Tom Bombadil

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Elrond says at the Council that he had known Bombadil long ago when his name was Iarwain, but had forgotten him until now (presumably being reminded again about him when Frodo’s story of his journey from Hobbiton to the Ford of Bruinen was told). Elrond then supplies other names of Bombadil not mentioned earlier in the account and doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person.

Doesn't the fact that Elrond "had forgotten him until now" speak to a general sense of unknowing and a lack of clarity or concern? I would suggest that it does. Elrond's lack of information goes further when he, as you stated, "doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person". And of Goldberry, Elrond makes no mention at all. So much for the inane theory that Tom and Goldberry are Aule and Yavanna, eh?

But fundamentally, Elrond does not offer anything of value regarding Bombadi and his essential nature. This is not because he is harboring secrets, as when he flatly ends all questions about the three Elven Rings of Power by saying, "of them it is not permitted to speak"; on the contrary, he divulges what little he knows about Tom and moves on to more germane topics.

Originally Posted by jallanite

This doubt is ignored by Gandalf and Galdor. They both seem to know/believe better.

Really? In Galdor's case, he basically states knowing "little of Iarwain save the name".

Originally Posted by jallanite

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil well enough to interpret Frodo’s story that it would be better if Erestor said not that Tom had power over the Ring but that the Ring had no power over Tom. Gandalf also argues against putting the Ring into Tom’s protection because Tom would be unwilling. Even if Tom accepted the Ring at the plea of all the free folk of the world, Tom would not fully understand the need, and would soon forget the Ring or throw it away, for such things have no hold on his mind.

Gandalf also indicates that Tom would not have come to Elrond’s Council, even if summoned, but had long retreated into a little land.

This indicates to me that Elrond and Gandalf, especially Gandalf, knows much about Tom. Gandalf, at least, thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do, or would only do unwillingly, and to predict that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring.

I will agree that Gandalf seems to know Bombadil more than the others on a personal level, however the rest of your statements, particularly when you say that Gandalf "thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do" is obvious conjecture, on your part and Gandalf's.

Originally Posted by jallanite

It is true that neither Elrond or Gandalf say anything about Tom’s origins or much about his state of being, but they say sufficient that I doubt your claim the two of them have no idea what or who Tom really is. Your argument is based only on what is not said in a situation where details on Tom’s origins and state of being beyond what Frodo’s tale has told are not immediately important. What is important to the Council is whether Tom can or will help them in the matter of the Ring. Tom’s origin would have been relatively unimportant in that circumstance. And much information outside of Frodo’s account on the state of Tom’s being, would have also been relatively unimportant.

Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis. And yet a being who can make the One Ring disappear as if he were doing parlor tricks is not explained at all. I would suggest that Tolkien was holding true to his statement that Bombadil was an enigma. We, the readers, know nothing about Tom, and the players themselves are not given extensive background either.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your speculation seems to me to be based only on what Elrond and Gandalf do not say and to ignore what they do say, especially Gandalf. What they do say is not, it seems to me, a dearth of anything substantial, but indicates that both know things about Tom beyond what Frodo’s story related. What these thing are, is indeed mostly not related. But neither Elrond nor Gandalf says that he knows nothing of Tom’s origin or state of being. You are the only source for that as far as I can see.

The entire Council's statements regarding Tom tend to speculation. Every premise by each of the Council members is tempered with a proviso like "I fear" or "I think", which is speculative. Take Glorfindel's quote: "Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall". It is a reasonable assumption, but it is assumption nonetheless.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Elrond and Gandalf might have known much about Tom’s origin and state of being with barely a word by them in the Council being different if they mostly knew only what Frodo’s story told. But those words are important in indicating that both have knowledge beyond Frodo’s tale.

Gandalf indeed knows Tom on some personal level; however, Gandalf himself implies that there is more to be learned:

"I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil: 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. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another."

Originally Posted by jallanite

I think moot points weaken an argument.

Unless one is talking about Ents, of course.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Doesn't the fact that Elrond "had forgotten him until now" speak to a general sense of unknowing and a lack of clarity or concern?

No. They talk about whether Tom can or will aid their cause, and Gandalf remarks that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring. Elrond has been told in Frodo’s tale that at least some of Gildor’s folk still knew Tom, although Elrond himself had forgotten him. I don’t see any lack of clarity or concern in this discussion.

But fundamentally, Elrond does not offer anything of value regarding Bombadi and his essential nature.

Why should he, whatever he knew? Elrond doesn’t offer even as much about Sauron and his essential nature or Saruman and his essential nature or about Elves and their essential nature. There is no reason that I can see that he should. The idea of calling directly on Manwë and Varda for help is never even raised. Lots of things aren’t raised.

This is not because he is harboring secrets, as when he flatly ends all questions about the three Elven Rings of Power by saying, "of them it is not permitted to speak"; on the contrary, he divulges what little he knows about Tom and moves on to more germane topics.

Your source that Elrond was not harboring secrets? Tolkien did not write that Elrond divulges what little he knows about Tom. Elrond also says nothing of the origin of the Elves, or of the origin of the wizards, or of the origin of Orcs, or of the origin of Sauron. Does this prove that he knew nothing on these topics? Obviously not. That Elrond does not admit to harboring secrets about Tom says nothing about whether Elrond was doing so or not.

I will not accept an argument that Elrond did not say something as an indication that he knew nothing on the topic. The argument only works if you can show that Elrond must have spoken more if he knew more. Why then does Elrond not speak on what he knows or think he knows about the origin of hobbits and the other points I mentioned?

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil more than the others on a personal level, however the rest of your statements, particularly when you say that Gandalf "thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do" is obvious conjecture, on your part and Gandalf's.

I stand behind that statement. Your seem to me to admit that Gandalf does show further knowledge of Tom beyond what Frodo’s story tells. That is all I claim. Gandalf knew many things that he does not recount at the Council and his silence on one point is not significant one way or the other how much he could have spoken on that particular point. That Gandalf “thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do” is a direct abbreviation of Tolkien’s account. Point out where I have misrepresented Tolkien if you think I have distorted what Tolkien writes. This is not just a mere conjecture of mine.

Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis.

Neither Gandalf or Elrond seems to me to be verbose in extremis except that Gandalf is perhaps very verbose in his account of his captivity by Saruman, but then apologizes and excuses the length of this account. Both happen not to mention many things that we know from elsewhere that they knew. Neither, for example, mentions Ents at that point. If you wish to claim that their silence about Tom is suspiciously significant, indicate why it is more significant than their complete silence on other matters that they did not speak of.

Readers of these posts may make their own decision about whether your claim that if Elrond and Gandalf knew more than they spoke about Tom’s origin and state of being they must necessarily have spoken of it and my claim that they if they knew such matters, they had no reason to bring it up save for Gandalf’s opinion that he considers Tom to be an unsafe guardian which itself, it Gandalf’s opinion is accepted, puts Tom out of the picture from the Council’s point of view, regardless of what they know or think they know about Tom’s origin and state of being.

Whether Elrond and Gandalf knew of Tom’s origin and state of being has no relation as to whether Tolkien might or might not make such a claim for himself.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Whether Elrond and Gandalf knew of Tom’s origin and state of being has no relation as to whether Tolkien might or might not make such a claim for himself.

I will cut this short and reply, simply, nonsense. The point is that the author of the piece, the creator of the world itself, preferred Bombadil to be an enigma This is the central point and crux of the character. Tolkien did not have Gandalf utter that Bombadil was a manifestation of the Oxfordshire countryside because Hobbits and Elves, Dwarves and Istari alike would be scratching their heads and saying, "What and where the hell is Oxfordshire?"

The very nature of Bombadil -- and Goldberry as well -- does not fit in Middle-earth. The mythos from which they were derived, the folkloric motifs they represent, and the very nature of their origins beyond the publication of The Lord of the Rings defies explanation and is incongruous to any characterization or categorization from the point of Arda, cosmologically-speaking; ergo, the "wise" of Elrond's council simply express doubts as to Tom's reliability, do not dwell on anything but some archaic nomenclature of the being, and go on to the next tangent.

They cannot explain the unexplainable, but they accept the inconsonant nature of Bombadil without question because the author of the piece felt the character was germane and important for what he represented, and inserted the character even though he defied conventional canonic definition. This, from the author himself.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I will cut this short and reply, simply, nonsense.

That is not a valid argument, merely an unsupported attack on my arguments, and therefore a failure of argument on your part. I could simply reply nonsense to your arguments, and it would also prove nothing more than that I disagree with your arguments, perhaps wrongly, and that I argue poorly.

The point is that the author of the piece, the creator of the world itself, preferred Bombadil to be an enigma This is the central point and crux of the character.

No. It is true, I believe, that Tolkien preferred to keep Tom Bombadil as an unsolved enigma rather than fit him it. That is not any part of my argument at all and never has been. I do disagree with the idea that Tom is an enigma is the central point and crux of the character. That is just one of the characteristics of Tom and I agree that to Tolkien Tom remained an unsolved enigma. For most characters in fiction or fact one cannot demonstrate that any one characteristic is the central point and crux of the character. That is a nonsensical and unfalsifiable claim.

The very nature of Bombadil -- and Goldberry as well -- does not fit in Middle-earth. The mythos from which they were derived, the folkloric motifs they represent, and the very nature of their origins beyond the publication of The Lord of the Rings defies explanation and is incongruous to any characterization or categorization from the point of Arda, cosmologically-speaking; ergo, the "wise" of Elrond's council simply express doubts as to Tom's reliability, do not dwell on anything but some archaic nomenclature of the being, and go on to the next tangent.

But by putting Tom in his story, Tolkien effectively admits Tom exists in the story, albeit as an unsolved enigma. Accordingly I don’t see that either Gandalf’s or Elrond’s lack of discussion of the Bombadil’s origin means either is supposed not to know the truth behind it. That is all you have, an argument from silence, that can also purportedly prove that neither Gandalf nor Elrond knew anything about the state of nature of wizards or the origin of wizards, and prove it just as badly.

They cannot explain the unexplainable, but they accept the inconsonant nature of Bombadil without question because the author of the piece felt the character was germane and important for what he represented, and inserted the character even though he defied conventional canonic definition. This, from the author himself.

Tolkien did not explain Tom Bombadil. I have always admitted that. And Tolkien admits that. But that is totally irrelevant to your claim that neither Elrond or Gandalf are not supposed to know anything about the matter. The only support you can give is that neither Gandalf nor Elrond said anything about it at the Council. That is just an argument from silence, not a valid argument at all. Neither Gandalf nor Elrond can be supposed to know that Tom originated in the Oxford Magazine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence .

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail. Similarly that Tolkien considered Tom to be an unexplained enigma in the story does not necessarily show that no character in the story, including Elrond, Gandalf, Goldberry, and Tom himself, did not know the supposed truths behind it, only that Tolkien did not consider it overly important to fit Tom in.

You claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story did not know anything about Tom’s state of being or origin. But you provide no evidence from the story save that they do not speak much about it. Do you also claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story do not know anything about Eru’s state of being or origin because they do not speak of him in the tale. Indeed Eru is only mentioned by name once in the tale, in an Appendix?

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail.

I think the purpose of not explaining the magic is because he expected the reader to accept its existence, rather than question its intricacies and fine details.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That is not a valid argument, merely an unsupported attack on my arguments, and therefore a failure of argument on your part. I could simply reply nonsense to your arguments, and it would also prove nothing more than that I disagree with your arguments, perhaps wrongly, and that I argue poorly.

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by jallanite

No. It is true, I believe, that Tolkien preferred to keep Tom Bombadil as an unsolved enigma rather than fit him it. That is not any part of my argument at all and never has been. I do disagree with the idea that Tom is an enigma is the central point and crux of the character. That is just one of the characteristics of Tom and I agree that to Tolkien Tom remained an unsolved enigma. For most characters in fiction or fact one cannot demonstrate that any one characteristic is the central point and crux of the character. That is a nonsensical and unfalsifiable claim.

Tolkien very early on considered the alien and enigmatic aspect of Bombadil, and that allegoric representation of what Tom was. In regards to a sequel to The Hobbit, Tolkien did indeed try to "fit him in" as something not of Middle-earth, and he admitted as much:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter 19 to Stanley Unwin, 16 December 1937

Do you think that Tom Bombadil, the sprit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into a hero of the story? Or is he, as I suspect, fully enshrined in the enclosed verses? Still I could enlarge the portrait.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But by putting Tom in his story, Tolkien effectively admits Tom exists in the story, albeit as an unsolved enigma. Accordingly I don’t see that either Gandalf’s or Elrond’s lack of discussion of the Bombadil’s origin means either is supposed not to know the truth behind it. That is all you have, an argument from silence, that can also purportedly prove that neither Gandalf nor Elrond knew anything about the state of nature of wizards or the origin of wizards, and prove it just as badly.

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover. We know where wizards (Istari) come from. Gandalf certainly knows where he came from. Elrond knows where Gandalf comes from. They both know who holds the three elven rings of power and how they got them. We even know Gandalf and his buddies' names from back in Aman, and which Vala sponsored which Istar. There is quite a bit of background regarding wizards. It is inane to pretend that information is not available. Yet there is no such information regarding Bombadil. None. We can go through The Silmarillion and HoMe and see the entire wizardly panoply unveiled both in Aman and Middle-earth. We even get hints of Ents in The Silmarillion and adjunct addenda. But not a damn bit of Bombadil. It is asinine to ignore what is (and what is not) there from a research perspective.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien did not explain Tom Bombadil. I have always admitted that. And Tolkien admits that. But that is totally irrelevant to your claim that neither Elrond or Gandalf are not supposed to know anything about the matter. The only support you can give is that neither Gandalf nor Elrond said anything about it at the Council. That is just an argument from silence, not a valid argument at all. Neither Gandalf nor Elrond can be supposed to know that Tom originated in the Oxford Magazine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence .

Thank you, Wiki Warrior. There is a validity in the silence in this case because the omniscient author purposefully withheld any such information, did not offer a history of the character, and therefore the other characters could not offer any detail:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter 144 to Naomi Mitchison, 25 April 1954

As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists)....Many readers have, for instance, rather stuck at the Council of Elrond. And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

The other characters do not have any further information because there is none to give. Again, you are thinking in a vacuum, and thus might need some oxygen.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail. Similarly that Tolkien considered Tom to be an unexplained enigma in the story does not necessarily show that no character in the story, including Elrond, Gandalf, Goldberry, and Tom himself, did not know the supposed truths behind it, only that Tolkien did not consider it overly important to fit Tom in.

But we do know much about "magic" (which is an inappropriate term as you must know) in Middle-earth. We know who can wield power and who cannot. We know Gandalf is a Maia, an angelic being. We know that Elves who have been to Valinor have far more power than their Silvan cousins in the woods. We know of magia and goeteia. The art of the Elves manifested as sub-creation. Tolkien speaks of magic in Middle-earth in far more detail than he does Bombadil. In fact, the majority of his references to Bombadil are outside of Middle-earth proper.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story did not know anything about Tom’s state of being or origin. But you provide no evidence from the story save that they do not speak much about it. Do you also claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story do not know anything about Eru’s state of being or origin because they do not speak of him in the tale. Indeed Eru is only mentioned by name once in the tale, in an Appendix?

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head? Again, ignoring Tolkien's Middle-earth corpus in its entirety is a scholastic game I am uninterested in. Of Eru, there is abundant information. Tom was inserted into Lord of the Rings on the authors whim, as when Tolkien said he was "'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. into which he was inserted." In fact, if you look at every description Tolkien gives of Bombadil, Tom is not described in terms of Middle-earth, but what he represents outside of the story to the author. And even Tolkien had to forego his disdain for allegory when he admitted that Tom "is an allegory or exemplar".

[Nerwen]

Morth, I think you've misinterpreted what jallanite is trying to say, which if I'm right (I may not be right) is that Tom's identity may be much like the mysterious briefcase in "Pulp Fiction". As you no doubt recall, there is neither an in-story nor an official explanation of the case's contents- it is an intentional enigma- but various characters in the film are definitely *supposed* to know what's in it.

That's just the first example I thought of, but I'm sure I can provide more if needed. In fact the fiction-within-a-fiction whereby a character is *held* to know "the answer" when in fact no such answer really exists is not all that uncommon.

In short, we can't possibly know who Bombadil is, but, for narrative purposes, Elrond can.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

In short, we can't possibly know who Bombadil is, but, for narrative purposes, Elrond can.

But that's just it, my dear, Elrond doesn't know. He has forgotten completely about Bombadil by the time of the Council, is not sure that Bombadil is Iarwain Ben-adar of old, and as a topper, Elrond says, "He is a strange creature".

Now, when a loremaster of Elrond's stature, one versed in the histories of both Elves and Men, and one whose personal journey begins in the 1st Age, uses the term "strange creature" regarding Tom, the inference is quite clear, particularly when we are speaking of one of the "wise". "Creature" does not give an implication of race or even species. There is no designation of any reliability or specificity. "Strange" is self-evident, don't you think? Netherworldy, alien, odd, out-of-sorts, outlandish (on more than one level) -- it is not a definition an Elvish loremaster would give of a being he is certain of, like a Vala or Maia, for instance.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nonsense.

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover.

Or perhaps you simply don’t understand what I am posting. You admit that we know Tolkien answers many of my questions, but not in the chapter “The Council of Elrond”. My point is that in that chapter, where alone we find Tom discussed at some length, other questions that also might arise are not considered. It seems to me that you just don’t want to notice that. Instead you respond with an insulting name.

Thank you, Wiki Warrior. There is a validity in the silence in this case because the omniscient author purposefully withheld any such information, did not offer a history of the character, and therefore the other characters could not offer any detail.

Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

But we do know much about "magic" (which is an inappropriate term as you must know) in Middle-earth.

But we have no details about how magic works, because Tolkien has no details. Similarly a time travel story may present a protagonist who is supposedly an expert in creating time machines without the author of the story actually knowing anything about it, and perhaps not even believing that time machines are possible. That Tolkien doesn’t get into technicalities about things beyond his ken doesn’t mean that the characters he writes must be similarly ignorant. The characters are fictional.

In fact, the majority of his references to Bombadil are outside of Middle-earth proper.

Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head?

Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Tom was inserted into Lord of the Rings on the authors whim, as when Tolkien said he was "'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. into which he was inserted." In fact, if you look at every description Tolkien gives of Bombadil, Tom is not described in terms of Middle-earth, but what he represents outside of the story to the author. And even Tolkien had to forego his disdain for allegory when he admitted that Tom "is an allegory or exemplar".

But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

I agree with much of what you post about Tom’s origins, but that is entirely irrelevant to a possible origin of Tom within Middle-earth. And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth. Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

Nonsense is an apt word in this case. A single word sometimes is all that is necessary.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

None knew that Saruman was a traitor until Gandalf found out. Elrond and the Council were genuinely shocked when it was revealed (as was Gandalf when he was captured). There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece. The author who, by the way, inserted an intentional enigma into the piece and gave him a bit of story because, as Tolkien put it, he "wanted an adventure on the way."

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

I said Tolkien's references, not Gandalf's. Please read in context before you try to bully someone.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Oooh! That would have hurt in grade school. Luckily, I had my fingers crossed.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story. He does not intrude elsewhere in the story or beyond the self-imposed bounds set for him by the author. An "allegory", an "exemplar". The story itself could have been told without Bombadil's presence and still be cogent and complete. One of the very few logical things Peter Jackson did in The Fellowship of the Ring film was to omit the Bombadil sequence in total; however, he irrationally plopped in wholesale fan-fiction of his own design, thus negating any time saved from the plot compression.

Originally Posted by jallanite

And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative." As the author, Tolkien can do what he wishes, and Bombadil is a striking case in point. He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

Every other race, species or angelic being has a beginning in Tolkien's universe: Sauron, the Dwarves, the Elves, Man, and even a foggy genesis like the Hobbits or Orcs. If there isn't a specific point of origin, like in Orcs, then Tolkien fiddles with their provenance, and gives possibilities. Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible. Goldberry, herself as enigmatic as Tom, says merely "he is" without further explanation -- because no further explanation could be forthcoming.

Originally Posted by jallanite

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

That is an assumption on your part. I can only go on what the author stated specifically regarding the character on several occasions, and there is nothing that he stated that would lead me to follow your speculation. "An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

Elrond referred to Bombadil as a "strange creature", and is unsure of this creature's past. How do you define what he said inside your vacuum?