Bombadil as Aule?

[Lord of Angmar]

Osse, debate me if you will, but I cannot conceive of Tom Bombadil being an incarnation of Aule. In fact, if I may make so bold, I find the notion rather ridiculous. Granted, I have not read your essay (which I searched for and could not find on the Google browser), but I feel there are a number of key points which dissuade me from this logic.

First and foremost is that Aule, of all the Valar, was probably least in touch with the natural world. In the chapter of the Silmarillion entitled Aule and Yavanna, it is made clear that Aule does not feel any special rapport with trees or beasts, and the Dwarves that he created are ever at odds with the natural world, chopping down trees and, as Gimli said, fearing forests. They almost certainly feel this lack of connection with nature because of their creator, who was a Vala of subtle craft and loved rock and gems more than he ever did trees and rivers. Having said this, I will now state that these traits are exactly the opposite of Tom Bombadil, who has a special way with his forest and all of the life therein. He cares nothing for crafts and works of the hand, which is shown when, in the House of Tom Bombadil in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Ring has no effect on him and it does not seem to concern him at all.

Secondly, Bombadil is said to be the first entity in Arda. It is never stated that Aule was the first of the Valar to descend into Ea, therefore this cannot be assumed.

It can also be noted that the Valar are never wont to leave Valinor, save Ulmo only, and even his power over the waters of Mortal Lands was waning by the Third Age. Why then would Aule leave his halls and the beloved works of his hand to live in an old wood in Middle-earth, forsaking his crafts to live a life among the willows and flowers of the Old Forest? It would be quite a change in personality, and changing their personalities is one thing I have never known the Valar to do in Tolkien's works.

At the Council in Imaldris, Elrond states that, should the Ring be given to Bombadil, he would forget about it, and if Sauron found out about where it lay hid then Bombadil would not have the power to turn him back. Surely a Maiar, no matter how powerful, would be no match for one of the Valar? How then could Sauron hope to assail Aule with success, no matter how many minions he sent? It is simply illogical.

For these reasons I am inclined to disagree with you, Osse, that Tom Bombadil was in fact Aule. If you wish to request quotes to back any of the above points, I will be obliged to give them to you, but I think those who are well-acquainted with all of Tolkien's works will agree with me.

In my own humble opinion, Tom Bombadil is the essence of Arda, the embodiment of the natural world who was created by Illuvatar at the beginning of Ea, not necessarily as a guardian, but as a living representative of the natural world. Much like the natural world, Bombadil is not moved by the deeds of the Children of Illuvatar, in this case the War of the Ring. He would only heed such matters, I think, if they effected his abode and his lifestyle, much as the natural world (think of the Ents and Fangorn Forest) only takes heed when it is deeply effected by the doings of the outside world.

I don't think Tolkien ever meant for us to know the true origin of Bombadil, but these are just my thoughts on what he may or may not actually be.

[tinewelt]

I agree Lord Angmar, that he is not a Valar. For a while I believed he was maybe a Maia, but now Im not so sure. I was reading some bombadil essays today and found this.

Despite this strong case for the theory that Bombadil is a Maia, there are questions that it leaves unanswered. To begin with, Tom tells the hobbits, "Eldest, that's what I am." This seems to be an important clue to Bombadil's nature, and is repeated at least twice at the Council of Elrond: Elrond tells us that Bombadil's Elvish name "Iarwain Ben-adar" means "oldest and fatherless", and as quoted earlier Glorfindel says that Tom would be "Last as he was First".

What could "Eldest" or "First" mean for one of the Ainur? Only three answers seem reasonable: that Bombadil was the "first" Ainu created by Iluvatar, the first Ainu to enter Ea, or the first Ainu to reach Arda or Middle-earth. However, none of these seem consistent with Glorfindel's word "Last": Sauron at least would remain after Bombadil was gone.

Related is Tom's claim (from "In the House of Tom Bombadil") that "He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless--before the Dark Lord came from Outside." This almost certainly refers to Melkor (the dark was never truly fearless once he set his evil in motion), but it could refer to his original arrival in Ea or to his return to Arda from the "outer darkness" in the days of the Lamps. The former interpretation might suggest that Bombadil was present in Ea before any of the Ainur arrived, although such a reading is not necessary.

Another question left unanswered by the claim that Tom is a Maia is his indifference to the Ring. As Gandalf says in the Council of Elrond, "if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind." This attitude is entirely opposite that of all the other Maiar involved with the Ring in the book: Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf, and conceivably even the Balrog are all strongly drawn to the Ring. More generally, even the Valar sometimes fell victim to Morgoth's plots, and the Ring may have provided abilities that even a very powerful Ainu could lack.

After some study, The theory I lean towards the most is this.... I believe that Bombadil was placed in ME By Illuvatar himself. NOT AS ILLUVATAR... but as a spirit sort of representing what Illuvatar was. The only thing that really throws a kink in this is the explanation of Goldberry. Maybe Goldberry was another earth spirit placed on ME to satisfy Yavanna and her love for Me. (as a protector of nature and things that grow). I have never found any writings that say whether or not bombadil and goldberry arrived at the same time, or exactly how goldberry met bombadil. So I am really just making my guess or assumption. But I do believe it is clear that he is not a Valar.

[Olorin]

I agree with you, I believe Tolkien made Tom as an enigma for us to wonder about. I think he's one of a kind. The only label I can think of is to call him a Bombadil.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

At present, I am really of the opinion -- I was enlightened in this respect by a post of burrahobbit's -- that Bombadil is some kind of personification of the Music of the Ainur, which seems to make so much sense when you think about it (his power lying in songs, and the like). Certainly I don't think he was a Valar, and as to Aule, I don't see any evidence of that. Surely an Ainur would have been affected by the Ring?

However, I would still like to see that essay of yours, Osse. Post it here sometime so we can read it. It's always good to hear opinions, and actual essays are particularly interesting.

[Osse]

Sorry if i was too brief in my post. I am not of the firm opinion that Tom Bombadil is in fact Aule, i was stating the possiblilty.
My own essay seems to have gone missing as i am now using a new computer i have no longer got access to it [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] (that gives me the irrates as i spent so long on it) BUT i have managed to find the essay that spurred my views that Tom MAY in fact be Aule (this essay is alot more comprehensive than my own and a much better read!). I would just like to say that there is alot of evidence against this theory but in reading the following essay there is also alot going for the theory.

if you don't want to read the essay in this thread, here is it's URL: http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html#Other


Who is Tom Bombadil? -An essay by Gene Hargrove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Standing alone, he would be a nature spirit.... But he is not standing alone. . . . He is not the genius of the earth, since he is restricted to one part of it. . . . He is apparently a man, since he is clearly not an Elf or a Dwarf or an Ent or a Hobbit or one of the fallen races, but he is not one of the Men of the West. I suppose one could save the appearances by making him an angel, of a different order from the Istari, or by making him a god, but in both cases we would be in conflict with Tolkien's mythology. (pp. 62-63)
Lokdell eventually concludes that Tom is an anomaly: "Although I find him an anomalous creation, I can make shift to account for him theologically - but only with the uneasy feeling that making shift is all that I am doing (p. 63).

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

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

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

Although this interpretation of Tom's singing is inconsistent with the general claim that Tom is nonrational, it is not inconsistent with Tolkien's own characterization of Tom in two letters in 1954, in which Tom is associated with the pure scientific study of nature. Tolkien writes:

. . . [Tom] is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular emboding of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly entirely unconcerned with 'doing' annulling with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany, not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. (Letters, p. 192; see also, p. 174)
As the exemplification of pure science, Tom could hardly be nonrational. Tom's purity, moreover, stems from his desire to delight in things as they are, without dominating and controlling them. The former is the aim of pure science, the latter the essential aims of applied science. Tom's knowledge of nature allows him to control nature when necessary, but because such control is not his aim, he is more akin to science than engineering.
If we take Tom's remark quite literally that he "was here before the river and the trees. . .the first raindrop and the first acorn" (Rings, 1:142), he is saying either that he was in Middle-earth when the Valar arrived or that he arrived as one of the Valar. His remark that "he knew the dark under ths stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from the Outside" refers to the time before Morgoth, the original Dark Lord, had officially turned renegade - the time when the "old" or original stars were made. Since the world was incomplete at that time and nothing lived on the earth except the Valar, it is hard to believe that Tom is anything but a Vala.


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

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

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

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

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


In the form of a woman she is tall, and robed in green; but at times she takes other shapes. Some there are who have seen her standing like a tree under heaven, crowned with the Sun; and from all its branches there spilled a golden dew upon the barren earth, and it grew green with corn; but the roots of the tree were in the waters of Ulmo, and the winds of Manwe spoke in its leaves.
When we first meet Goldberry, she is clad in green: "her gown was green, green as young reeds, shot with silver like beads of dew" (Rings, p. 172). When Tom officially introduces Goldberry, he says, "Here's my Goldberry clothed all in silver-green. . . ." When she says goodbye to the Hobbits, she is once again clad in green and Frodo in calling for her refers specifically to this color when he starts to look for her: "My fair lady, clad all in green!" (p. 187). This characterization of Goldberry's customary dress supports that hypothesis that she is Yavanna.

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

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


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

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

Of course, an important problem with this hypothesis is the claim that Goldberry is the Riverwoman's daughter. If the story is true, then Goldberry cannot be Yavanna. However, there are many things said in Rings that are not true literally and many matters are left unrevealed or unexplained. For instance, it was believed by many people that Rohan was selling horses to Mordor. Gandalf never reveals that he is a Maia. The eagles are never revealed as Maiar (though they are "Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles" who "could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world" (Silmarillion, p. 35). As is clear from "The Hunt for the Ring," in Unfinished Tales, many details are presented in a confused and unconnected way in Rings, because that is how they appeared to the people who wrote the book. There are, finally, two accounts given by Tolkien of the origins of the Orcs, both of which cannot be true. Thus, the fact that some people believe that Goldberry is Riverwoman's Daughter does not absolutely, literally have to be true.


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

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

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

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

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


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

The key phrase is "to which I was appointed ere the making of the World." First, it makes it clear that Ulmo is not acting defiantly at all, merely following orders, just as his servant would be following orders if he hurled up a wave and killed Tuor. Second, it refers to the time of the song which created the world. It is this song, I believe, that contains the conflicting instructions both Ulmo and Osse are following, different parts, elements, or themes of the whole. If I am correct, then Ulmo's power to help the Elves is both limited by and partially determined by the Music of the Ainur, insofar as it established the existence of the earth and determined its major events. While Ulmo may have had free will as he sang his part of the song in those distant times, he is now bound by what he sang and cannot go beyond or change his part. If Tom is Aule, then he too is bound by his part in the song and although sympathetic and concerned, he can only help the Hobbits and the Free Peoples of the West in little ways.
This account of Tom as Aule is not really inconsistent with Tolkien's claim that Tom has renounced power in a kind of "vow of poverty" and that he exemplifies "a natural pacifist view." At the time of the singing of the Great Music, it is true that Aule, along with most of the other Holy Ones, eventually stopped singing, leaving Melkor to sing on alone. However, they did not stop because Melkor's thunderous and discordant singing defeated them, but rather because they did not wish to compete with him and considered the song spoiled by his behavior. It was not defeat, since obviously by singing together the others could have overcome him. Rather it was a rejection of the conflict itself - hence, a pacifist position. It was indeed the Third Theme sung by Iluvatar, representing the part of the Children of Iluvatar, that was to overcome Melkor's disruption. Concerning the "vow of poverty," Aule has indeed taken such a vow - as exemplified by his attitude toward his work and the work of others - his lack of excessive pride, jealousy, and possessiveness.

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

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

[ July 22, 2003: Message edited by: Osse ]

[Sharkû]

I still don't see why Tolkien should have lied, or known less about Middle-Earth than us.

[Frodo2968thewhite]

It is possible that Tolkien knows less than us about LOTR, because true LOTR lovers believe that ME existed! Anyway, I think that Tom is Iluvatar, as stated by Goldberry,

He is

.

[Lord of Angmar]

Frodo 2968, I find it very hard to believe that Bombadil was Illuvatar. Why would he have no power against Sauron? Why would he be unwilling to leave the borders of the Barrow downs or unable to maintain his powers once he left? I think that he is no identifiable entity that has another name in Tolkien's works. I believe he is the embodiment and spirit of Arda, or perhaps, as Gwaihir suggested, a

kind of personification of the Music of the Ainur

, which would explain his gift and power with music (though none of these theories fully explain his connexion with and seeming derivation of power from the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs).

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Gwaihir, do you perhaps have a link to the thread where this was discussed before? I searched and didn't find...

Many thanks.
Sophia

[Sharkû]

Derry Dol, Indeed

The first time I could remember that this idea arose on our board was here, however.

[Lord of Angmar]

The Dark Lord came in right away. The Dark lord was the first in, even.

What else was around when the Valar came in?

"But when the Valar Entered into Eä they were at first astounded and at a loss, for it was as if naught was yet made which they had seen in vision, and all was but on pointto begin and yet unshaped, and it was dark."

Nothing else was around when the Valar came in, save only Eä itself.

How can Tom manage to be around before the Dark Lord when the Dark Lord was the first thing into Eä?

I would say, now, that it is because Tom is Eä, or at least an embodiment thereof.

This quote by burrahobbit on the Derry Dol, Indeed forum backs my original theory, at least in part. I too believe that he is an embodiment, but not exactly of Ea itself but that he is an entity representing the natural world, the kelvar and olvar that abide in Ea.

[tinewelt]

I totally agree with Lord of Angmar, and with Burrahobbits post in the other thread. My post above was referring to that exactly. The only thing different is that I believe (without any evidence [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) that Illuvatar himself "sang" Bombadil into existence, and not the Ainur. I do believe that bombadil represents Ea. However,I wonder what the signifigance of the old forest is. If he represents Ea, then it is hard to believe that he restricts himself to that one certain set of boundaries. But then again, when a king rules a kingdom, his throne always stays in one place I guess. Also, what about everyones thoughts on Goldberry, and exactly how they came to be together?

Old man willow? Naught worse that that, eh? that can soon be mended. I know the tune for him. OLd grey Willow-man! I'll freeze his marrow cold, if he dont behave himself. I'll sing his roots off!

[Lord of Angmar]

Goldberry is interesting indeed, perhaps as much so as old Bombadillo himself. It could be that she is one of the lesser Ainur who sang the Withywindle into existence during the Music. She could also be (although there is no text to make this evident) an embodiment of the waters of Middle-earth, as she obviously shares a connection with the waters of the Old Forest.

[Osse]

did anyone actually read that essay? it's just that i did go to some effort to find it and if no-one is interested in it i will remove it.

[Osse]

Not one to rule out possibilites; it may be that Tom is in fact Eru, who has entered into middle earth but under restrictive conditions he set himself. The Ainur vowed during the war for the Silmarils that (after feanor acted as he did) they would have no part in the affairs, it was only because of Earendil that they went to the Final Battle of the war. Perhaps Eru views that he will not counter sauron despite (obviously) having the power to, he entered into a realm who's boundaries he set himself and stayed in there. The Istari were on Middle Earth to combat sauron, perhaps Eru had always been in the old forest since the making of Arda, unbeknown to the other Ainur?

Personally i don't think it would be prudent to rule out any possibilites when regarding Tom. (except those that are obviously ludicrous!)

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Quite right, in the world of Tolkien things can rarely be actually ruled out. Possibilities can often be dismissed as unlikely, but usually not squashed completely.

Hmmm... but you know, I think we can probably squash this one. Illuvatar, you know, dwells beyond the Cirlces of the World and outside Ea; it is to him that the Valar called upon when Ar-Pharazon threatened Valinor; and it is he who communes with Manwe upon Taniquetil and with the Valar. It is, apparently (not conclusively known) to Illuvatar that the fëar of Men go after death. A 'restrained' Tom, a little man dwelling in the forest of Eriador, is unlikely to be the Illuvatar of Ea.

Furthermore, there is direct evidence that Eru does in fact live outside the world found in the Ainulindalë;

'Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Illuvatar beyond the confines of the world...'

So there's the hard evidence. And Eru did not come to Arda later, because if so he would not have been the 'First'.
Unless you interpret this as meaning 'first of all time' and not just in Arda, there's a quote for that too [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]...

...at the last he would fall, Last as he was First; and then there would be darkness.

Aside from the fact that Sauron could not have defeated Illuvatar anyway -- which is another piece of useful conclusive evidence this quote gives -- Illuvitar could not be Last of All Time if he was only last in Arda as this implies. Following this implication, the title of First is presumably also only in Arda.

Osse, yes, I did read at least the first half of that essay. To be honest it isn't all that good -- rather too long for what it is trying to say, and definitely on the vague side anyway. More of a general speculation on Bombadil rather than anything definitive, although I will say that the including of the actual quotes of Tolkien himself are most interesting. Tolkien's wish to leave Tom an enigma is worth knowing, and the essay does look at that. Mmmmm... so worth posting, of course. The Bombadil debate spans many threads, there is room enough for numerous essays [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Osse, if you please, the essay that you wrote on the possibility of Aulë would be most welcome here, if only to bring some more new life into the debate. Hopefully it's somewhat shorter though, as since the subject is one that does not really have much chance, a big long compilation on it would be, er, somewhat innapropiate. =/

Actually, the 'earth spirit' thing seems to be along the right lines. The spirit of the Music is what I believe him to be.

[Sharkû]

Tolkien states that there is no direct representation and no embodiment of the Creator in Arda in his Letters. I thought those quotes were pretty well-known, esp. so in Tom discussions.

[ July 23, 2003: Message edited by: Sharkû ]

[Osse]

i also agree, having just re-read a letter from tolkien plainly denying that Tom is Eru, so as i had done in the past, we can rule that one out [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Osse]

As i stated before, i do not personally believe that Tom is either Eru or Aule, but i found that essay interesting none the less!
Sorry Gwaihir, my own essay is just as long as that if not longer and unfortunately i am unable to find it! [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] (new comp.) I see where you are coming from regarding that essay as i reread it now; it certainly is uncertain!
Pondering the identity of Tom is never-ending process, and i wouldn't want it any other way!

[burrahobbit]

The first time I could remember that this idea arose on our board was here, however.

Sharku is just mad because nobody ever links to his post.

[ July 23, 2003: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

[The Saucepan Man]

There are some good points made in that article, Osse, and I was almost persuaded at points. But I think that there is a greater preponderence of evidence mitigating against Tom being Aule. What's more, Bombadil and Goldberry as physical embodiments of any of the Valar just doesn't "feel right" to me.

Also, I think that the author of the article is misconceived in trying to support his theory that Goldberry is Yavanna by arguing that she was not, contrary to what is said in the Books, the River-Woman's Daughter:

Of course, an important problem with this hypothesis is the claim that Goldberry is the Riverwoman's daughter. If the story is true, then Goldberry cannot be Yavanna. However, there are many things said in Rings that are not true literally and many matters are left unrevealed or unexplained. ... As is clear from "The Hunt for the Ring," in Unfinished Tales, many details are presented in a confused and unconnected way in Rings, because that is how they appeared to the people who wrote the book ... Thus, the fact that some people believe that Goldberry is Riverwoman's Daughter does not absolutely, literally have to be true.

I always see this kind of argument as being a big cop-out. It is in effect saying that, if something from the published works doesn't fit in with my theory, I will disregard it by making out that it is just the belief of those relating the story and doesn't necessarily have to be true. But of course much the same might be said of most, if not all, of the "evidence" concerning Bombadil's nature - Elrond's reference to Bombadil being the oldest, for example. Why not disregard that as his belief and therefore not necessarily literally true? And if we are to follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, what is there in any of the Books that we can rely on?.

What's more, Bombadil actually tells the Hobbits that Goldberry is the River-Woman's daughter (in song, obviously, Tom being Tom) and Goldberry refers to herself as the Daughter of the River. So, are we to take it that they were lying? Or did Frodo get it wrong when relating these events in the Red Book of Westmarch? Neither is an attractive option. There is , in any event, a world of difference between what is presented to us as "fact" in LotR and the various unfinished and alternative manuscripts compiled in UT.

Of course, the reference to Goldberry as the River-Woman's daughter doesn't actually mean that she had to have a physical mother who was called the River-Woman. This might just be a poetic way of saying that she is a spirit of the river (in the same way that some hold that Tom is a spirit of the earth/nature), particularly as she refers to herself as the Daughterof the River, rather than the River-Woman. That, however, would not be consistent with her being Yavanna either, and so is not an argument that the author could use to support his theory of Bombadil as Aule.

[Lord of Angmar]

There is another interesting theory put forth in this essay, which I am sure many of you have read from the Bombadil: The Reader thread. While some say that this essay completely confirms the theory that Bombadil (and Goldberry, depending upon the reader's sex) is the reader planted into the book, some sort of haven from which the story can unfold, I prefer to keep an open mind. After all, Elrond's words at the Council in Imladris, in my opinion, do not exactly support this theory.

[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[tinewelt]

Gwaihir Said:

At present, I am really of the opinion -- I was enlightened in this respect by a post of burrahobbit's -- that Bombadil is some kind of personification of the Music of the Ainur,

I think that is what I was trying to say in my post, (and Gwaihir/Burrahobbit seemed to find the wording, where I was blank) The music of the Ainur of course came from Illuvatar, and that is what I was referring to. So that leads to Goldberry again... is she the same perhaps? Also, (this is kind of far-fetched)I wonder if Bombadil really knew who he was himself? When goldberry was asked who Bombadil was, she replied "he is". I wonder if Bombadil himself told goldberry who he was, and about his power(and where it came from), or if bombadil was really not aware of how he was created and he and goldberry arrived at the same time? But I Do not think that is correct, because when they speak of him at the council, they say he would be the last as he was the first, and a few other quotes about how he is the oldest. But nothing is mentioned of Goldberry. I am now starting to Confuse myself, so I will end this post. Any opinions?

~Namarie~

[Mister Underhill]

Saucepan:

And if we are to follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, what is there in any of the Books that we can rely on?

I agree with your sentiment in spirit, Sauce, though I think there are a few cases -- this is one of them -- where Tolkien himself is quick to distinguish between what he knows as author and what the characters know or say as characters within the story. I refer once more to Letter 153: "(Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator)."

[The Saucepan Man]

Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator

Hmm, that's an interesting quote, Mister Underhill. But I am intrigued as to why this should be the case with Tom and Goldberry and not with others. Unless, of course, it is because they do not comfortably fit within Middle-earth, having been shoehorned into it. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Mister Underhill]

I seem to be specializing in pulling Bombadil threads off-topic these past few days.

But I am intrigued as to why this should be the case with Tom and Goldberry and not with others.

Well – it isn’t just the case with Tom and GB. The “again” in the quote refers to an earlier distinction Tolkien makes between what Treebeard knows and what he, the author, knows.

In a way, this unreliability of some characters is a stroke of genius on Tolkien’s part, allowing inconsistencies and rough edges in the tales to be gently whitewashed away. There are some characters whose accounts I think we can trust without reservation: Gandalf, for instance. Others’ accounts are more suspect. For instance, as I noted in another thread, I don’t think Galdor’s words about Bombadil at the Council of Elrond carry much authority, prefaced as they are by the disclaimer, `I know little of Iarwain save the name...'

My point is only that Tolkien specifically tells us that we have to take Tom and Goldberry’s words and accounts of themselves with a grain of salt, all part of a general downplaying of efforts to read too much into them. Again, I’d urge you to check out the cited letters for more background.

Anywho, have at the Bombadil as Aulë theory, and sorry for the side trek.

[The Saucepan Man]

I suspect that responsibility for the side track lays with me, Mister U. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Yes, I had come across the doubts raised over Treebeard's knowledge before. You are right. Making a distinction between what some characters say and what may actually be true is indeed a clever device. And it provides even more scope for discussion on sites like this into the bargain. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

But, whether or not we can take what Tom and Goldberry tell the Hobbits at face value, I would still go with my initial impression:

Bombadil and Goldberry as physical embodiments of any of the Valar just doesn't "feel right" to me.

Edit: A further thought. If Tom and Goldberry were indeed Aule and Yavanna, then surely we could take what they say as authoritative. In which case, they would be dissembling to conceal their true identity. Which doesn't seem like a proper way for Valar to behave to me. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ September 11, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Mister Underhill]

Bombadil and Goldberry as physical embodiments of any of the Valar just doesn't "feel right" to me.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, and I suppose bringing up the matter in this thread was really the wrong place. I guess your post rung a bell with me in terms of the larger debate we were having on Derry Dol, Indeed -- namely that Tolkien specifically downplays Tom's stated honorific as "Master" and statements like "He is" by his comments.