[The Saucepan Man]

I’m curious to know what leads you to think that Bombadil is a riddle with a discoverable solution.

The idea is more one that intrigues me than one to which I subscribe, Mr U. Essentially, I agree with you and lindil when you say:

The problem with trying to shoehorn Bombadil into an explicable, seamlessly logical place in the mythology is that it can’t be done.

and

Bombadil more or less breaks JRRT's own pattern of fitting everthing/one into a pattern.

I came across the idea of Tom as a riddle in the article setting out the theory of Bombadil as reader, where it was expressed as follows:

From his first appearance here in The Lord of the Rings, speculation about his identity and role in the story has been widespread, and no clear consensus has ever been reached on it. That this uncertainty is the writer's intention is apparent in an excerpt from one his letters: "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).

It seems that we must live with the puzzle. However, an intentional enigma is nothing other than a riddle, and we know from The Hobbit that J.R.R. Tolkien was very good at devising and solving riddles. Indeed, in this letter he seemed to be hinting that there was an answer to the riddle of Bombadil. Could he have been challenging his readers to find it?

As I said, the idea intrigued me and I thought it worth repeating here by way of an alternative view to the sentiments expressed in the quotes set out above. And the fact that many pages have been written (here and elsewhere) carefully scrutinising every mention of Tom in JRRT's writings for clues to the nature of his existence suggests to me that there are many who think along these lines (whether consciously or unconsciously).

I am afraid that I do not have Tolkien's Letters and so can only go by the quote given in the extract from the article set out above. There, it is suggested that an "intentional enigma" may be likened to a riddle with a solution. And it is interesting that earlier in the passage that makes direct reference to Tom, 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). (emphasis added)

The idea is also supported by the many enigmatic references to Tom that we find in LotR, such as that he is "the Master" and "the Eldest", and Galdor's comment that he does not have the power to defy Sauron "unless such power is in the earth itself". Also the fact that the Ring has no power over him. These little tidbits, added together, do seem like clues pointing to a solution.

Of course, these "clues" may also be explained by reference to the fact that Tom needed to bear some relation to the characters and events within the story told in LotR. In that context, it seems natural for Frodo to ask questions about him, for others to talk of him and for him to have some interraction with the Ring. Since, as you say, his existence as a character pre-dated (and existed independently of) LotR and he had to be "shoehorned" into the story, it makes sense that Tolkien would keep references to him deliberately engimatic. Quite possibly, had Tolkien tried to integrate him as being explicable by reference to the “rules” of the world in which LotR is set, he would have fallen flat as a character. Indeed, you make this point very well when you say that “the deliberate air of mystery surrounding Tom is used to screen his somewhat clunky integration into Middle-earth”.

So, ultimately, I do agree that Tom probably does have no “rational” explanation (in Middle-earth terms). But I still think that there is some scope for the alternative view of “Tom the riddle” (unless of course it is the case that this theory was expressly or impledly dismissed by JRRT in his Letters). And it is of course fun (and somewhat irresistable) trying to solve the riddle, even if there is ultimately no solution to it. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Lindil put it quite superbly when he said:

This of course is like a splinter in the mind for some, and thus we post...

As you say, we are rather straying off topic here, but I thought that your question deserved a considered response. So, to try to get back on path (and to continue the attempt to solve the riddle with no solution [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others on the question of whether it would necessarily be fatal to the idea of Tom as the embodiment of Ea if he were not marred himself and, if so, what evidence we have as to whether or not he was himself tainted by the marring of Arda.