# The Bombadil Enigma



## Keith Mathison (Jun 18, 2020)

Greetings. I'm new to this forum, but a long time fan of Tolkien's works. One of my pastimes for the last several years has been looking at the various Bombadil theories. I've always found him fascinating. I finally put all of my thoughts together and expressed a tentative conclusion in a blog post here. I think I've found a few things that might shed some light or open some new doors for further exploration into this character, but I'd love to get some feedback. With so many theories out there, I want to make sure I'm not just seeing shapes in the clouds. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them. Thank you.


----------



## Starbrow (Jun 18, 2020)

Fascinating post. There's a lot to think about there.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 18, 2020)

Welcome the forum, Keith! 

You can find a _whole bunch _of threads about TB here -- and that's putting it mildly!


----------



## Alcuin (Jun 19, 2020)

That’s an interesting essay. Welcome to The Tolkien Forum.


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 19, 2020)

Welcome. I'd guess few if any first posts have contained such a thought-provoking, excellent link.


----------



## Elthir (Jun 19, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Welcome. I'd guess few if any first posts have contained such a thought-provoking, excellent link.




What if my first post linked to a single word: goo. Talk about thought provoking!
____________________

Anyway, very nice post *Keith*. I'm far more interested in external musings about Bombadil than internal attempts to categorize him.

🐾


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 19, 2020)

Elthir said:


> What if my first post linked to a single word: goo. Talk about thought provoking!


Looking at the "joined" date shown underneath your Berúthiel-themed avatar, your first post is very deep in necro territory, presumably. And a hypothetical link as you propose it above makes me think of cement-mixers rather than shovels ...
just hypothetically.🤔


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jun 19, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Welcome. I'd guess few if any first posts have contained such a thought-provoking, excellent link.


Thank you for the kind words. I'm still thinking through this theory, but it seemed there was enough there to at least toss it out and start getting feedback.



Starbrow said:


> Fascinating post. There's a lot to think about there.


Thank you!



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Welcome the forum, Keith!
> 
> You can find a _whole bunch _of threads about TB here -- and that's putting it mildly!


Thanks!



Alcuin said:


> That’s an interesting essay. Welcome to The Tolkien Forum.


Thank you!


----------



## Just Another Hobbit (Jun 19, 2020)

Okay, your theory is really epic!! It has joined Joseph Pearce's theory as one of my favorites about Good Old Tom Bombadil. I especially loved how you talked about Tom's poverty and devotion to Goldberry as a reference to the Franciscans' poverty and their devotion to Mary. OOH and when you mentioned the Canticle of the Sun I lost it! 😂 Awesome job!

I'd just like to try to explain a theory explained by Joseph Pearce in his book _Frodo's Journey_. Pearce suggests that Tolkien could be an allegory to a sinless version of Adam from Genesis. Here are some of his points (and maybe one or two added in by friends and family):
He claims that he is eldest, that he saw the first rain and the arrival of the both the big and little people (he even arrived in Middle Earth before evil itself). Yet he did not create the rain or the people, he merely observed. Just like how Adam was the first created human, yet he didn't create the world. (Granted, Adam came after creation while Bombadil apparently came before)
You quoted how the _Reader's Companion_ mentioned that Bombadil is 'fatherless', this is another similarity with Adam because neither of them share a biological/physical father.
He is master of his territory (which if I remember correctly is the trees, hills, and water), but he doesn't leave his territory. This is similar to how Adam and Eve were masters of the Garden of Eden, which they only left when they were banished.
Now as for being sinless, the most obvious argument for that is the Tom is unaffected when he wears the Ring of Power which is used as an allegory for sin throughout the trilogy.
Pearce also pointed out that Tom and Goldberry are constantly dancing, and if I remember correctly Tolkien wrote that Bombadil's dances joined into one continuos dance. This is a contrast to the movements of the hobbits, who obviously aren't dancing like Tom. This could be because their stiffness is an affect of original sin, while if Tom is a sinless Adam, then he would be free from the taints of original sin. (This freedom from sin could also be why Tom is constantly singing)
Also, after saving the hobbits from the barrow wight, he tells them to run around naked and free on the grass. I was confused and rather shocked by this!😂 And yet, if Tom represents Adam, then this command isn't due to a perverted desire of his. Instead it could reference how Adam and Eve were both created naked in the beginning. One again, without sin there is no modern perverseness of this nakedness.
I know this is a weak point but I thought I'd add that with all of the similarities you pointed out between Mary and Goldberry, Mary is considered the New Eve, so Goldberry could be an ideal version of Eve which is exceedingly similar to the Virgin Mother herself.
Pearce's last point is this:
"The final clue that Tom and Goldberry are in some sens emblamtic of the unfallen Adam and Eve is given in Tom's naming of the hobbits' ponies. The ponies had not been given any such names by Merry, to whom they belonged, 'but they answered to the new names that Tom had given them for the rest of their lives.' The connection once again to the book of Genesis and the power that God gave Adam to name the beasts is all too obvious: 'And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.'"

Yikes, that was really long!🤣Thank you so much for sharing your theory, and I hope you enjoy reading Pearce's theory as much as I enjoyed reading yours!


----------



## Elthir (Jun 19, 2020)

I didn't get a thank you.

But I will add that I don't even want to know who Bombadil is, _internally_.


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jun 19, 2020)

Greetings! Thanks for the kind words about my tentative theory! I actually contacted Joseph Pearce about my idea because I had read the book to which you refer (_Frodo's Journey_)some years ago, and really appreciated his ideas. Pearce is also Roman Catholic, so I thought he might be able to tell me if any of my perceptions of Franciscan spirituality were off. I'm planning to go back and look at his book again because I think some of what he's seeing and some of what I'm seeing might actually overlap. The kind of spirituality that I believe Tom represents is also present in unfallen Adam, so my theory and his might not be a complete "either/or" choice.

Also, BTW, I went back and edited my Tom Bombadil post to include the titles and page numbers of some of the older sources that mention September 26 as the date of Francis's birth. For me that was the "I might be on to something" moment. I looked at the date the hobbits met Tom in Appendix B - September 26. I looked up some older works on Francis, the ones that would have been available to Tolkien when he was writing, and they mention September 26 as his traditional birthdate. I had suspected a Francis connection before based on what Tolkien wrote in the letters, but the shared date was too much to ignore. It seems to be too much to be mere coincidence.



Elthir said:


> I didn't get a thank you.
> 
> But I will add that I don't even want to know who Bombadil is, _internally_.


Sorry! Thank you! That's good, because I don't think we can know who he is internally


----------



## Elthir (Jun 19, 2020)

Well I didn't actually deserve a thank you, especially after pointing out that I didn't get one. . . 

. . . but thanks!  

I like the internal mystery of Tom. Some seem to not like him, but I was enchanted; and loved his adventures in the poems too.


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jun 19, 2020)

Elthir said:


> Well I didn't actually deserve a thank you, especially after pointing out that I didn't get one. . .
> 
> . . . but thanks!
> 
> I like the internal mystery of Tom. Some seem to not like him, but I was enchanted; and loved his adventures in the poems too.


I didn't read your initial post closely enough because I thought you were simply responding to someone else's comments. It's what I get for "skimming." 

The first time I read LotR, I found Tom odd. His songs reminded me of the silly songs of the elves in _The Hobbit_. I wasn't sure what to make of him, but I always liked him. I like anyone who laughs so much their face is permanently creased with laugh lines.


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 19, 2020)

Elthir said:


> I'm better now. Or worse. It depends upon your point of view


Which can vary, depending on several variables including quantity and quality of sleep .😴
And contrary to occasional popular misconceptions, this is not explainable by either of Albert E.'s relativity theories. 🤯


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 20, 2020)

E[A], I don't know how to break this news to you … but I received an e-mail notification with you above-post, I mean the one from which I quoted the last line. And also that post of yours in the thread Nardor; saved them both to my special "ElthirAndo" folder. _<insert evil Snidely Whiplash cackle here> _


----------



## Elthir (Jun 20, 2020)

*Apologies Gando*, but I couldn't help deleting my original response to post 15


----------



## Aeltel (Jul 2, 2020)

Hello all

absolutely fascinating discussion and thanks for the blog post Keith, a really interesting essay. 

I can’t add anything to the discussion of _who _Tom is or much to what has already been written but one reading I have, which is just an element of Bombadil and may tie in to the idea that Tom represents a part of Tolkien himself, stems from Bombadil originally being the name of one of Tolkien’s children’s toys.

As a relatively new dad I’m led to the idea that Tom’s power comes from the emotional resonance (for the author and this reader at least) of a father singing comforting nonsense songs to his child. To a child, a parent can literally sing the world to rights, the nightmare of being lost in the woods or alone in the dark are sung away with soothing comedic words. At this point in the creation of the story Tolkien may still have been thinking in terms of a childrens’ book with this sort of ’power’ in mind.

The real terror, for me, of Sauron’s final victory would be the destruction of this power and love. Parental love is the first (oldest) love in our world and will endure until the very end, just like Tom (and the deep dark wood of children’s fears!)


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jul 2, 2020)

Thanks for the kind words about the blog post! 

There's certainly something to what you're saying, I think. Bombadil's appearance never substantially changes as the character is drawn in to Middle-earth. He always looks like the child's toy he was originally - same clothes, same odd colors of the clothes. I think the only thing that changed in his appearance was the kind of feather in his cap (Others can correct me if I'm wrong there). And he always retained essentially the same style of "nonsense" singing.

What you're saying is also one of the reasons I think the "Bombadil is Evil" theory is impossible. Tolkien wouldn't do that with this character - not considering its origins as something he shared with his small children.


----------



## Aeltel (Jul 2, 2020)

One thing that has struck me, reading this work in a new stage of my life, is the bond between Tolkien and Christopher, I’d love to know more about the correspondence between them as the book was written.

just to say I enjoyed your essay on the ending of the Silmarillion. I’m torn on the question of which ending was really intended but I tend towards the published version. 

In the proto Christian world of Middle Earth, just as in the Norse myths that influenced Tolkien, I would suggest that the story of Ragnorok would be the more consistent myth? That is, the knowledge that the last battle ends in _defeat _drives Man’s morality towards the idea that the best that one can do is to fight on the side of the gods with courage and honour? The Elves certainly talk of the ‘long defeat‘ in a way that is consistent with Ragnorok but definitely not with Christianity.

Could Tolkien (or Christopher in making his decision) have revised the ending without explicitly introducing Christ or without, for want of a better word, being blasphemous? The eucatastrophe of Frodo hints at salvation and the mending of Arda, but it does not reveal the fate of man (and I think Tolkien would have baulked at the idea of anything so direct as the sacrifice of an Aslan to resolve the issue!)

So for me, it’s great to know of the alternate ending but I agree with Christopher’s choice for consistency within the world but also within the framework of this being a myth that presages the ’true myth’ (and I mean that last phrase very much in Tolkien’s sense of the Gospel and not at all in the sense of an untruth)


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 2, 2020)

Aeltel said:


> ....
> At this point in the creation of the story Tolkien may still have been thinking in terms of a children's book with this sort of ’power’ in mind.
> ...


The "New Hobbit", yes. JRRT certainly did some back writing to earlier parts after he had finished. I'm not sure how much of this is to be found in Christopher Tolkien's three plus books on the history of LoTR (the fourth, "Sauron Defeated", only deals with LoTR for about the first third), volumes six to nine of HoMe. In my more than a dozen readings of LoTR, this movement from almost still "The Hobbit" to approaching "The Silmarillion" has made me appreciate LoTR more with time. Even the Ringwraiths are hardly what they later become, especially the Witch-king before the gates of Minas Tirith. Tom Bombadil is just outside the Shire, and a friend of Farmer Maggot's. We kind of only really get out of the Shire at the Prancing Pony in Bree; perhaps even only when the four Hobbits leave Bree together with Strider. Who, in the beginnings, was a Ranger Hobbit ...


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 2, 2020)

Aeltel said:


> One thing that has struck me, reading this work in a new stage of my life, is the bond between Tolkien and Christopher, I’d love to know more about the correspondence between them as the book was written.
> ...


Do you mean as yet unpublished correspondence that was not included in Humphrey Carpenter's 1981 "The Letters of J.R.RT. Tolkien"? I don't know if there is so much missing as regards the book, as practically every letter from no. 50 from 25 October 1943 to no. 97 from 11 February 1945 are addressed to Christopher (with one exception only, I believe). What *is* missing is everything that Christopher may have written in return. And there are some gaps in the numbering JRRT started using fairly early on, with letter 55 (in Carpenter's numbering), which JRRT numbered FS1 (father to son 1), and reaches FS 80 with Carpenter' letter no. 97. This was the period that Christopher was in South Africa, training with the RAF.

Just of trivia interest perhaps the following: it was in letter 58 (FS 13) dated 03 April 1944 that JRRT wrote what has been quoted over and over again:
"But I have begun to nibble at Hobbit again."


----------



## 1stvermont (Jul 2, 2020)

Keith Mathison said:


> Greetings. I'm new to this forum, but a long time fan of Tolkien's works. One of my pastimes for the last several years has been looking at the various Bombadil theories. I've always found him fascinating. I finally put all of my thoughts together and expressed a tentative conclusion in a blog post here. I think I've found a few things that might shed some light or open some new doors for further exploration into this character, but I'd love to get some feedback. With so many theories out there, I want to make sure I'm not just seeing shapes in the clouds. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them. Thank you.




Great writing and I love the blog. Good to see another Protestant [even if he is calvanist] in love with Tolkien. I am working on a project that includes among other subjects, Christian and biblical aspects of Tolkiens world. Welcome to a great Tolkien forum.


----------



## Aramarien (Jul 3, 2020)

Keith, I really enjoyed reading your essay. I like how you discussed the various theories of Tom. 
I have always leaned toward the idea that when Tolkien started writing LOTR for fans who wanted more stories of Hobbits, that he included Tom because he was a character that was based on a much loved toy of his children. 
Who was Tom to Tolkien? Perhaps Tolkien wasn't aware of it at first, even as he wrote about him.
When someone I knew was in Art Therapy, that person tended to draw or paint things in groups of threes. The instructor pointed this out to them and the person started to think about it more introspectively. I have a feeling that this is the case with Tom's character. As fans asked Tolkien more about Tom, Tolkien may have also started to be introspective about why he created him the way he did and what Tom may have symbolized. 
Your theory about Tom being like St. Francis of Assisi is thought provoking. There may have been an influence there, however unconscious on Tolkien's part. 
I do like the discussion about Tom and his world being a gateway to something totally different than Middle Earth, perhaps to the "Real World", or the land of make believe for children.


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jul 3, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> Great writing and I love the blog. Good to see another Protestant [even if he is calvanist] in love with Tolkien. I am working on a project that includes among other subjects, Christian and biblical aspects of Tolkiens world. Welcome to a great Tolkien forum.


Thank you!



Aramarien said:


> Keith, I really enjoyed reading your essay. I like how you discussed the various theories of Tom.
> I have always leaned toward the idea that when Tolkien started writing LOTR for fans who wanted more stories of Hobbits, that he included Tom because he was a character that was based on a much loved toy of his children.
> Who was Tom to Tolkien? Perhaps Tolkien wasn't aware of it at first, even as he wrote about him.
> When someone I knew was in Art Therapy, that person tended to draw or paint things in groups of threes. The instructor pointed this out to them and the person started to think about it more introspectively. I have a feeling that this is the case with Tom's character. As fans asked Tolkien more about Tom, Tolkien may have also started to be introspective about why he created him the way he did and what Tom may have symbolized.
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## grendel (Jul 3, 2020)

A very enjoyable read, and obviously well thought out. It touches briefly on my own pet theory that Tom is an extension or avatar of Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar... The abstract theories relating to personification of nature or Catholicism were new to me and interesting.


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jul 3, 2020)

grendel said:


> A very enjoyable read, and obviously well thought out. It touches briefly on my own pet theory that Tom is an extension or avatar of Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar... The abstract theories relating to personification of nature or Catholicism were new to me and interesting.


Thank you!


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jul 16, 2020)

There is no “_Bombadil Enigma_.”

Tolkien explains what’s he is, and who he is, and Tom Shippey Expands on this in _*The Road to Middle-earth*_.

The reason that confusion still exists surrounding Tom Bombadil is because few people who are “_Fans_” of Tolkien are also “_Scholars_” of Tolkien’s work, _*AND*_ who also go beyond “Linguistics” in the study of his work, to get into the Theology and Metaphysics surrounding the world of Middle-earth itself.

And, sadly... *Too many* who _*do*_ go beyond Linguistics to the Theology and Metaphysics of Middle-earth, do so from a _*forced perspective*_ of _*their*_ “Faith,” and _*not*_ that of Tolkien, himself.

In having explored the more recent “_Scholarly Works_” that focus on Middle-earth and Tolkien’s mythology _*IMMEDIATELY*_ do something Tolkien categorically rejected and condemned:

_They immediately apply Allegorical Interpretations to everything in Middle-earth, identifying each character with a Biblical Personality (or event/prophecy)._

Tolkien would have condemned such “analysis” of his work as being a Blasphemy (and he would be correct in terms of his own form of Catholicism, which was deeply Pastoral and Romantic in nature), and he _*actually did condemn*_ such attempts during his own lifetime, when he was buried under “fan-mail” from varieties of “Christians” across the Globe, each cataloging their own personal “Allegorical Analysis of Middle-earth.”

Or:

_They will break-out the philosophical contemporaries of Tolkien’s, which would largely be the first Postmodernist Philosophers, who have as much to do with Middle-earth as does Marxist Dialectic._

So... We are left with few Scholars who so distance themselves from both from their own beliefs and biases, and those of Tolkien’s, so as to better determine what he actually did believe, and how that was-and-is reflected in his Mythopoeia.

In other words: There is little _actual Objective Analysis_ of his works to identify the various properties and identities of the people, places, things, events, and settings within Middle-earth.

Some come closer than others. Tom Shippey being perhaps the most successful in not imposing his own beliefs upon Tolkien’s world and works.

And as such, if one becomes familiar enough with the Theology, Philosophies, and Metaphysics that are the Foundations of *both* the Catholicism that formed the core of both Tolkien’s Religious Faith, *and* the Physical and Spiritual properties and Reality of Middle-earth (p. x of _*The History of Middle-earth, vol X: Morgoth’s Ring*_ delivers a specific and explicit statement to that effect), which requires extending one‘s study of Middle-earth to works that both make no mention of Middle-earth, and seem to have little to do with it, beginning with a study of the Classical Philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome whom the Early-Christians/Catholics admitted to being the “Virtuous Heathens,” and thus escaped Damnation.

But to get to the point:

Tom Bombadil is what is called in the Academic Study of Mythology and Theology a _*Protoplast*_.

Protoplast is the term for “First Form.”

Yes... The term “_Protoplast_” exists in Biology, and other Scientific and Academic Fields, but the fields of Sociology, Anthropology, Comparative Religion, Myth-Studies (similar time Comparative Religion, but dealing more specifically with Religions which have no continuous practice from their founding), Theology, Comparative Theology, and certain fields of Philosophy use the term to refer to the “_First Form_” in the “World/Universe.”

The most familiar Protoplast to Humanity exists in the form of _Adam and Eve_, from Biblical, and pre-historic Levantine Mythology, who themselves are derived from earlier Protoplasts of Sumerian and Babylonian Mythology of _Enlil and Enki_. All Mythologies contain a “Protoplast,“ who/which is either the “Father/Mother of Humanity,” “The Father/Mother of all Life,” or the “Manifestation of the World and Life Itself.”

The latter is what Tom Bombadil is (Goldberry is much, much easier: she is the Daughter of the Withywindel River, a Water-Spirit that resides in the waters of the Old Forest).

He is the Manifestation of “Life” and “Arda” itself.

He is _*NOT*_ a Maiar.

He is _*NOT*_ Eru/Ilúvatar.

He is _*NOT*_ another Ainur _*of any kind*_ (Maiar or Valar).

He has _*no power*_ over _The Ruling Ring._

In Fact any “_Power_” he has is extremely quixotic and arcane/obscure.

Protoplasts are, in Mythologies, usually the “_being_” who “_names_” everything. In terms of Catholicism, this makes Tom Bombadil similar to both “_Adam_” (who named the Fish of the Sea, and the Fowl of the Air, and every creeping thing that crept upon the face of the Earth), _*and*_ the “_Voice of God_,” in that Tom Bombadil describes “_*What is*_.”

Here, one needs to be careful not to confuse “_The Voice of God_” with the Catholic _*Logos*_. The two are very different things, and I am using the term “_Voice of God_” in a very haphazard way to avoid making this post even longer than it already is. In this role, as I pointed out, Tom merely says “What is,” and “It is.”

But Tom Bombadil, or any Protoplast in any of the _Levantine Monomyths_, is unable to “Say” anything that isn’t “God’s Will” (In this vein, this is one of the Theological Obstacles Tolkien kept running into — because ALL of Catholicism runs into it — having to do with _Euthyphro’s Dilemma_, which has to do with the nature and existence of Good/Evil, and with how “God’s Will” is manifested in a Universe; tentatively our own. Euthyphro’s Dilemma was a Socratic Dialog written by Plato — The Classical Greek Philosopher preferred by early Catholicism/Christianity to AristotlIan Philosophy).

As such, while it appears that Tom has “formidable powers,” in actuality he has very few, due to the _Catholic Theological Principles_ surrounding “_Free-Will_” and God “_Interfering_” with mankind’s “_Free-Will._” 

While it is difficult to give a full account of what this means to Tom Bombadil, Middle-earth, Eru-Ilúvatar, and the struggle of Good v Evil, Tom’s identity as a Protoplast explains everything that is revealed about him: from his freeing the Hobbits from the spiteful Withywindle and Old-Man Willow, to the effects inside his house (and the changes it causes in people while it in), to the naming of the Ponies that resulted in their responding to those names for the rest of their lives, to Bombadil saving the Hobbits from the Barrow-Wights, to finally why Bombadil has such narrowing defined “borders: of his “Land.” .... To say nothing of why the _Ruling Ring_ has no power over it (nor he over it), as well as why he is able to “see” Frodo, even while the latter is wearing the _Ruling Ring_.

As is obvious... The subject of Tom Bombadil gets no less complex regardless of having his identity “explained.” Which is the case with all Protoplasts: To the beings inside the Myth, the Protoplast is a gigantic ball of confusion and mystery, whose seeming “Powers” are really not what they seem to be, as powerful as they appear. 

In the case of Tom, it is not he who has any power over anything. Rather nothing has any power over him, to say nothing of Tom being rather oblivious to things that are not immediately in front of him.

The _Wikipedia_ article on the subject of _Mythological Protoplasts_ is a good starting point to begin understanding their _Existence_ and _Being_ in our world/universe, before beginning to dive into the Identity of Middle-earth’s Protoplast.

But in getting an understanding of subjects like this, there are vistas within Middle-earth that suddenly open-up, explaining a great, great many things that previously seemed to be a paradox or unsolvable Mystery.

Once you begin to understand how Catholic Religious Faith relates to the last European Pagan Religions, and to the Theology and Metaphysics that has “evolved from” the syncretism of European Paganism and Early-Catholicism, ... It then begins possible to get a clearer imagine of what Tolkien himself imagined Middle-earth to be.

And in that regard... It expands the Tool Kit available to Tolkien Scholars with which they can renew their exploration of Tolkien’s Sub-Created Universe.

MB



Aramarien said:


> ... he included Tom because he was a character that was based on a much loved toy of his children.
> Who was Tom to Tolkien? Perhaps Tolkien wasn't aware of it at first, even as he wrote about him.
> ... Tolkien may have also started to be introspective about why he created him the way he did and what Tom may have symbolized.




Tolkien did at first include the character just because he wanted to include a novel and humorous character at that point in the narrative.

But, as you said, Tolkien did begin to think more about the _Nature_ of Tom Bombadil (and Goldberry) as the story progressed, and eventually he did settle upon an actual identity for Tom.

But it is an identity that he did not reveal to the Public, and it is possible only a very few people knew of that identity, even to JRRT’s Death.

But it is clear that Tom Shippey understood that Identity, as he reveals it in _*The Road to Middle-earth*_.

The identity is something very obscure to most people outside of a very small cross-section in Academia (Secular or Religious), as I explain below. 

And given that identity, Tolkien painted himself into another of his many “Theological Corners” where he could not easily “escape” without committing some sort of Heretical Act.

Understanding that Identity allows one an understanding of a great many other things as well. But as Shippey and a few other Tolkien Scholars have observed:

_Too many Tolkien Scholars commit the greatest Sin in all of Academia by starting with their conclusion, and then going back to cherry-pick citations within Tolkien’s work that support these “conclusions.”_

The greatest such “_sin_” and _Blasphemy_, in Tolkien‘s eyes, was to make allegorical claims about characters, events, places, and things, equating them with Biblical characters, events, places, and things.

They are literally destroying Tolkien’s work in order to build something new from the Rubble (as he himself observes in one of the volumes of HoM-e) that shares very little in common with the original structure beyond using some few recognizable portions of the wreck as the Foundation of a new edifice (no sturdier than the last).

The “Identity of Tom Bombadil“ in any of these situations is recoverable. It just requires paying enough attention to the proper sources to reveal that identity.

MB


----------



## Just Another Hobbit (Jul 17, 2020)

Matthew Bailey said:


> There is no “_Bombadil Enigma_.”
> 
> Tolkien explains what’s he is, and who he is, and Tom Shippey Expands on this in _*The Road to Middle-earth*_.
> 
> ...


Wow. This is a lot of great stuff, but in my opinion LOTR is an allegory (in a way). Tolkien wrote that, "Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)" (_The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, 1995, p. 246.) This implies that Tolkien believed his story is in fact an allegory (of Power). I don't want to sound like a broken record, but In _Frodo's Journey_ ( which I've mentioned before) Joseph Pearce argues that LOTR does contain allegories, but not 'formal' allegories as are found in _The Pilgrim's Progress_. Chapter 1 of _Frodo's Journey_ explains Pearce's point of view, but short of quoting a large portion of the chapter I can't do it justice on this website.


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 17, 2020)

Matthew Bailey said:


> ...
> But as Shippey and a few other Tolkien Scholars have observed:
> _Too many Tolkien Scholars commit the greatest Sin in all of Academia by starting with their conclusion, and then going back to cherry-pick citations within Tolkien’s work that support these “conclusions.”_
> ...


Very true, I have no doubt.
But true as it may be that understanding JRRT's specific Roman Catholicism is to understanding some supposed enigmas, I still hold that his statement about applicability residing in the freedom of the reader can lead to some other conclusions. Some of them might have surprised him, but then people come to reading his works from quite different perspectives.

This thread by member Alice Alice from Russia has some pointers:









Examples of the amazing adventures of Tolkien's fanfiction in my country


Some people that I know wonder, if there were some examples of Tolkien fanfiction published in USA or other countries (excluding parodies). This question appeared, because in 1990's and 2000's in Russia arised the popularity of sequels, prequels, midquels and re-imagining of Professor's works...




www.thetolkienforum.com





Now one might, having no information about the situation in the Soviet Union / Russia, doubt that JRRT's works could be overly popular there - they're on the "wrong side" of the divide separating the Easterlings. I had read fairly early on (I'm guessing 1990s) that there had been underground translations of LoTR even in the USSR quite a while back. My point is, they have an entirely different perspective. For one, any religious perspective would be more along the lines of Eastern Orthodoxy (and the Patriarch of Moscow does not necessarily agree with the _primus inter pares_, the Patriarch of Constantinople-New Rome, on all points). For all the differences, much overlap. And there is overlap of both with other beliefs and world views. Those are what would be called human universals. I have no idea to what degree JRRT was aware of such overlap - some, probably. But he certainly was not aware of nearly all the differing possible perspectives to take and find applicability (nobody is).
And the freedom of the readers' applicability does include their finding allegory. Though here, JRRT does put strict conditions for a just allegory. Even Shippey may have run afoul of "furor allegoricus", as he takes up a point made by Verlyn Flieger in a revised chapter of the 2003 revised and expanded third edition of his "Road to M-e".


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jul 17, 2020)

Hi Matthew,

Interesting post. Thank you! 

I can't really tell if you're saying I'm one of those who has sinned or blasphemed against Tolkien because I can't tell if you're responding to the little essay I linked in the original post in this thread or just responding to the thread itself. IN any case, I'm not a "Tolkien scholar" so it may not be possible for me to sin against him in the way you mentioned. However, if I am a sinner and blasphemer against Tolkien, as long as Treeebeard is in charge of the punishment, I'll be content. 

You said there is no Bombadil enigma. Isn't that statement itself going directly against Tolkien since he himself said that TB is an enigma? In letter 144 to Naomi Mitchison, Tolkien writes: "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Carpenter, _Letters_, p. 174).

I find the Protoplast idea interesting. It seems to be the idea that Joseph Pearce picks up on his book _Frodo's Journey _when he says ". . . Tom and Goldberry are in some sense emblematic of the unfallen Adam and Eve . . .” (p. 47). You mentioned Shippey's book (which may be where Pearce got the seed of his idea), but I don't see Shippey making a case that would allow us to say that this is definitely what Tolkien had in mind and that it solves every problem. Shippey talks about Bombadil's main characteristics: fearlessness and naturalness in his words. Then he says of Bombadil, "Like Adam, also Fatherless . . ." But Shippey's statement doesn't take into account the Tolkien letter cited by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull in the reader's companion to LotR. This is one of the letters I mentioned in my little essay. Tolkien writes:

“I think there are two answers: (i) External (ii) Internal; according to (i) Bombadil just came into my mind independently and got swept into the growing stream of The Lord of the Rings. The original poem about him, in the curious rhythm which characterizes him, appeared in the Oxford Magazine at some time not long before the war. According to (ii), I have left him where he is and not attempted to clarify his position, first of all because I like him and he has at any rate a satisfying geographical home in the lands of The Lord of the Rings; but more seriously because in any world or universe devised imaginatively (or imposed simply upon the actual world) there is always some element that does not fit and opens as it were a window into some other system. You will notice that though the Ring is a serious matter and has great power for all the inhabitants of the world of The Lord of the Rings even the best and the most holy, it does not touch Tom Bombadil at all. So Bombadil is ‘fatherless’, he has no historical origin in the world described in The Lord of the Rings” (Reader’s Companion, 2005 edition, pp. 133–4). 

Here Tolkien says that "fatherless" refers to Bombadil's lack of a historical origin inside the mythology. He doesn't fit, but Tolkien kept him in order to open a window into something else. That doesn't mean that he's not like Adam, but Shippey doesn't make a case for that. He says "Unlike even the oldest living creatures he has no date of birth, but seems to have been there since before the Elves awoke, a part of Creation, an exhalation of the world.” (p. 107). He then looks at some parallels with the Old English poem Genesis B and with the green knight and talks about the "man by spontaneous generation" - the Adam idea again. But it seems to me that all he does is point to some similarities, much like what other writers on Bombadil do all the time. 

What I argued for in my essay, I think overlaps with what Pearce wrote, and I think it overlaps therefore with some of what you wrote. I agree that Bombadil is not Eru, a Vala, etc. But Tolkien himself in his letters repeatedly indicates some things Bombadil represents. For that reason, I don't think it's against his will (i.e. sinning against him) to try to think through those statements he made in light of his own worldview (not that of postmodernist interpreters - as you rightly indicate). 

There is a danger in that, as Tolkien indicated in 1938 in the "On Fairy Stories" lecture, people can lose the forest for the trees. He criticized those who weren't satisfied with the soup but wanted to see the bones from the ox out of which the soup was made. I get that. I've read so many different theories about Bombadil that it can leave your head spinning. People could stop enjoying the tale as a tale, and that would be a shame. But I can see Tolkien sitting off in a corner with a Bombadil-like twinkle in his eye, chuckling because people are tossing so many theories around and taking this so seriously. 

I think that as Bombadil evolved over the course of writing LotR, many different bones were added to the soup. The nature spirit idea seems to have been there at the beginning as his 1936 letter indicates - the one Shippey quotes. But as he revised the book, he seems to have brought in other elements (e.g. Kalevala inspired elements, etc.). I tried to address _one _of those elements (the Roman Catholic element) in my essay. I don't think it's the only one, and it might not even be correct. My tastebuds might be off and I might be mistaking one ingredient in the soup for something else.

In any case, thanks for the fascinating comments!

Keith


----------



## Thar BAD (Aug 4, 2020)

Fantastic analysis - I gasped out loud with your linkage to Mary and waterlilies!
And so it occurs to me that (in the timeline of JRRT's creative endeavours) TB truly is "the first" and before anything else in ME. And also, originally from outside and not intrinsically a part of the story, in so many ways.


----------



## Keith Mathison (Aug 4, 2020)

Thar BAD said:


> Fantastic analysis - I gasped out loud with your linkage to Mary and waterlilies!
> And so it occurs to me that (in the timeline of JRRT's creative endeavours) TB truly is "the first" and before anything else in ME. And also, originally from outside and not intrinsically a part of the story, in so many ways.


Thank you. I'm not sure I could ever prove any of it with 100% certainty, but I do think that Franciscan themes might have been one of the ingredients in the soup.


----------



## Otyugh (Sep 24, 2020)

A fine discussion. I really should spend more time in this excellent forum. Alas I am not yet retired. Given the volume already written, I'll be brief, limit myself to one informal citing, and will not expect much in the way of reply. My simple take on Bombadil:

Bombadil came with the planet. Tom came into existence with Arda; Goldberry perhaps later, when rivers started flowing. The closest fit to mainstream beings would be a cousin to or subcategory of a heavy-hitting Maiar. I propose a notable difference is that Tom (and Goldberry) did not exist outside of, or prior to, the world, but rather sprang up as some side effect of creation. Unforeseen Iluvatar riffs perhaps.

Supporting the view that Bombadil did not come from the outside, but rather from the inside of creation: In that gorgeous magical rainy day scene where Tom educates the hobbits, he says he remembers the dark when it was fearless, (double dash, sparingly used by Tolkien) "before the Dark Lord came from Outside." This led me to the view that Bombadil is a little different from a regular Maiar. Tolkien even capitalizes the 'O.'

Maybe Manwe would know Bombadil's back-story, or Aule, or even Melkor, or maybe not; in any case they're not talking.

Nor do I think Bombadil is necessarily singular in this coming-with-the-planet view. Consider when Gandalf told Gimli about the under-world being gnawed by nameless things, older than Sauron.

At the author level, I have zero problems with Tolkien creating one-offs that don't fit in perfectly with a framework. It's a big creation that can handle a few one-offs. If I'd built an entire world, and had created a superb character a few years earlier, I would not want him to go to waste.


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Sep 25, 2020)

Otyugh said:


> A fine discussion. I really should spend more time in this excellent forum. Alas I am not yet retired. Given the volume already written, I'll be brief, limit myself to one informal citing, and will not expect much in the way of reply. My simple take on Bombadil:
> 
> Bombadil came with the planet. Tom came into existence with Arda; Goldberry perhaps later, when rivers started flowing. The closest fit to mainstream beings would be a cousin to or subcategory of a heavy-hitting Maiar. I propose a notable difference is that Tom (and Goldberry) did not exist outside of, or prior to, the world, but rather sprang up as some side effect of creation. Unforeseen Iluvatar riffs perhaps.
> 
> ...



It apparently needs to be repeated again:

Tolkien tells us several times that Tom is *not an *_*Ainur*_. Meaning he can be *neither* Valar *nor* Maiar.

Others here have come closer in comparing Tom to Adam, as that is a much more_ precise_ example of the _Class of Mythological Being/Entity_ to which _both_ belong: A Mythological Protoplast (First-Form).

While Tom’s “Origin” in our world is in a work separate from Middle-earth, *within* Eä, Arda, and Middle-earth, Tom is a being who came with the creation of this “_Universe_.”

People _*really, really, really*_ need to step outside the Primary Sources if they are going to discover anything about Middle-earth, and the Universe in which it resides, beyond the narratives themselves.

Nearly 100% of the content and questions people inquire about in these forums have been answered either _explicitly_ by Tolkien himself, or we have an _implicit answer_ in the form of a necessity required by the Metaphysical and Theological Foundations that Tolkien otherwise provides us.

MB

Tolkien May have inserted Tom into Middle-earth as a post-facto thought, but in doing-so he made Tom Bombadil into a “thing” in its own Right within Eä.



Just Another Hobbit said:


> Wow. This is a lot of great stuff, but in my opinion LOTR is an allegory (in a way). Tolkien wrote that, "Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)" (_The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, 1995, p. 246.) This implies that Tolkien believed his story is in fact an allegory (of Power). I don't want to sound like a broken record, but In _Frodo's Journey_ ( which I've mentioned before) Joseph Pearce argues that LOTR does contain allegories, but not 'formal' allegories as are found in _The Pilgrim's Progress_. Chapter 1 of _Frodo's Journey_ explains Pearce's point of view, but short of quoting a large portion of the chapter I can't do it justice on this website.



Again, no.

Middle-earth is _*not any kind of “Allegory.” *_The expression Tolkien is using her is not referencing “Allegory,” but the _*subject*_ of the sentence “_My story_.”

i.e. He is contrasting the two points:

My story is an allegory of Atomic Power.
v.
My story is one of Power (exerted for domination).

The referent in the ending class is the _*subject*_ of the sentence, and _*not*_ the _*Object*_ of the Sentence.

Admitted, this is something that modern English finds Ambiguous, but in terms of formal, Academic English, it is not.

Tolkien gives us all manner of citations expressing explicitly that while “people are _going_ to see ‘_allegory_’ from their own lives’ experiences,“ Tolkien himself made nothing “_Allegorical_” within Middle-earth. Any “_Allegory_” people see is of their own making, and likely contradicted by the realities _*within Middle-earth*_, where such comparisons are impossible.

From pp. 144 – 145 of _*The Letters of JRR Tolkien*_; Letter #131 to MilTom Waldman:


> But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite.
> 
> I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more ‘life’ a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)



As such, Tolkien _*did not*_ “believe” his story/stories to be an “Allegory” of “Power” of any kind.

As for David Peace’s suspect claim(s).

Again from _*The Letters of JRR Tolkien*_; pp. 120 – 122, Letter #109 to Stanley Unwin:


> The struggle between darkness and light (sometimes one suspects leaving the story proper to become pure allegory) is macabre and intensified beyond that in “Hobbit”. . . .
> 
> But in spite of this, do not let Rayner suspect ‘Allegory’. There is a ‘moral’, I suppose, in any tale worth telling. But that is not the same thing.
> 
> Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ‘literature’, that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily can it be read ‘just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends. You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power. But that is only because all power magical or mechanical does always so work. You cannot write a story about an apparently simple magic ring without that bursting in, if you really take the ring seriously, and make things happen that would happen, if such a thing existed.





Just Another Hobbit said:


> Wow. This is a lot of great stuff, but in my opinion LOTR is an allegory (in a way). Tolkien wrote that, "Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)" (_The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, 1995, p. 246.) This implies that Tolkien believed his story is in fact an allegory (of Power). I don't want to sound like a broken record, but In _Frodo's Journey_ ( which I've mentioned before) Joseph Pearce argues that LOTR does contain allegories, but not 'formal' allegories as are found in _The Pilgrim's Progress_. Chapter 1 of _Frodo's Journey_ explains Pearce's point of view, but short of quoting a large portion of the chapter I can't do it justice on this website.



Again, no.

Middle-earth is *not any kind of “Allegory.”*

Tolkien gives us all manner of citations expressing explicitly that while “people are _going_ to see ‘_allegory_’ from their own lives’ experiences,“ Tolkien himself made nothing “_Allegorical_” within Middle-earth. Any “_Allegory_” people see is of their own making, and likely contradicted by the realities _within Middle-earth_, where such comparisons are impossible.

From pp. 144 – 145 of _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_; Letter #131 to MilTom Waldman:


> But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite.
> 
> I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more ‘life’ a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)



As such, Tolkien _did not_ “believe” his story/stories to be an “Allegory” of “Power” of any kind.

As for David Peace’s suspect claim(s).

Again from _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_; pp. 120 – 122, Letter #109 to Stanley Unwin:


> The struggle between darkness and light (sometimes one suspects leaving the story proper to become pure allegory) is macabre and intensified beyond that in “Hobbit”. . . .
> 
> But in spite of this, do not let Rayner suspect ‘Allegory’. There is a ‘moral’, I suppose, in any tale worth telling. But that is not the same thing.
> 
> Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ‘literature’, that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily can it be read ‘just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends. You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power. But that is only because all power magical or mechanical does always so work. You cannot write a story about an apparently simple magic ring without that bursting in, if you really take the ring seriously, and make things happen that would happen, if such a thing existed.



And to re-quote myself quoting Tolkien again:

_*The Letters of JRR Tolkien*_; p. 192, Letter #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)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: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture.



Here Tolkien provides a very clear concept of _what_ Tom Bombadil is. And notice the use of “ ‘allegory’ “ as opposed to just directly stating he is an “Allegory” (with no ‘quotes,’ indicating that it isn’t an allegory in the sense people keep wanting to apply, which is the purpose applied to such quotes: An indication that “This isn’t really what it says it is”).

Tolkien himself doesn’t know what he is describing here, because it is outside his area of expertise. But to the Anthropologist, Sociologist, or those who study Comparative Religion and Myth, Tolkien is describing a _Protoplast_ (_*Damn!*_ How many times am I going to need to repeat that).

What Tolkien “has in mind” here is less relevant to the technical terminology identifying Tom than is what Tolkien has described Tom as.

If a person is not familiar with a technical term, that does not negate the reality of that technical term applying to what a person might have described.

If a person in the Middle Ages had described a “machine that tests physical matter at the level of its most basic constituents,” the fact that they do not know what a Particle Accelerator is, nor an “Atom Smasher” (the more primitive version of the Particle Accelerator that could not yet propel individual particles). Nor would such a person need to know what a “Telephone,” “Television,” “Telescope,” nor “Microscope” was in order for something they described to _*BE*_ such an object.

Tolkien’s mention of Bombadil as an _enigma_ is referring to Bombadil _*within *_Middle-earth, and not to those outside of it.

There are many different _Levels or Analysis_ that exist in dealing with Myth of the kind Tolkien was attempting. And he, himself, was not especially conversant in the formal study of Myth beyond how Catholic Theology dealt with it. His statements to the effect that Eä as a whole operates on its own set of “Fundamental Rules“ (Metaphysics) that give rise to the various things within Middle-earth, which would be just as discoverable via the Sciences _*within *_Middle-earth, as those same Sciences reveal knowledge about our world to us. Those Sciences, though, would necessarily reveal _*different things*_ about the Universe of Eä, and Arda and Middle-earth within it, than they have revealed in our Universe.

So whether Tolkien himself “knows” the specific answer to something about Middle-earth (or the Universe in which it _exists_), that does not mean no answer exists, nor that an answer is impossible to discover. But it does mean that:

Given what we _*do know*_ about Middle-earth.

There are answers that are _*necessarily required*_ for certain things, whether Tolkien himself was immediately aware of those necessities, himself.

In the later volumes of _*The History of Middle-earth*_, we see Tolkien struggling with reaching a “more completed form” for the early Mythology of Middle-earth _*precisely because*_ the process of writing _*The Lord of the Rings*_ revealed to him things that caused *massive alterations* to be required for his earlier accounts of Middle-earth.

And, of course, he could not violate Catholic/Christian Theology in addressing any of the various properties of Middle-earth.

But, as to the issue of Tom Bombadil’s _“identity”_ we have ample evidence to know beyond a shadow of a doubt:

Tom Bombadil is a Protoplast of some variety... Along with what would be millions of other such beings in the form of “Spirits” that manifest in the identity of Rivers, Streams, Forests, Trees, Mountains, Caves, portions of the air/atmosphere, and so on... Giving Middle-earth a panoply of “Life” beyond that of either the basic “Plants and Wildlife,” or the “Children of Ilúvatar.” Tolkien tells us that all manner of such things exist, not all of which will be _Protoplasts_, but where a good many will be.

Jewish Mythology has a similar selection of such “Spirits” as well, which were found in many forms of Early Christian Mythology, or evening in Medieval Christian Mythology, where they had largely become varieties of “Demons.”

Tolkien just never got around to addressing such things as a whole in any _Direct Fashion_. He was consumed by the task of completing a Mythology constrained by Catholic Orthodoxy, which was ultimately an impossible task given the inherent paradoxes and contradictions that exist in Catholic Orthodox Theology. Yet another thing that is difficult to account for.

mB


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 25, 2020)

Matthew Bailey said:


> Tolkien tells us several times that Tom is *not an *_*Ainur*_.


I didn’t know that. Do you remember where he wrote it, or in which work it’s cited?


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Sep 25, 2020)

Also, in reply to Keith.

Yes, Tolkien had some degree of distaste for those who “want to see the bones of the Ox,” from which the Soup was made.

Yet such bones exist, regardless of whether Tolkien found it to be _objectionable_ to want to look at them.

Like most Catholics, not just of his era, but of any age, there is a tension with the Sciences, and with examining reality that exposes things that used to be referred to as “Things not meant for the knowledge of Mankind.” All of Middle-earth is a reactionary response to the progress of a Science, and what it reveals. Tolkien was, like any Reactionary Conservative, _*terrified*_ of the progress created by these Sciences, which he, like many who still exist, attributed to be the existence of not just Totalitarian Ideologies (Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, and later Maoism), which is saw as the necessary result of this “Progress” (which would be wrong).

As such, he tended to recoil from _*many, many, many*_ aspects of his own creation because thinking about them meant having to consider the exact sciences and progress he despised.

The origin of Orcs presents no better example of this, where again-and-again-and-again he recoils from solutions to the problem/question of _“What are Orcs?”_ because he finds it “Too terrible to contemplate.” Even rejecting such solutions because of that very thing.

Let’s look at _*precisely what he is saying/doing*_ in rejecting these solutions as “Too terrible to contemplate.”

1) “Orcs” are the footsoldiers, “Stormtroopers,” of Morgoth and Sauron.
2) They are supposed to have come about via some sort of _Abomination, Corruption, _or _Perversion_ of other life-forms _*BY *_Morgoth/Sauron.
3) Tolkien identifies Melkor/Morgoth with _Satan_, the ultimate source of _*Pure Evil*_ in the Universe.
4) Tolkien rejects _*many*_ different possible solutions to the problem/question “_What are Orcs, exactly?_” because he finds the solution “Too terrible to even contemplate.”
5) _*THUS*_... What he is saying is that Melkor/Morgoth (or Sauron), “Satan” (or “The Devil”), the source of all Evil in the Universe, rejected some means of “creating/making Orcs” because it was “Too Evil.” That Morgoth, while torturing, raping, or otherwise brutalizing an Elf/Human into ”becoming an Orc” had a moment of introspection, and said “Wow! _*Just WHAT*_ am I doing here! This is too “Evil” even for me, the source of all Evil in the Universe, to contemplate. I better back-off and think of something less-evil.”

Quite frankly... Tolkien never created solutions for a great many things because he either did not want to have to “think like Satan” (something that rightfully _*should*_ terrify any actual Catholic), or because he was just incapable of the kind of thought required, again due to Religious beliefs.

But he left us with an awful lot of evidence that even though _*he personally could not contemplate these things, *_answers did exist. They would just need to be found by those who were not bothered by “digging through the entrails of the Myth.”

Also... Another fear of the Religious (especially those in Western Religious Traditions) is the (mistaken/wrong) belief that “_Knowing the answer diminishes the wonder of a thing._” Tolkien was especially vulnerable to this in not wishing to ruin the “wonder” of Middle-earth by “knowing answers.” The undue emphasis on “Mystery” in Religious Traditions also contributes to this.

But as people such as James Burke in the series _*Connections*_ (or the many other works connected to, or following from it), Brian Cox in _*Worlds of Wonder*_ (Or David Attenborough, or Patrick Moore before him), or as Carl Sagan points out in _*The Demon Haunted World*_, in multiple places:

_Knowing how the Universe Functions does not diminish the beauty or wonder in it one bit._

Often, knowing answers to questions people previously proclaimed to be a “Mystery” resulted in discovering even greater beauty and wonder in the world around us.

MB


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Sep 25, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> I didn’t know that. Do you remember where he wrote it, or in which work it’s cited?



Aside from Letter #153 to Peter Hastings.

We also have statements to that effect in _*The History of Middle-earth*_, in several of the Volumes dealing with the writing of _*The Lord of the Rings*_.

This is in addition to the Logical Contradiction that all of the Ainur would be subjected to the Power of Sauron’s_ Ruling-Ring_.

As Tolkien notes in Letter #153 (mentioned), The _Ruling-Ring_ has no effect on Tom, not the other way around (Tom’s “power” preventing it from affecting him, p. 192):
“Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him.“

That is by no means his last word on the issue of the _Ruling-Ring_ having no effect on him (rather like water not having much of an effect on Fish, or Ducks), but given that I do not own a searchable version of _*HoM-e*_, it is rather harder to provide the specifics of each quote on the subject.

But Tolkien provides us with many different statements to the effect:

He is no Eru Ilúvatar (nor any “manifestation” of).
He is not an Ainur.


MB


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 25, 2020)

Matthew Bailey said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew Bailey said:
> ...


I’m sorry, and I’m not trying to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but I don’t see that in _Letter_ 153. I see that Tolkien wrote that
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 not me as a commentator). … Lots of … 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. …

… 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, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. … [H]e 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…: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. … Also T[om ]B[ombadil] 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… 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.​I think the reference you want may instead be _Letter_ 144 (to Naomi Mitchison):
Tom Bombadil is not an important person to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a “comment”. … [H]e 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.​I apologize for the over-long citations, but I found nothing in either of them that asserts “that Tom is *not an Ainur*,” though it would not surprise me that Tolkien wrote it: I’d just like to know where, for my own edification. Tolkien definitely says that Bombadil is _not_ Eru in _Letter_ 153; I’d just like to know where he says Tom is not an Ainu. 

I don’t have an easily searchable _HoMe_ either, so I can’t comment on what Tolkien might have put in notes along the way. I don’t recall “that all of the Ainur would be subjected to the Power of Sauron’s _Ruling-Ring_,” though I don’t recall that it definitely isn’t there, either. As a Maia, Sauron’s power, even enhanced by his Ruling Ring, would still fall far short of that of any one of the Valar, I believe, though Gandalf feared the Ring (yet he handled it, at least in the book, in Frodo’s study near the beginning of the tale, and when Bilbo dropped it while leaving Bag End: a subtle difference from Jackson’s version, in which he feared even to touch it). Certainly the Ring and its effects were limited to Middle-earth: Elrond said that it could not be taken into the Uttermost West: “[T]hey who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth.” (_FotR_, “Council of Elrond”)

While I was searching for that last citation, I ran across this one also from “The Council of Elrond”, Gandalf’s reply to Erestor’s supposition that Bombadil “has a power even over the Ring”:
No, I should not put it so. Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others.​That seems to me in intimate accord with Tolkien’s comment in _Letter_ 144 that Bombadil’s immunity to the Ring is due to his having “taken ‘a vow of poverty’, renounced control.” 

Again, please pardon my impertinence. I agree with most of the rest of what you say. It is with such little riddles that the great mind of Alcuin is troubled.


----------



## Keith Mathison (Oct 8, 2020)

Hi Alcuin,

I think one of the sentences in Letter 144 strongly implies (even if it does not say explicitly) that Tom is not one of the Ainur. Tolkien says in that letter, "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."

The implication is that if Sauron were victorious, Bombadil wouldn't survive. Is that possible for one of the Ainur? They are immortal and more powerful than the Maiar - including Sauron.

Keith


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 8, 2020)

Keith Mathison said:


> Hi Alcuin,
> 
> I think one of the sentences in Letter 144 strongly implies (even if it does not say explicitly) that Tom is not one of the Ainur. Tolkien says in that letter, "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."
> 
> ...


Hi Keith.

I have often stated my skepticism of using statements JRRT "posted" (then in the snail-mail sense literally) in his letters - as documented by Humphrey Carpenter's book "Letters". as being useful for the controversial term "canon".

I see every letter, at first sight, as being of the level of "Bingo Baggins" in the earliest phase of JRRT's writing of the "New Hobbit" documented by Christopher Tolkien in "The Return of The Shadow". Lacking massive revision, as we know the Bingo to Frodo transition was subject to. To be taken not just with a grain of salt, at least when it contradicts (or does not resolve) author-published works. A difference of opinion between us, perhaps ...


----------



## Keith Mathison (Oct 8, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Hi Keith.
> 
> I have often stated my skepticism of using statements JRRT "posted" (then in the snail-mail sense literally) in his letters - as documented by Humphrey Carpenter's book "Letters". as being useful for the controversial term "canon".
> 
> I see every letter, at first sight, as being of the level of "Bingo Baggins" in the earliest phase of JRRT's writing of the "New Hobbit" documented by Christopher Tolkien in "The Return of The Shadow". Lacking massive revision, as we know the Bingo to Frodo transition was subject to. To be taken not just with a grain of salt, at least when it contradicts (or does not resolve) author-published works. A difference of opinion between us, perhaps ...



The context of the letters certainly needs to be taken into account (I think too much weight has been placed on the 1937 letter saying Bombadil is the spirit of the Oxford countryside. That changed as the book took shape), but I think more weight can be given to letters written _after_ LotR was published and which were written in response to specific questions asked about that book.

Not sure if that's a difference of opinion or not.

KM


----------



## Alcuin (Oct 8, 2020)

Keith Mathison said:


> I think one of the sentences in Letter 144 strongly implies (even if it does not say explicitly) that Tom is not one of the Ainur. Tolkien says in that letter, "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."
> 
> The implication is that if Sauron were victorious, Bombadil wouldn't survive. Is that possible for one of the Ainur? They are immortal and more powerful than the Maiar - including Sauron.


I believe the Ainur include both the Valar and the Maiar, the Valar being the greater spiritual creatures (like archangels) and the Maiar the lesser (like angels). The passage, “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,” could easily be interpreted as meaning that Bombadil would be forced to leave Middle-earth, or that he could be disembodied and driven from Middle-earth: Maiar could be disembodied, as Sauron and the balrogs learned to their dismay – and as Gandalf learned when he also physically died and left Middle-earth. Neither of those outcomes posits that Bombadil was or was not a Maia, only that the Maiar, like the Valar, were one of the ranks (or orders or types) of the Ainur.


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 9, 2020)

Keith Mathison said:


> The context of the letters certainly needs to be taken into account (I think too much weight has been placed on the 1937 letter saying Bombadil is the spirit of the Oxford countryside. That changed as the book took shape), but I think more weight can be given to letters written _after_ LotR was published and which were written in response to specific questions asked about that book.
> Not sure if that's a difference of opinion or not.
> KM


I wouldn't have the slightest issue with a difference of opinion (my best buddy and I have more than a handful of them ...)

But the "context of the letters" needing to be taken into account may be something that is neglected all too often.

I'll just take letter 142 to Father Robert Murray, S.J., the often-quoted one about LoTR being "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision ..."
I can well imagine that the wording of this letter, to an ordained Jesuit, was very different to what JRRT might have stated in a discussion (unlikely) with C.S. Lewis (about whose "reverting" to a Church of England - originally Ireland - faith JRRT seems to have been disappointed, which would imply a hope on JRRT's part of Lewis becoming a Catholic). JRRT tailored his letters at least to a degree to the intended recipient.

Still, when one has read JRRT's shifting views on say Galadriel published in HoMe - Elthir posted extensively here ...









High Kingship of the Noldor


Why didn’t Elrond or even Galadriel claim lordship over all the Noldor in Middle Earth? Galadriel had the stronger claim, as a more direct link to the house of Finwe, but Elrond was a male. I realize both were Lords in their own right. Still, all Elves that would accept one of them as King or...




www.thetolkienforum.com





... I remain suspicious to varying degrees on content in the "Letters". None of them had the niggling "quality control" of JRRT's works published in his own lifetime. I love the one letter in which he gives, in a way, a version of "Laws and Customs among the Hobbits" to match his "... among the Eldar". But this is the *sole* source on the topic, while other topics (including Bombadil) are treated more often; but IIRC, Bombadil almost entirely in "Letters"? Still, "Letters" remain a "low man on the totem pole" for my view of them as "canon". Not that they can't be amusing and even occasionally informative ...


----------



## Otyugh (Oct 30, 2020)

Although entering from a different angle, I agree with Olorgando, above.

The Lord of the Rings is a work of art, one of our best from the 20th century. Once a work of art is set in motion, it becomes its own thing. It exists. It interacts in real time with all of humanity, and certainly anything else that can read, now or in the future (consider what you and I are doing), Letters, notes, conversations, be them from Christopher, CS Lewis, or Tolkien himself, are communions about a shared work of art. And even when the words of the book don't change, we do. Time marks us all; even Tolkien at 65 viewed his creation differently than he did at 45. So it seems wise to be humble about what is authoritative.

If that wasn't far out enough: I will venture that even Tolkien himself could not gainsay what others see in his work. Maybe, even, the old Professor might agree with me on this. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Mike


----------



## Sulimo (Nov 2, 2020)

I think I cracked the nut on Bombadil a few years ago and posted it on this site on some old thread/ I was happy my theory was not on your list, but I think it holds merit. Its actually really simple. Bombadil is the Faerie King just like in Smith of Wooten Major. The entire Old Forest episode is a foray into Faerie. Faerie is the Perilous Realm and a land of magic. The hedgerow marks the border between the known mundane world and the land of Faerie. Fatty's nurse maid frightened him with stories of it when he was a child. The Barrow Downs and Old Man willow represent the darker side of the perilous realm. Tom Bombadil is the master of Faerie. It is important to notice that magic for the most part in Middle Earth is a subtle thing, except with Bombadil. Music flows from him and is his very essence. 
I spent years mulling over these various theories just as you broke them down on a less scholastic level, and one day I happened to be reading the Old Forest chapter of the Fellowship at the same time I was listening to Smith of Wooten Major and Farmer Giles of Ham on audiobook and it came together and made sense. I liked your explanation for representation within catholicism, but I am always hesitant to take an allegorical approach to Tolkien's work, and often find the explanation can be much simpler. 

I do have a question though. It is clear that several characters represent characters from mythologies. Turin is obviously a blend of Sigurd, Kullervo, Beowulf, and probably a few others. However, I question whether or not anyone is a representation of someone who actually lived. With the exception of the Ents who are humorously the Inklings. I have not given much thought to this, and have mostly drawn connections from mythology and not history to Tolkien characters to avoid allegory. What do you guys think?


----------



## Licky Linguist (Nov 18, 2020)

Aaargh, I've got a case of Tolkienerditis...

*crawls off to find book*


----------

