Tom Bombadil

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You made the indefensible claim that both Gandalf and Elrond knew of Tom Bombadil's origins without question.

I never made the claim that you accuse me of. Point out the post where you think you find it. I did and do make the claim that neither Gandalf or Elrond make a claim that they did not did not know Tom’s origin.

Here is the original post: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...2&postcount=46. I was questioning your source for a claim that you made. You have not provided one in my opinion. You could easily satisfy me with an answer that I would accept.

You were not misquoted. What you have is a comprehension problem. You somehow want to divorce "Middle-earth" from the "narrative", the story itself and how Tolkien chose to arrange it. The statement Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth” is debatable, but that he was unimportant to the story as a narrative is not.

The first statement within quotation marks is indeed what I said. The following statement is a reasonable paraphrase of what Tolkien said. You find them different enough that you find the first debatable and the second not so. I agree. You really ought to be more careful about attributing a quotation to me that I did not say. Yes, you misquoted me.

No, Tom as an intentional enigma is not similar to every other character in the book.

I did not post that Tom was not similar to every other character in the book, though I agree with the statement. What is your purpose in attributing to me something I have never said but agree with?

Every other character in the book has an origin and history. There are complete genealogies of many characters. There is a whole creation mythos wherein Tom does not fit. I can reply "so what" to most of your argument.

Probably true enough, if you ignore unnamed characters. Tom fits well enough, it seems to me. We are told that he is fatherless, much the same as we are told this of Beleg.

Again, you want to divorce the narrative, and now the original poem (which originally had nothing to do with Middle-earth), from the Ainulindalë. How about you prove Bombadil's origin within the constraints of Arda. I posit you cannot.

I am not sure what you mean by “the constraints of Arda”. Tom’s own account of his origin is on page 131 of Fellowship. Elrond adds some information on page 265 of Fellowship, current edition. Tom does not appear in the “Ainulindalë” as I’m sure you know, nor in the “Valaquenta”. Nor does Ungoliant or Gothmog. In any case I don’t accept that Tom’s not being mentioned in The Silmarillion or in The Hobbit means anything more than, say, Saruman or Treebeard not being mentioned in The Silmarillion or in The Hobbit. I think that Tom’s appearance in three books of The Lord of the Rings and his being discussed at the Council of Elrond indicates that Tom’s origin was within the constraints of Arda, as much as anything can. Tom is also known of by Gildor and his companion elves.

Then stop replying with arguments when you can't comprehend what is being said.

I suspect this means that you yourself can’t figure out what you meant either.

I stated an opinion that Gandalf and Elrond are verbose based on the rambling narratives at the Council of Elrond. They do like to hear themselves talk, and they do like to disembogue a font of their knowledge. Elrond talks for hours regarding the Ring, its history, the history of Numenor, and details his own origin, "even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore". "Books of lore" -- a prolific writer of histories, and yet short shrift given to the enigma Bombadil. Just because that opinion does not jibe with your pompous pronouncements does not mean it is false.

It doesn’t mean that my opinion is not true either. You again ignore that neither Elrond nor Gandalf are recorded as saying anything about the states of beings or origins of Men, Elves, Orcs, Wizards, Hobbits, Ents, or various other beings at the Council. Ignore away. But why, why, why do you make such a deal that they did not discuss more about the state of being or origin of Tom at the Council?

Elrond is unsure if Bombadil is even the same as the being he knew previously.

Then Elrond is shown to apparently accept that they are the same.

"Older than old" denotes a lack of a set starting point and no parameter at all, historically-speaking.

Except that Elrond also mentions once knowing Bombadil, which does work as a starting point for Elrond. That Elrond at that point says that Tom was “older than old” indicates Tom’s age when Elrond first met Tom. You are surely only pretending not to understand this, not a good way to argue.

The term "fatherless" is indeed indicative of not knowing an origin.

Or it means Tom actually had no father.

Add in the fact Elrond refers to Bombadil as a "strange creature", again indicative of not being able to categorize a being with any specifics, shows beyond speculation that Elrond does not know what the hell a Bombadil is.

But Tom, in The Lord of the Rings, is a strange creature. You ignore that, pretending that an Elvish loremaster would not say this, when the book attributes these words to him. Seems to me that Tolkien is more trustworthy than you are in these matters. If Tom was not one of the People of the Valar, he would not properly be called a Maia, though possibly of the same origin. And Úmaia seems to mean one of the People of Morgoth. If so, that name would not do. Tom seems to be unique, and the term strange creature does well enough for me, and apparently did well enough for Tolkien.

Unless you have something new to add, I don’t see any point in my continuing this discussion, because you appear to be more interested in speculating than providing data, and your speculation is, to me, most unconvincing. Trying to demonstrate that Elrond’s words only make sense when interpreted by you doesn’t work for me.

And to repeat: Tolkien’s beliefs about Tom Bombadil have nothing at all to say about whether Tolkien may or may not have believed that Elrond or Gandalf knew Tom’s origin, even if Tolkien himself did not.

And I have never believed that either Gandalf or Elrond said anything about Tom’s origin at the Council of Elrond. Any argument from that is indeed an argument from silence because Gandalf and Elrond don’t say anything on the matter, nor should they be expected to, whatever they might be supposed to have known.

[Balfrog]

There has been a startling development on our enigmatic friend: Tom Bombadil. A new book called “Breaking The Tolkien Code” exposes apparently the greatest of secrets – seven hidden puzzles within TLotR.

One of them is the identity of Tom, or rather 'what' he is.

Tolkien the Master Riddler supposedly cryptically inserted the secrets to his greatest mysteries in a riddle-game with the reader.

Tolkien's grandchildren noted (as suspected by some) a mischevious side to his nature in a couple of notable quotes:

“We played endless word games and I asked him inumerable questions about Midle Earth.”

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”

Within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

With confirmation being provided via a signature, one was meant to think out-of-the-box and decipher the following clues:

“... are referring to the mystery of names.” (from one of his Letters)

and Tom's own words:

“Don't you know my name..? That's the only answer” (- from TLotR)


I cannot possibly summarize an entire book in so short a post – but I can tell you the strength of the evidence is remarkable!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

There has been a startling development on our enigmatic friend: Tom Bombadil. A new book called “Breaking The Tolkien Code” exposes apparently the greatest of secrets – seven hidden puzzles within TLotR.

One of them is the identity of Tom, or rather 'what' he is.

Tolkien the Master Riddler supposedly cryptically inserted the secrets to his greatest mysteries in a riddle-game with the reader.

Tolkien's grandchildren noted (as suspected by some) a mischevious side to his nature in a couple of notable quotes:

“We played endless word games and I asked him inumerable questions about Midle Earth.”

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”

Within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

With confirmation being provided via a signature, one was meant to think out-of-the-box and decipher the following clues:

“... are referring to the mystery of names.” (from one of his Letters)

and Tom's own words:

“Don't you know my name..? That's the only answer” (- from TLotR)


I cannot possibly summarize an entire book in so short a post – but I can tell you the strength of the evidence is remarkable!

If that's a representative example, I definitely can't agree, sorry. One can "prove" any text "really" means almost anything via a selective use of anagrams. It can be a fun game, but as an argument it's worthless.

Nonetheless, welcome to the Downs!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

See, that's just the kind of forced, semi-nonsensical phrase that people come up with when they're trying to create an anagram from existing text. But the thesis here is that the names were created to fit the pre-existing phrase, so Tolkien could have chosen any message, including *a coherent and grammatical one*.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

See, that's just the kind of forced, semi-nonsensical phrase that people come up with when they're trying to create an anagram from existing text. But the thesis here is that the names were created to fit the pre-exiting phrase, so Tolkien could have chosen any message, including *a coherent and grammatical one*.

This sort of forced logic is what I don't like about the Bombadil discussion. Theorizing is one thing, but claiming what you say is true based off of convoluted logic is ridiculous.

[Zigûr]

To take this more seriously than is necessary, I am reasonably sure (although others may know better) that the term 'Maiar' was not even used by Professor Tolkien to refer to the lesser Ainur until after the composition of The Lord of the Rings. Certainly Gandalf still refers to "Fionwë son of Manwë" in drafts of the confrontation with the Balrog if I recall correctly, which were composed after the Bombadil sections were written (and I believe they were not substantially altered afterwards). In fact I have a rather firm impression that the very concept of the 'Maiar' as we now understand it was not solidified by that point, where there were still 'children of the Valar' and 'folk of the Valar'.

Christopher Tolkien himself observes that the 1958 Valaquenta is "probably where the word Maiar first arose." (Morgoth's Ring) Anyone performing more than a most cursory research into Professor Tolkien's process of composition (for a publication, for instance) would be able to discern this information.

One also cannot help but think that if there was some groundbreaking secret about Bombadil's identity it would not be the same trite, cliché line of speculation which has been proposed (and to my satisfaction at least, refuted) for years and years: "Bombadil is a Maia." How shocking.

[denethorthefirst]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

One also cannot help but think that if there was some groundbreaking secret about Bombadil's identity it would not be the same trite, cliché line of speculation which has been proposed (and to my satisfaction at least, refuted) for years and years: "Bombadil is a Maia." How shocking.

That Tom Bombadil is a Maia (or more accurately: an unaffiliated Ainu) is, in my opinion, the only logical in-universe explanation. How is that theory refuted? Not to my knowledge. Its definitely not trite or boring: Ainu are still pretty rare, especially in Middle-Earth. The only problem is the repeated claim that Bombadil is somehow "first": but that can be easily explained away as: either hobbit folklore, that it simply means that he was the first in that particularly part of Arda, of that he maybe snuck past Melkor and actually was the the first (least likely option imo). His form would make a lot of sense in that case: in his burning curiosity and eagerness to experience the world he anticipated the coming elves and humans and clothed himself like the children of iluvatar (or as he perceived them in the music of the ainur); its a bit like Aule and the dwarves (Aule wanted to model his children after the children of Iluvatar, but because, like bombadil, his perception during the music was faulty and flawed the dwarven bodies, and bombadils body, look nothing like an elf or a human. In fact bombadil looks a bit like a dwarf himself: the "misshaping" of the dwarves may not have been Aules fault at all, maybe all the Ainur had a bit of a distorted picture of the children of iluvatar during the music. At the time of their arrival bombadil was maybe already fully incarnated because he lived for ages in that body (eating, drinking, sleeping, living) and could no longer change/correct it or he simply did no longer care (very likely given his character).

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

That Tom Bombadil is a Maia (or more accurately: an unaffiliated Ainu) is, in my opinion, the only logical in-universe explanation. How is that theory refuted?

What you're essentially asking here is to prove a negative: it can't be disproven that he's a Maia but that does not constitute proof that he is one.

There are actually plenty of logical in-universe explanations for what he could be, and none of them require him being a Vala or Maia. First of all let's take a quote from the Valaquenta:

...in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Ea.

So now that we've established that the Valar and the Maiar weren't the only spirits that entered into Ea, let's look at some potential examples of other spirits. Here's another quote, this time from the Ainulindale:

But Manwe was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor; and he called unto himself many spirits both greater and less, and they came down into the fields of Arda and aided Manwe...

That's example one; here's example two, from Of Aule and Yavanna:

When the Children awake, then the thought of Yavanna will awake also, and it will summon spirits from afar, and they will go among the kelvar and the olvar, and some will dwell therein, and be held in reverence, and their just anger shall be feared.

So right now we have two in-universe examples of candidates for what Tom Bombadil could be that don't necessarily involve him being either a Vala or a Maia. Therefore he doesn't have to be a Maia (and nor do any of the many other beings which it's normally assumed must be one).

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

To take this more seriously than is necessary, I am reasonably sure (although others may know better) that the term 'Maiar' was not even used by Professor Tolkien to refer to the lesser Ainur until after the composition of The Lord of the Rings.

I believe you are right. The first published mention is, I believe, in Clyde S. Kilby’s book Tolkien and the Silmarillion, published in 1971, which mentions “Melian the Maia”.

You can peruse the first pages of the book Breaking The Tolkien Code in an amazon preview at http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Tolki...der_1501056883 . The Balrog anagrams are supposedly:

MINE HOLE FALL, HELD LEFT WING

and

WELL DONE, MINE FALL. FLIGHT EH

It reminds me of an encounter with a Tolkien fan on another website who was trying to explain Quenya by translating it into Hebrew using a concordance of Hebrew roots from a family Bible. He was amazed by his results. I tried to convince him that his results were mainly from his forcing the most interpretable results from the concordance which allowed him to pick and chose words, not from anything Tolkien wrote. But the forum administrators banned the fan as posting obvious religious crackpottery before I had come close to convincing him that God was not speaking to him and anyone who knew Hebrew through Tolkien’s Quenya, even though God was not making much sense.

Balfrog, I find, normally posts at The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza where he is credited with 139 posts. His other posts seem to me to be sensible ones. For his post there on Breaking The Tolkien Code see http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread....et-Hidden-Code . The two responses don’t indicate much interest in the book.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Balfrog, I find, normally posts at The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza where he is credited with 139 posts. His other posts seem to me to be sensible ones. For his post there on Breaking The Tolkien Code see http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread....et-Hidden-Code . The two responses don’t indicate much interest in the book.

Balfrog's sole other post here is identical to that one. As I said on that thread, I believe we are dealing with an author in self-promotion mode.

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

To take this more seriously than is necessary, I am reasonably sure (although others may know better) that the term 'Maiar' was not even used by Professor Tolkien to refer to the lesser Ainur until after the composition of The Lord of the Rings. Certainly Gandalf still refers to "Fionwë son of Manwë" in drafts of the confrontation with the Balrog if I recall correctly, which were composed after the Bombadil sections were written (and I believe they were not substantially altered afterwards). In fact I have a rather firm impression that the very concept of the 'Maiar' as we now understand it was not solidified by that point, where there were still 'children of the Valar' and 'folk of the Valar'.

The concept of the Maiar actually does pre-date Lord of the Rings, although the name "Maiar" itself certainly doesn't.

The precursors first appear in the earliest Annals of Valinor given in HoME4, and are fleshed out a teensy-weensy bit in the Old English versions, but I'll skip over those and jump straight to the second version of these Annals (AV2, in HoME5) where they suddenly appear:

With these great ones came many lesser spirits, beings of their own kind but of smaller might; these are the Vanimor, the Beautiful. And with them also were later numbered their children, begotten in the world, but of divine race, who were many and fair; these are the Valarindi.

There are two main notable things about this passage. First is that the Vanimor are portrayed as an order of beings distinct from the old Children of the Valar concept. Second is that the translation given for Vanimor ("the Beautiful") is the same as that later used for Maiar.

It's possible to trace this passage through subsequent development in the Annals of Aman and it's various revisions, and the conclusion is that the Vanimor are the Maiar: it was only the name that had changed. At the same time the Children of the Valar were dropped.

There are other connections in the AV2 text too, including:

Thereafter the night of the world was beautiful, and some of the Vanimor strayed into Middle-earth. Among these was Melian, whose voice was renowned in Valmar.

The formations Vanimor/Uvanimor and Maiar/Umaiar are also notable.

None of which says anything about Bombadil, of course.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A very interesting JRRT letter on Bombadil has recently come to light, written to fellow Inkling Nevill Coghill shortly after the publication of FR. It was posted on Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull's blog (with Estate permission), and I think it is well worth reading as Tolkien's considered comments on Bombadil to an intelligent and sympathetic reader:

But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach.......

More at http://wayneandchristina.wordpress.c...da-corrigenda/

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

You could easily satisfy me with an answer that I would accept.

An answer that you would accept? Perhaps you should start referring to yourself in the pompous plural, the "royal we".

Originally Posted by jallanite

We are told that he is fatherless, much the same as we are told this of Beleg.

No, it is not the same and you know it. Like Beleg, one could say Legolas was "motherless", however, that does not mean that, like Athena, Legolas sprang fully formed from the skull of Thranduil.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Or it means Tom actually had no father.

Yes, if you remove all nuance, ignore all else Elrond said and adhere to a literal definition so severe as to preclude any other sense of the word; in other words, parsing out pieces in a vacuum. "Oldest and fatherless" doesn't mean poor Tom was an orphan, nor does it mean that dear old Mrs. Bombadil had a virgin birth.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But Tom, in The Lord of the Rings, is a strange creature. You ignore that, pretending that an Elvish loremaster would not say this, when the book attributes these words to him. Seems to me that Tolkien is more trustworthy than you are in these matters. If Tom was not one of the People of the Valar, he would not properly be called a Maia, though possibly of the same origin. And Úmaia seems to mean one of the People of Morgoth. If so, that name would not do. Tom seems to be unique, and the term strange creature does well enough for me, and apparently did well enough for Tolkien.

Elrond, as a loremaster, would use the term "strange creature" to denote a being he cannot classify, lacking the knowledge to assert anything with certainty, as you yourself just plainly stated. Yes, you stated it quite clearly here.

And with that, I am done with this conversation. But by all means, continue to beat a dead horse into bloody equine particulates.