with the ring is Sauron, who really doesn't count because 1.) he made it and 2.) was an evil dude from way back when he served Morgoth

I don't think Tom is Maia but I still don't have any proof


----------



## Eledhwen

Here is a pdf extract of Bombadil from Tolkien's letters, for those who don't have the book to hand. Tolkien calls Tom "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside" and so is an appropriate anomaly at the place where the comfortable Shire ends and the wild and dangerous haunts of the enemy begin.


----------



## Illuin

> Originally posted by *Prince of Cats*
> _As far as I can tell Radagast was oblivious to the ring's reappearance_


 
Yeah, Radagast reminds me of Beavis on his way to save Butt-head from choking to death, but forgets about him when he spots some nachos (birds in Radagast's case). _"Um...hahahahahahahahaha...um...hahah...ah...um...hahahaha...um..ah, oh yeah, um, Saruman wants you, um...hahaha...or...um, something like that, um...ah....hahahaha."_


----------



## Eledhwen

Illuin said:


> Yeah, Radagast reminds me of Beavis on his way to save Butt-head from choking to death, but forgets about him when he spots some nachos (birds in Radagast's case).


Somehow, he reminds me of a moth.


----------



## Prince of Cats

Illuin said:


> Yeah, Radagast reminds me of Beavis on his way to save Butt-head from choking to death, but forgets about him when he spots some nachos (birds in Radagast's case). _"Um...hahahahahahahahaha...um...hahah...ah...um...hahahaha...um..ah, oh yeah, um, Saruman wants you, um...hahaha...or...um, something like that, um...ah....hahahaha."_


 
"Beavis choked on chicken ..."

What of Tulkas? Has this been put forth, yet? I was reading the valaquenta and the laughter of Tulkas and how the evil parted before it reminded me of Bombadil


----------



## Uminya

Prince of Cats said:


> As far as I can tell Radagast was oblivious to the ring's reappearance
> 
> And who among the maiar have we seen to fall under spell like you suggest at sight of the ring? Gandalf saw it plenty of times and I'm pretty sure he's the only maia we see with the ring (other than Sauron of course) so I don't see any textual backup
> 
> I think it's also worth noting that the Istari were bound to their human-like forms and perhaps that affects their temptation. The only other Maia we see coming in contact with the ring is Sauron, who really doesn't count because 1.) he made it and 2.) was an evil dude from way back when he served Morgoth
> 
> I don't think Tom is Maia but I still don't have any proof



Radagast didn't realize that the ring kept by the Bagginses was The One Ring, of course. Saruman eventually did, and he certainly wanted it. Gandalf, once he realized what it was, went from being merely suspicious to completely wary of it, refusing even to touch it. Had Radagast realized what was going on, it's likely that it would have begun to gnaw at him, and had he _touched_ it somehow, I've no doubt that the Ring would have begun to work its will on him, successfully or not.

That the Ring had no effect on Tom is only noteworthy when it is put into the context that Tom knew _exactly_ what he was dealing with. Certainly, considering the effect of the One Ring (and the lesser rings) on the _other_ races of Arda, his reaction has to be considered anomalous. That gives credence to the idea that he is not, in fact, a Maia.

And let's not get whimsical and suggest that he's a Vala, either


----------



## Prince of Cats

Ciryaher said:


> That the Ring had no effect on Tom is only noteworthy when it is put into the context that Tom knew _exactly_ what he was dealing with. Certainly, considering the effect of the One Ring (and the lesser rings) on the _other_ races of Arda, his reaction has to be considered anomalous. That gives credence to the idea that he is not, in fact, a Maia.


 
I don't understand the logic in any of that, respectfully  

To get back to basics:


> At any rate he was too large and heavy for a _hobbit_, if not quite tall enough for one of the _Big People_


_

NOT: Human, Hobbit

What's left that we know of? Vala, maia, dwarf, olifaunt, elf, ent, watcher of the keep ...

Can we discredit any of those? Is Tom really an olifaunt?





_


----------



## Starbrow

Well, according to Sam's poem, oliphants are as big as a house. Since Tom lives in a house, we can probably rule out oliphant.


----------



## Uminya

Prince of Cats said:


> I don't understand the logic in any of that, respectfully [/I]


 
Tom knew the nature of the ring Frodo was bearing. It was _the_ One Ring of Sauron, and he was aware of it as such. The fact that he was cognizant of the Ring's nature is important, because he had no desire at all for its power for any reason

Note, again, that Gandalf and Saruman (both Maiar) felt some level of desire for the Ring's power, and of the three Istari in Middle Earth, they were the only two to know about it. Clearly the Ring is able to sway Istari/Maiar, though--in Gandalf's case--the sway can be overridden by will. And it goes without saying that Sauron (another Maia) certainly wanted to have the Ring back.

Men, hobbits, dwarves, and elves are all described as having a draw to the Ring's power.

We can therefore rule out those mortal races as well as Maiar in terms of the nature of Bombadil. That is to say, _he has to be something else entirely_.


----------



## Starflower

Well. We have Tom's own words to go by:


> 'Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'


If anything, this for me confirms that Tom is a Maia - what else can he be? He is clearly not an Elf, as he does not count himself among them. He is not a Man, as he 'made paths before the Big People'. He is not an Ent, which are the eldest living things created by Yavanna. He is not a Vala, as they are all named and accounted for. 
Thus when everything else has been discounted for, the remaining option must be valid - Tom should be numbered among the Maiar.

I disagree with the notion that Tom was immune to the Ring's Power. Gandalf refused to touch it not because he was afraid of the Ring, but because he was afraid of himself. He does mention that he would be tempted to use the Ring - for the cause of Good. I believe Tom's reaction was the other extreme because he was so sure of himself, he knew already that he did not want the power the Ring offered - he was content with what he had, he did not desire to change it.


----------



## Uminya

Tom said:


> 'Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - *before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'*



By "Dark Lord" we can presume he means Sauron, a Maia (though it would make no difference if he meant Morgoth). Generally speaking, the Maiar arrived in Eä at the same time as the Valar. If Bombadil predates Sauron--a Maia--then he predates all Maiar and Valar. I can come to no conclusion from that--and from his behavior in regards to the Ring--except that he is a direct product of the Ainulindalë.

EDIT: It's hard to believe I first posted on this thread nine years ago.


----------



## Bucky

I have the answer....

Bombadil is....

Drum roll please.....


















An enigma.
Tolkien says so himself.
He says more, but I'm too tired to look it up now.
But TB is basically the embodiment of Middle-earth come to life.

It just struck me that with Tolkien's Catholic background, Tom & Goldberry represent Adam & Eve if they hadn't fallen. And their little area with borders Tom won't pass represents The Garden of Eden.

Tom certainly isn't Maiar - I like the reasons mentioned and he isn't Vala either because Tolkien states repeatedly that the Valar 'withdrew from Middle-earth' as the Ages passed and became more distant. Tom being a Vala sitting right there near the East Road would go directly against that, wouldn't it?

Tom and Goldberry could be some sort of undefined Ainur like Ungoliant though too I guess if you need to catagorize everything. But that really is just semantics because ALL Maiar & Valar are Ainur before coming to Middle-earth........
All that changes is the title based on inherent level of spiritual power once they enter Arda.

But the embodiment of M-e works for me - I'll find the quote in the next few days if I remember. It's in The Letters somewhere.

Oh BTW; I'm sure "The Dark Lord" Tom is referring to is Melkor, not Sauron.....

After all, Arda was empty and formless when Melkor entered and made war with the Valar. We have no clue when Sauron entered, although it was perhaps the same time as the Valar at the beginning.


----------



## Prince of Cats

Is Tom Niggle?


----------



## adpirtle

He is!

Really that's the only answer given. And not in the religious "I Am" sort of way, but in the, "Who is Tom Bombadil? Tom Bombadil is Tom Bombadil" sort of way. Tolkien said Bombadil was intentionally ambiguous in origin, so I guess he wanted us to have this argument  but there's never going to be a winner since it was never decided by the author (at least publicly). 

However,

I've always been partial to the idea that Bombadil was the manifestation of the power that Eru Iluvatar put into manifesting Arda, and then retired there, just because its a nice thought. Of the choices given, I'd go with nature spirit, since Tolkien intended Tom to be "the spirit of the shrinking forests of Oxford" in his earliest incarnation. There are in fact lots of personalities in Middle earth who's origins aren't clear, and who don't fall into neat categories. Ungoliant is said to be the personification of night. Cruel Caradhras is written as if it has a malevolent spirit of its own, far older than Sauron, at least. On the nicer side you've got Tom, and of course you've got Goldberry, the river woman's daughter, so I'm guessing there's a river woman too.


----------



## Prince of Cats

adpirtle said:


> Of the choices given, *I'd go with nature spirit*, since Tolkien intended Tom to be "the spirit of the shrinking forests of Oxford" in his earliest incarnation. There are in fact lots of personalities in Middle earth who's origins aren't clear, and who don't fall into neat categories. Ungoliant is said to be the personification of night. Cruel Caradhras is written as if it has a malevolent spirit of its own, far older than Sauron, at least. On the nicer side you've got Tom, and of course *you've got Goldberry, the river woman's daughter, so I'm guessing there's a river woman too*.




The majority, with _90 votes_, of the responses to the poll have been Nature/Earth Spirit too. A What? Earth Spirit? Nature Spirit? Are they among the Ainur? It wasn't Valar or Maiar that won the most votes. For Tolkien fans to be enthusiastic about Tom Bombadil they have to read at least the Lord of the Rings; those 90 votes weren't by new fans who were fresh from watching the films. 

For me the question becomes, "What is a Nature Spirit in Middle Earth." In Tolkien's essay On Fairy-Stories he says that one of the vital elements of a story with Faerie is, to paraphrase simply, not to explain everything. I think Tom Bombadil is one of the most important characters in the LoTR and notable through the whole legendarium. His importance IME isn't as much due by helping the fellowship as it is for creating the environment for the reader. Tom, Goldberry and Old Man Willow, more-so than the barrows, create sprawling across the imagination an established, and an old, fascinating history behind not only Middle Earth but every pebble. I often call The Hobbit my favorite Tolkien story for how it creates that sense of a living, and old, world


----------



## Edheldae

Some good replies and information here. I've enjoyed the read. I would pull back back the curtain on the enigma in this way...

Tolkien's legendarium is woven into a creation myth. Within that myth, Ea, the World that Is, is quite a bit larger than Middle Earth, or even Arda. So of the spirits that entered a reality bound by the chords of the Great Music, I get the sense they were quite busy shaping stuff all over, from the walls of the Outer Dark to the inner seas. Only after Arda was created as a focal point for those efforts did the great enemies come and really start to disrupt things. So Tom could be a maia who took an early interest in Arda and poured his interest into the forests especially, prior to the arrival of the great power, Enemies or Valar.

Does that make him an earth spirit? It seems the maia often had specific interests, loosely grouped into a kind of kinship that caused them to organize under a greater maia, the greatest of which were called Valar. Tom appears to be relatively rare in that he had little interest in this organization and did his own thing. More than other spirits that are mentioned, his care, knowledge and therefore mastery is one of stewardship of the forests. Until he becomes a personification of those forests.


----------



## PanconJamon

Ciryaher said:


> By "Dark Lord" we can presume he means Sauron, a Maia (though it would make no difference if he meant Morgoth). Generally speaking, the Maiar arrived in Eä at the same time as the Valar. If Bombadil predates Sauron--a Maia--then he predates all Maiar and Valar. I can come to no conclusion from that--and from his behavior in regards to the Ring--except that he is a direct product of the Ainulindalë.
> 
> EDIT: It's hard to believe I first posted on this thread nine years ago.


But he might be speaking about Middle-Earth instead of Eä. And Middle-earth was first created, then filled with forests and rivers, etc, and then Melkor appeared as a Dark Lord or a destructor. So maybe he could be a Maia that established himself in Middle-Earth right after its creation, though we could just especulate on what he did during the first battle against Melkor, which wouldn't have been a nice scenario to live, actually.

However, we know from the Valaquenta that not all the Vala and Maia arrived at the same time to Eä, because Tulkas arrived well after the others. This does not apply in this case, however, since Melkor went to Eä in the very beggining.

Honestly, he reminds me of Melian. She was obviously more powerful than the other Maia we see in LOTR, except maybe for Sauron, and unlike others she was not tempted by the Silmaril, which could be compared to the lack of interest on the ring that Bombadil shows. I think that this case could be similar: Bombadil might be a Maia that just goes to live in peace at some place of Middle-Earth, because we know how much the Ainur loved it when they first saw it in the music, and how even the Valar were deeply touched by its creation before the first battle.

However, if he predates creation, he can only be an Ainu, IMO.


----------



## Peeping-Tom

Oh my...is this still up for debate?

Tolkien answered that question himself in one of his letters.

Below in *blue*, is a small piece of that letter. Can't remember wich letter it is from, but I'll look into it asap.


----------



## Peeping-Tom

The essence of some of the letters : (...but please, do read them, in their full, yourselves...)


_*This question has been a widely debated, sometimes far too vehemently. Part of the difficulty is the complexity of Tom's literary history. Tom was originally a doll (with blue jacket and yellow boots) owned by Tolkien's son Michael. The doll inspired a story fragment, such as he often invented for his children's amusement. That fragment was in turn the basis for the poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil", published in 1933, which also introduced Goldberry, the barrow wights, and Old Man Willow (the poem was the source of the events in Chapters 6 through 8 of Book I). In a contemporary letter (1937) Tolkien explained that Tom was meant to represent 'the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside'.*_
(The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, no 19)

_*Tolkien introduced Tom into The Lord of the Rings at a very early stage, when he still thought of it as a sequel to the The Hobbit, as opposed to the The Silmarillion (the tone was changed during the first chapters of The Lord of the Rings). Tom fit the original (slightly childish) tone of the early chapters (which resembled that of the The Hobbit), but as the story progressed it became higher in tone and darker in nature. Tolkien later claimed that he left Tom in he decided that however portrayed Tom provided a necessary ingredient (see last paragraph). Some very cogent reasons are produced in a couple of wonderful letters.*_
(The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 144 & 153)

Below in *Blue* : (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien no 153)


----------



## Walter

Peeping-Tom said:


> The essence of some of the letters : (...but please, do read them, in their full, yourselves...)



c.f. posts #189ff ;*)

...sometimes it makes sense, reading a thread, before answering to it...


----------



## Peeping-Tom

My own idea about Mr. Bombadil is that, he is not a person or a thing, but a thought. Tolkiens own thoughts...

Something that was there, before everything else...
Something that does not belong there...but can not be left out...

*Bombadil is Tolkien*...(as his sons doll, childish, harmless, joyfully)

_Thousands, have read The Fellowship, and thousands have wondered about Tom Bombadil... and forever they will..._

My idea, is just as good as yours...and your ideas, are just as good as mine...

Please, let Bombadil rest...he's an old man...:*p


----------



## Peeping-Tom

Walter said:


> c.f. posts #189ff ;*)
> 
> ...sometimes it makes sense, reading a thread, before answering to it...


 
Woops...:*p

Thanks Walter...

But it has become a fairly long thread...too long to read it all...;*)


----------



## Parsifal

Found this on the internet, makes perfect sence ofcours.

_Sauron the Enemy is a merry fellow,
Bright red his Eye is, and his Ring is yellow. 

Some time ago someone suggested that Tom Bombadil was really the Witch 
King of Angmar. Now why not Sauron himself? He was a master 
shapeshifter after all. After the Fall of Numenor, he could no longer 
appear fair, but then Tom Bombadil was hardly so. Barad-dur was 
enveloped in a dark cloud not to hide Sauron, but rather his absence. 
The Eye was only a magical contraption to make it appear that someone 
is at home - some security camera on steroids. 

On one of his visits to Mordor, he forged another invisibility-granting 
ring, just to fool his enemies. When the hobbits brought the true Ring 
to him, he simply switched them - this was what really happened when he 
made the Ring vanish. 

This explains why Frodo handed the Ring to Tom so easily - no mortal 
could withold it from Sauron. This also explains why the Nazgul didn't 
try harder on Weathertop - it was only a feint. In fact, it is amazing 
how many such near-disasters were avoided - the reason being that 
Sauron wanted the Quest to "succeed". When the fake was thrown into the 
Cracks of Doom, Sauron used the power of the Ruling Ring to destroy 
Barad-dur (it was ugly anyway, and he got used to living in the Old 
Forest), and to "switch off" the three elven rings, so they seemed to 
have lost their power. 

Why, having the One, he didn't move immediately to dominate all 
Middle-Earth? Simple. He remembered what happened to Morgoth when he 
thought he had already won. Sauron certainly didn't fancy Morgoth-style 
pedicure. And his ambitions reached further than Middle-Earth alone. 

The bearers of the Three sailed to Valinor, wearing rings under 
Sauron's control. Turning Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel into his 
servants was probably more time-consuming than dominating mere men. 
Sauron's apparent absence in Middle-Earth in later years is due to his 
preoccupation with establishing a spy network in the Blessed Realm. But 
sooner or later, he will again turn his attention to mortal lands..._


----------



## Peeping-Tom

Hmm, I don't know what to say...

_"Help, my world is collapsing, the stars are falling down...Tom's Evil!"_


Nice twist though...:*up 

Now he can be both, Sauron and the witch-King....at the same time...:*D

Mind-buggling....


----------



## Rendi

Maybe Tom is an irreducible enigma. No rules seem to apply to him. No danger threatens him. He hasn't the slightest concern for the fate of the world. Maybe Tolkien himself did not know (or try to define) what Bombadil was about. Perhaps he was a trickster/earth spirit. Maybe he is Pan, the Jack-o-the-green, the springtime fool, that which cannot be understood or defined. Maybe he is Eru in the world or some avatar of Eru. Who knows? If Tolkien himself did not know, how can we?


----------



## Pink Fealinde

^I agree with this. Tom Bombadil strikes me somewhat as Tolkien's "Exception to prove the rule". Either that, or some kind of toned-down incarnation of God... I'll have to read through this thread, methinks.


----------



## SharkeyPurist

Ol' Tom Bombadil breaks the fourth wall. He was invented by Tolkien prior to Middle-Earth, yet was included as is in LOTR. This makes him, from a real world perspective, the oldest member of ME.

He was the character who came about first in the real world of Tolkien's writing process. I think that's what Tolkien meant to convey, an inside joke about Tom being older than ME because he pre-dated Tolkien's ME writings, and is included in them.


----------



## Starbrow

I like your interpretation, Sharkey. That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## OfRhosgobel

*Re: Tom Bombadil*



Telchar said:


> Tolkien never said exactly who it was but he gave a few hints, and that has caused many theories on what he is.. So, what do you think he is?
> 
> *This thread is now merged with 'What Was Tom Bombadil' originally in The History of Middle-Earth section* Ancalagon.
> 
> *This thread is now merged with numerous Tom Bombadil threads scattered hap hazardly over the forum in the last two days from Stuff and Bother and the Movie Forum* Grond
> 
> This thread now merged with other Tom B threads.



Now his elven name reveals a bit about old Tom; Iarwain Ben-adar is his name in Quenya and it means both "oldest" and "fatherless". Glorfindel says at the council of Elrond that if Bombadil was given the ring to protect, and Sauron bent all his will and power on him to take the ring back, then "Bombadil would fall, Last as he was the First". So I think that Tom was the first spirit to descend to Arda from the "Void" even before the Valar! But he is no god. He is perhaps the most powerful nature spirit in the writings of Tolkien. That is how I would classify Tom, as a nature spirit. Simply because he is so strange to us, in the ways he speaks and sings seemingly nonsensicle words, and his attitude towards the world and what goes on in it. Gandalf says in the Council of Elrond when asked by Erestor if Tom would take the ring to protect it: "He might do so if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the ring he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind." For Tom to have such a poor grasp and concept of such important matters shows his mind to be very queer to our own, and puts him in congruency with a nature spirit I beleive, like the Huorns. Goldberry, however, I think is a Maiar of Ulmo. She was said to be the daughter of the river-woman of the Withywindle River and did not speak strangley as Tom did.


----------



## Eledhwen

I find Talierin's post, near the beginning of this thread, to be the most convincing argument. It matches character traits, history and relationships; with reasons for rejecting alternatives, to arrive at a superb conclusion for the identity of the character Tolkien called "the spirit of the vanishing landscapes of Oxfordshire and Berkshire." (Carpenter, The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, No. 19.). It's a long post (three separate replies to fit it all in), but well worth reading in its entirety.


----------



## Bucky

It never fails to amaze me how folks interject their opinions above what Tolkien SAYS.

A third of the folks vote one form of Ainur or the other.

Ainur are not 'inigmas' or 'the spirit of the vanishing countryside' (whatever, paraphrase)

But let us not have the author's words get in the way of our opinions on HIS work, lol. :*rolleyes:


----------



## Eledhwen

There are no minimum entry requirements, as regards debating and arguing skills, for this forum; and I'm glad of it. So long as any criticism is constructive and polite, those whose opinions are based on a shallower depth of knowledge can learn and develop, and become like some of the great debaters who have graced these boards. I work in a school for 11-16 year olds where the question "What is Tom Bombadil?" would be met with blank stares, "Dunno!" or cocky answers like "Is he that new kid in Year 8?"


----------



## Arvedui

Bucky said:


> It never fails to amaze me how folks interject their opinions above what Tolkien SAYS.
> 
> A third of the folks vote one form of Ainur or the other.
> 
> Ainur are not 'inigmas' or 'the spirit of the vanishing countryside' (whatever, paraphrase)
> 
> But let us not have the author's words get in the way of our opinions on HIS work, lol. :*rolleyes:


Ah, but it is always such a nuisance when someone ruins a good discussion with facts...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Just to demonstrate how long this particular argument has been going.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Dang -- here's another one:









Tom Bombadil


Hope this question isn't so simple I sound stupid! What is Tom Bombadil? I have read Sil, and it makes no comment on him, and I am plagued by this question at night. I know the origin of the character Tom Bombadil, but he seems to have no background in LOTR, which is extremely odd for even...




www.thetolkienforum.com





I haven't compared them, to see if parts of that one were incorporated into the first.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Dang -- here's another one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil
> 
> 
> Hope this question isn't so simple I sound stupid! What is Tom Bombadil? I have read Sil, and it makes no comment on him, and I am plagued by this question at night. I know the origin of the character Tom Bombadil, but he seems to have no background in LOTR, which is extremely odd for even...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thetolkienforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't compared them, to see if parts of that one were incorporated into the first.
> View attachment 6478


To be fair, there's probably enough threads on both Tom Bombadil and also the Entwives that each could have their own subforums on TTF


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

I almost wrote that!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Since I dragged this thread from its grave, I suppose I should add something for future intrepid explorers of the catacombs.

Someone in the early pages here likened TB to the Ents, which sounds odd, but the connection isn't as outlandish as it seems.

Romance polarizes its characters into a good/evil opposition, for the most part, but Northrop Frye, in his Anatomy of Criticism, after exploring this, examines another class of character:



> The characters who elude the moral antithesis of heroism and villainy generally are or suggest spirits of nature. They represent partly the moral neutrality of the intermediate world of nature and partly a world of mystery which is glimpsed but never seen, and which retreats when approached. Among female characters of this type are the shy nymphs of Classical legends and the elusive half-wild creatures who might be called daughter-figures, and include Spencer's Florimell, Hawthorne's Pearl, Wagner's Kundry, and Hudson's Rima. Their male counterparts have a little more variety. Kipling's Mowgli is the best known of the wild boys; a green man lurked in the forests of medieval England, appearing as Robin Hood and as the knight of Gawain's adventure; the "salvage man", represented in Spenser by Satyrane, is a Renaissance favorite, and the awkward but faithful giant with unkempt hair has shambled amiably through romance for centuries.
> 
> Such characters are, more or less, children of nature, who can be brought to serve the hero, like Crusoe's Friday, but retain the inscrutability of their origin. As servants or friends of the hero, they impart the mysterious rapport with nature that so often marks the central figure of romance. The paradox that many of these children of nature are "supernatural" beings is not as distressing in romance as in logic. The helpful fairy, the grateful dead man, the wonderful servant who has just the abilities the hero needs in a crisis, are all folk tale commonplaces.



We can see from this how many otherwise mysterious or incongruous characters fit into the story; not only Tom and Goldberry, but the Ents, Ghan-buri-Ghan, and the "Deadmen"; they are all part of long tradition.


----------



## vnocito

Telchar said:


> *Tom Bombadil*
> 
> Tolkien never said exactly who it was but he gave a few hints, and that has caused many theories on what he is.. So, what do you think he is?
> 
> *This thread is now merged with 'What Was Tom Bombadil' originally in The History of Middle-Earth section* Ancalagon.
> 
> *This thread is now merged with numerous Tom Bombadil threads scattered hap hazardly over the forum in the last two days from Stuff and Bother and the Movie Forum* Grond
> 
> [color=008000]This thread now merged with other Tom B threads.[/color]


Based upon my extensive knowledge of British folklore, and Celtic / pagan mythology, it seems wildly obvious to me that Tom Bombadil represents the "Green Man" the god of nature and fertility akin to Dionysus - He is the "Master" of beasts and wild things so extensively discussed in the writings of Anthropologist Margaret Murray. His Wife Goldberry, the "river daughter" is obviously a type of river goddess, or Lady of the Lake / goddess of the well, so prevalent in British folklore. She represents the Earth Mother Goddess who is forever linked with the Green Man / God of nature.

Based upon my extensive knowledge of British folklore, and Celtic / pagan mythology, it seems wildly obvious to me that Tom Bombadil represents the "Green Man" the god of nature and fertility akin to Dionysus - He is the "Master" of beasts and wild things so extensively discussed in the writings of Anthropologist Margaret Murray. His Wife Goldberry, the "river daughter" is obviously a type of river goddess, or Lady of the Lake / goddess of the well, so prevalent in British folklore. She represents the Earth Mother Goddess who is forever linked with the Green Man / God of nature. ... The Reason Bombadil is immune to the Ring, and according to accounts has existed fro the dawn of time, is precisely because he is the God of Nature / Fertility - he is immortal, just like the Great Mother goddess / Goldberry. Sauron with all his evil, is just another foolish mortal being living in the world that belongs to tom Bombadil and Goldberry... his magic is irrelevant to them.


----------



## Olorgando

vnocito said:


> … Sauron with all his evil, is just another foolish mortal being living in the world that belongs to tom Bombadil and Goldberry... his magic is irrelevant to them.


As Sauron is clearly a Maia (and was present in whatever participatory function of the Music of the Ainur of The Sil), calling him mortal "seems" to me to be going beyond JRRT "canon" as badly as PJ often did in his six films. And while JRRT may not have entirely ignored Celtic mythology, it certainly takes a back seat (and I'm not thinking of cars here, more long-distance buses like the Greyhound in the US) to Norse mythology. For "Sauron is mortal" you had better dig up some quotes by JRRT himself … 🤨


----------



## vnocito

Olorgando said:


> As Sauron is clearly a Maia (and was present in whatever participatory function of the Music of the Ainur of The Sil), calling him mortal "seems" to me to be going beyond JRRT "canon" as badly as PJ often did in his six films. And while JRRT may not have entirely ignored Celtic mythology, it certainly takes a back seat (and I'm not thinking of cars here, more long-distance buses like the Greyhound in the US) to Norse mythology. For "Sauron is mortal" you had better dig up some quotes by JRRT himself … 🤨


I confess that my statement on Sauron may be hyperbole, however I stick to my assessment of Celtic / British folkloric influences in JRRT: anyone familiar with British folklore surrounding the Green Man and Goddesses of wells/ springs/ rivers, cannot help but see the link to Bombadil & Goldberry. Even though JRRT may not have explicitly stated the fact (or even been conscious of it) himself, his creation of the character Bombadil would have been influenced by the mere fact of his being British, and having the cultural background in which Green Man / horned god of the wilds folklore is a part. Even today, English villages host traditional seasonal celebrations surrounding these mythic figures - this would’ve been even more prevalent and part of British cultural assumptions in JRRT’s day. As for Norse myths- I agree they’re a big part of JRRT’s sources- However, much of what survives of Norse Mythology bears strong evidence of blending with both Christian, and earlier Celtic ideas. Truth be told, it’s hard to say what of Norse Mythology is truly original, and what of it is a hybrid with later additions. By the time the Norsemen & Vikings came on the scene, Christianity and Celtic myth were already established in Britain, and as we know from anthropology- premodern people had a habit of adopting and admixing mythologies together.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

vnocito said:


> mere fact of his being British


Tolkien much rather preferred being known as "English".


CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Frye addresses the Green Man, and other manifestations, in the passage I quoted above.

And welcome to the forum, vnocito!


----------



## Olorgando

vnocito said:


> ... Even though JRRT may not have explicitly stated the fact (or even been conscious of it) himself, his creation of the character Bombadil would have been influenced by the mere fact of his being British, ...
> … Truth be told, it’s hard to say what of Norse Mythology is truly original, and what of it is a hybrid with later additions. ...





CirdanLinweilin said:


> Tolkien much rather preferred being known as "English".
> CL


CL raises a point about JRRT's self-image, and JRRT himself felt more affinity with his mother's family, the Suffields, than with the East-Prussian-derived paternal ancestry - which, as the emigration to London took place in the 1770s, JRRT himself stated to have become thin by intermarriage with English. Now JRRT stated, à porpos of another topic, I believe his view on the artificial boundary drawn at English universities between "Lit" and "Lang", that he had "the hatred of apartheid in his bones" (probably an allusion to his birth in South Africa), so I seriously doubt he would have been in the least fanatical about segregating Celtic British from Anglo-Saxon; but he certainly would have considered himself to be the latter.
As to not being conscious of such influences himself, I'd guess that he conceded such a view by his own stated views about influence: that things may be taken up consciously, but that they then "sink into the mould (or was that mulch?)" where they are by necessity transformed in some way, to "pop up" at a later time, by then unrecognizable as far as that original source is concerned. The term "mental furniture" is often used for such things..

As to the originality of Norse Mythology - and for that matter, Celtic Mythology, too - we have very little idea what the "Germanic" tribes (as imprecise a term as the "Keltoi" first mentioned by the classical Greeks) of well over 2000 years ago believed. The first written sources on them - Greek and Roman - were those of their opponents, so sure to be both biased and often uncomprehending. What we now consider to be somewhat "authentic" sources, the Icelandic Eddas and Sagas, or on the Celtic side the Ulster Cycle centering on Conchobar mac Nessa and Cú Chulainn, the Fenian Cycle of Fionn mac Cumhaill, his son Oisin and grandson Oscar, or the Welsh Mabinogion, are all to be found in surviving manuscripts from perhaps the 12th to the 14th century. So very much at a point when both the British Isles and Iceland had become Christianized, and one must probably assume some re-writing, additions and deletions by scribes later than the "original authors", if such ever existed. The work JRRT himself probably know best, Beowulf, is more in the way of a legend than a mythology, as, while "The Monsters" of various shapes are part of the story, Odin, Thor & Co. are noticeably absent.

As to the origin of the *name* "Tom Bombadil", it was the name of a "Dutch doll" once owned by JRRT's second son Michael; how the *doll* came by that name is something I have no idea about.


----------

