Derry Dol, Indeed

[burrahobbit]

Well, maybe I know older songs, but that's all I could think of at the moment. My point was that songs that don't mean anything, as far as most people can tell, are usually the most recognized by the most people, and among the oldest that most people will know.

[Annalaliath]

hey I think that Tom being silly has more to do with why he was not chosen to guard the ring.... And yes sillyness gets me through some hard times. So I think that Tom could have used silly and wimsical songs to keep him afloat as his world shrank.

As for Goldberry I have no idea.

And as we all should know 'ring around the roses' is a song that came about during or after the black plauge. A silly and wimsical song if ther ever was one. The song that I remeber singing alot was 'Jesus loves me'...

[Sharkû]

Burrahobbit's "theory" has one fatal, if perhaps somewhat elusive flaw – the equation of "songs" with the Ainulindale, and the conclusion that Tom, knowing all such "songs", necessarily has to have full understanding of the Music.
However, the real nature of the Ainulindale is such that we cannot associate it with such degree of certainty and in such bold interpretation with Tom.

The Ainulindale came from the Ainur, and Eru. We do know that the Ainur were given a vision of Eä, their Music put into being; however, we also know this was incomplete. This is one reason why no Ainu, not even Manwe, would have complete knowledge of the Music; the other reason is that Eru brought in themes which are solely his (sc. the Children and others, depending on how meaning is attributed to the Themes, cf. HoME X, I).
These were not then understood by the Ainur, and, as can be assumed with great certainty, Eru might have presented aspects of the Themes not perceived by the listeners, or Eru might still add to the Music afterwards, since that was certainly in his power (cf. Athrabeth).

Burrahobbit circumvened this problem of the Ainur's incomplete knowledge of the Music by making Tom not an Ainu, but Eä itself. As I have argued above long ago (though apparently not convincingly or strikingly enough), Eä is itself only creation and therefore can not only not be assumed to have a full understanding of itself at any time of its existance, but it also cannot be plausible that there could be a perfect simulacrum of itself in itself; in a very peculiar, fixed form (Tom) on top of that.
A painting neither knows how it was painted, nor knows how it looks to the beholder; nor is music able to comprehend itself.

If, however, we are to make Eä a completely different case, not applicable to those comparisons, we are still faced with the difficulty that Eru the One alone and solely possesses full knowledge and understanding of all the the themes of the Music, especially since it is still unfolding, and gradually and perpetually so. Eä, while a finite thing by necessity (cf. Athrabeth), can in its vast boundaries of space and time and drama only be comprehended, more importantly, only be mastered by Eru the Creator alone, as only he can know how and what it is, and how it is going to unfold.

(Furthermore, Tom does not, when tempted by the Ring and the Barrow-Wight, show any sign of corruption, even though we know that Arda, and thus an important part of Eä [even more so with the image prevalent at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings that the globe of Arda was pretty much all there was to Eä] was marred. "Arda umarred does not exist." (MT VII). That Tom, if he was to be, represent, or, as a matter of fact, even be within Eä, would have to show at least signs of Marring [though not necessarily at the above mentioned occassions] is evident from the following: "[Melkor] had introduced evil […] into all physical matter of Arda" (Athrabeth commentary). "Latent evil" would have been "roused" by "evil minds" (ibid.) such as the Ring or the Barrow-Wight.
Of course, we cannot say whether Tom is marred, flawed or corrupted or not on the textual basis concerning him, but the texts we have are a firm pointer in the firection that aids my argumentation.)

Therefore, Tom cannot be Eä, and we know Tom is not Eru. Tom cannot be master of the Music, and cannot "know" all songs of the Ainulindale.
On a scientific scale, the absence of Tom from all philosophical or cosmogonical writings of Tolkien only further disproves any interpretation of Tom beyond the old "spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside", which did not exist until much later ages.

About Tom not as Eä as a whole, but as a mere representation of it, I have said all there is to it in my post near the beginning of this very thread. All parts of Eä, however small or great, evil or glorious are representations of Eä, the end of which is always to add to its greatness as a praise unto its creator.

Tom may be, but Eä is, and Tom is not Eä.

[Ainaserkewen]

Mondieu Burrahobbit, it's like a riddle that once you know the answer it is so obvious. You've convinced me of your theory, I never really thought he could have been a Maiar anyway. You did an impressive amount of research for all this, all I can say is "Wow!"

[Ainaserkewen]

(Sorry, edit button isn't working)

Sharku, what you say makes sense too, but it's missing something...
Like I said above, what burrahobbit says just clicks and makes sense to me, however I may be wrong.
These questions that are not answered in Tolkiens books, probably can't be answered at all. Tom may be just a representation of some aspect of Tolkien's personal life, no one knows, and if they do, they haven't said anthing.
So, because no one knows for sure, I will side with burrahobbit because that's what fits the best to me.
It's almost like religious faith really.

[Rimbaud]

Eä is itself only creation and therefore can not only not be assumed to have a full understanding of itself at any time of its existance, but it also cannot be plausible that there could be a perfect simulacrum of itself in itself; in a very peculiar, fixed form (Tom) on top of that.
A painting neither knows how it was painted, nor knows how it looks to the beholder; nor is music able to comprehend itself.

Purely on this point, Old Man, I find myself in disagreement. There are many things of Eru's creation that 'comprehend themselves', arguably imperfectly, but nevertheless so. Elves, Men and Dwarves et al are sentient along with much more of Tolkien's world than our own; Legolas tells us even the rocks have memories.

[Sharkû]

umm... next paragraph?

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, if Tom was the physical representation of Eä, then it follows that he, like Eä, would be partially marred. But isn't this true of any theory which involves Tom being part of Arda? If he was of Arda, like Elves, Men, Ents and the like, then he was tainted by the marring of Arda. If it is the case that Tom was not marred in any way, then this can only mean that he originated outside Arda. If it is not, then burra's theory holds.

[Sharkû]

My point about the Marring, in the post already given in meaningful parenthesis, only becomes truly valid when you make the simple mental realization that Tom, if he were Eä, would not simply be marred to the degree other inhabitants are, but incorporate all Marring and the Marrer itself. I cannot see that.

I, perhaps too obliquely, implied the possibility of Tom being outside of the whole matter when I said " if he was to be, represent, or, as a matter of fact, even be within Eä" and hinted on the old Tolkien quote of the Oxford countryside, which is very clearly not a work of his fiction and thusly not of Eä.

[The Saucepan Man]

Tom, if he were Eä, would not simply be marred to the degree other inhabitants are, but incorporate all Marring and the Marrer itself.

But is there really any difference? Arda was partially, although not wholly, marred. Its inhabitants were partially, although not wholly marred. Whether Tom were to represent that which incorporates the former or whether he was one of the latter, then either way he too would be partially, although not wholly, marred.

Also, I do not see that it follows that if Tom were the representation of Eä he would necessarily have to incorporate all of its inhabitants, including "the Marrer itself".

hinted on the old Tolkien quote of the Oxford countryside, which is very clearly not a work of his fiction and thusly not of Eä

True, but are we not discussing here the question of Tom's existence and status within the mythology devised by JRRT? As for his significance outside the mythology, I am rather partial to the "Bombadil as reader" theory that was posted on another thread.

[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Rimbaud]

Yes, S, on the incomplete nature of the potential self-knowledge in question, I have seen and understood your logic. My point was based as I said, purely on that which I quoted, that created matter cannot be fully aware of itself. Inclined to a slight degree though I am to agree with that, it is a fairly bold statement, paticularly in (what is for me) an atheistic mode of enquiry.

[Sharkû]

Of course there is a difference, since, while all physical matter was marred, not all and everybody was marred to the same degree. Unlike relatively pure Quendi, Bombadil would in this theory have to incorporate all the other stuff as well.

I did not say a representation of Eä would have to be all that, but Eä itself. The representation idea is not explaining anything anyway.

Of course we are not discussing the significance of Bombadil on any level, literary or mythological. No matter what or who he is, it is bound to be a wholly different question, one I am not remotely interest in, what that means.

[Mister Underhill]

As Sharkû has mentioned, the statement “Tom is Eä or an embodiment thereof” doesn’t have much meaning. Eä is Eä. Tom is Tom. How can Tom be “the earth” or “the material universe”? And if he’s an “embodiment” of it only, again what does that mean? As the Old Man has stated, this may be said in some sense of all things: “For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Gen 3:19) There are river spirits, mountain spirits, tree spirits, rock spirits (apparently – c.f. Rimb’s reference to rock memories) – where does a generalized “embodiment of Eä” fit in to all this? What aspects of Eä does he personify?

In any case, I would add these few items which seem problematic for the theory, such as it is:

• “Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself.”

This quote is taken out of context. Considered with the paragraphs surrounding it, it may be read to mean that Bombadil does not have the power (or perhaps even the temperament) to resist Sauron, and will fall unless the very ground that he occupies were able to resist the power of Sauron and his Ring. Using this statement to equate Tom with the earth doesn’t hold up. Following on the heels of, “I know little of Iarwain save the name...”, Galdor’s words lack the authority from which such bold and sweeping conclusions may be drawn.

• Gandalf: “...he would not understand the need [to safeguard the Ring].”

Surely a sentient embodiment of Eä would have an understanding of the need considering Sauron’s ability to “torture and destroy the very hills”.

• Gandalf: “And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.”

Has the spirit of Eä (if such an idea even has any real meaning) withdrawn from Lothlorien? From the fields of Rohan? Even from Mordor, where fire from “the heart of the earth” wells at Orodruin?

• Gandalf: “But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others.”

Eä, in fact, holds the only power that can alter the Ring and break its power over others.

[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Annalaliath]

I still think that he is a creation that is pure. His sillyness may have been a way to keep him afloat with willfull nievity, or just part of his nature. Other than that I am baffled. I mean Tom probably would have some sourt of power over the ring but since the ring has no power over him he sees no need to do anything with it. He is only concerned with those lives within his shrinking land. He is powerfull ,though; you have to give him that. He was able with out the slightest problem to get rid of the Barrow Wight, without even flinching. So there is power in him as a created beeing.

It is hard to pin any explination on him as Tolkien doesn't even tell us much in his letters or anything else for that matter. I think Bombadil will forever be a mystery.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course there is a difference

No, not in terms of trying to determine the nature of Tom's existence from what we know of him (which is the primary theme of this thread). Tom's behaviour might (or might not) tell us whether or not he is marred, but I do not believe that it can tell us the extent of any marring.

If we were to determine from Tom's depiction in the books that he is marred, then that would be consistent with burra's theory of Bombadil as the embodiment of Eä. It would also be consistent with any theory of Bombadil as an inhabitant of Arda. But I do not believe that we would be able to tell from such depiction the extent of the marring such that we would be able to ascribe a greater likelihood to one theory or the other. That is what I meant when I questioned whether there was really any difference between the two "types" of marring.

If, on the other hand, we were to determine from Tom's behaviour that he is not marred, then neither burra's embodiment of Eä theory nor any Bombadil as Arda inhabitant theory can explain his existence. In those circumstances he would have to have originated from outside Arda.

The question is, can we tell from Tom's portrayal in the books whether or not he is marred? You are of course right to allude to the fact that he is not tempted by the Ring as relevant in this regard, Sharkû. To me, this suggests that he is not marred, since the Ring works by appealing to the evil, ie marred, side of those with whom it comes in contact. If Tom has no marred side, the Ring cannot appeal to him. Indeed, it has no effect on him whatsoever. Anyone else have any views on this issue?

I did not say a representation of Eä would have to be all that, but Eä itself.

Sorry! Loose wording on my part. For representation read embodiment.

The representation idea is not explaining anything anyway.

Agreed. See above.

Of course we are not discussing the significance of Bombadil on any level, literary or mythological.

Also agreed. But we not discussing his interpretation either. The point that I was making was that his interpretation as the "spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside" does not explain the nature of his existence within the mythology any more than the "Bombadil as reader" theory.

[Mister Underhill]

The point that I was making was that his interpretation as the "spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside" does not explain the nature of his existence within the mythology any more than the "Bombadil as reader" theory.

The problem with trying to shoehorn Bombadil into an explicable, seamlessly logical place in the mythology is that it can’t be done. Tom being the anomaly that he is in fact provides a rare instance where Tolkien is willing to cop (albeit grudgingly) to allegory (Letter 153; cf. Letter 144). Tom embodies, if anything, an idea or a certain point of view to which Tolkien wished to give expression.

Tolkien freely admits on a number of occasions that Tom was inserted, nearly as-is, in his pre-existing form. To the extent that he is “integrated” with the legendarium, it was done after the fact, an exercise which Tolkien seemingly didn’t feel compelled to spend too much energy on.

[The Saucepan Man]

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

Yes, essentially I agree with you on this Mr U. But there is an argument (which was expressed, as I recall, in the "Bombadil as reader" article) to the effect that Tolkien, in describing Tom as an enigma, was laying down a challenge to his readers. Since one definition of "enigma" is "riddle" and riddles have solutions, so the argument runs, Tolkien has, in the question of the nature of Tom's existence, deliberately set us a riddle to solve. This argument posits that there is a solution and the clues are there in his writings if only we can find them.

Of course, "enigma" is also defined as "paradox" and a paradox is an inconsistency, something which is not explicable by reference to its surroundings, so the argument does not necessarily work on every level. But it does nevertheless have a certain appeal to me - and to many others judging by the amount of bandwidth devoted to this question on this forum (and no doubt many others). [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Dancing_Hobbit]

I beg to differ, Saucepan Man. A paradox is a seeming inconsistency that, apon closer inspection turns out not to be inconsistent. thus the phrase "an apparent paradox" is redundent. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

I would also like to suggest that, as I am of the opinion that Tom is unmarred, he is the memory of Arda unmarred. That is why his country is shrinking as the bounds of relatively unmarred land shrink. This still leaves it unclear as to how Tom escaped marring, but perhapse that has something to do with the power of music he has. I don't know, but it's what occured to me.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

Arda Unmarred never existed. That is why it is impossible that the memory of Arda Unmarred existed (there is nothing to remember). [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[lindil]

If, on the other hand, we were to determine from Tom's behaviour that he is not marred, then neither burra's embodiment of Eä theory nor any Bombadil as Arda inhabitant theory can explain his existence.

I put forward, tentatively, that we look at Arda in a in a similar way to the planet Zonama Sekot, in the SW books Rouge Planet and New JEdi ORder: Force Heretic: Reunion [that really is the title].

In it the planet Zonama has a sentient soul, 'Sekot'. It is able to materialize in human form, converse with sentients, guide the re/actions of the planet etc.

If we have a similar thing in Bombadil, then it does beg the questions:

- Could not Tom/spirit of Ea then manifest orudruin in his palm for a moment?

- and as already posited, 'what of the Marring'.

Fot the first question, we could answer that Tom inutively or otherwise felt it was not his job to destroy the ring even if he could.

For the second, I will propose a sort of Aquinasish dualism of Ea having a Hroa and Fea, and that TOm is the Fea, and that it is the Hroa that has fallen.

Tom's 'body' i.e. the world, has developed a viral sickness due to Melkor's dissemination of his fallen will into the fabric of Ea, but Tom has remained more or less resistant to it.

HE can not overcome it in his body [Ea] but he being the spirit of Ea is not harmed by ti either.

As a final analogy, does a man's soul become ill if the man does?

In some cases perhaps, but it certainly not be considered a given.

BTW - I do not personally ascribe to the 'the body is fallen, but the mind and soul and spirit are not' theology [it is specifically contradicted in Orthodox Christian theology] which I have seen [correctly or not I can not say] ascribed to Dr. Aquinas. But if it is true, JRRT may well have agreed.

As for the a creature being able to 'fully know itself'. I think that this is all extremely relative, with near self-oblivioousness and near perfect self-knowledge [being a gift of grace] being possible for sentient creatures.

To support this would require quite alot of background citations from Hagiographical and metaphysical sourcetexts, and it is in any case, as a discussable theory{ not in reality} dependant on one's belief system, so I will not elaborate.

[Firnantoonion]

Tolkien himself somewhere stated that Tom came into his writing, without Tolkien came to think of putting tom into it, he just came during the writing. this was possible because he existed earlier. in this case, Tom is just an anomaly wich wasn't happy in his own story and thus went to another one. (I know this sounds stupid, but it's the best i can put it in words)

[The Saucepan Man]

I beg to differ, Saucepan Man. A paradox is a seeming inconsistency that, apon closer inspection turns out not to be inconsistent. thus the phrase "an apparent paradox" is redundent.

Yes, that is one definition of "paradox", Dancing_Hobbit. But another definition, given in my Concise Oxford Dictionary is:

a person or thing conflicting with a preconceived notion of what is reasonable or possible.

Taking that definition, the "preconceived notion" might be Tolkien's "rules" for the world which he created, so that Tom might then be seen as conflicting with those rules such that he could not be explained by reference to them. But I agree in the sense that there is scope for the argument that Tom is a conundrum, whose existence might be explained by finding the carefully hidden clues. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

For the second, I will propose a sort of Aquinasish dualism of Ea having a Hroa and Fea, and that TOm is the Fea, and that it is the Hroa that has fallen.

Yes, I follow your logic, lindil. But, is it not the case that the marring of Arda taints both the Hroa and the Fea of those who inhabit it? Surely they would not be capable of committing evil if their Fea were not marred. And, if the Fea of Arda's inhabitants is marred, then the Fea of the embodiment of Ea (which encompasses Arda) would surely also be similarly marred.

[Mister Underhill]

We’re getting a bit outside the scope of the thread here, but I’m curious to know what leads you to think that Bombadil is a riddle with a discoverable solution. I don’t mean that question in a flip or aggressive way – I’m genuinely interested. I can understand debating, say, Balrog wings. I think if you could ask the Professor point blank whether or not Balrogs had wings, he could answer you without hesitation. It’s just an accident of grammar that has left us in the lurch, but there assuredly is an answer.

Don’t get me wrong – I also understand the impetus that drives Bombadil inquiries. People want to integrate him fully into the mythos whether Tolkien bothered to or not. I would be more inclined to sympathize with such inquiries if it weren’t for a number of factors which argue against a “secret solution” to the mystery. The most obvious of these is Tolkien’s own dismissive response to over-analysis of The Master. I think the explanations he gives in the two cited letters are about as definitive an explanation of what Tom is and what he’s doing in the story as there is. I don’t think he’s being intentionally mysterious, at least in the sense that he’s hiding the solution to a riddle.

The second is that Bombadil pre-dates LotR, and the character and many events and details of his scenes are lifted whole cloth from the original poem and transplanted into LotR. Tom had nothing to do with the mythology, and was only retrofitted in later. If anything, the deliberate air of mystery surrounding Tom is used to screen his somewhat clunky integration into Middle-earth.

Thirdly, traces of Bombadil are nowhere to be found in the vast writings of The Silmarillion in all its various drafts and incarnations, at least that I am aware of. As the Old Man has pointed out, Tom’s absence from any of these writings tends to argue against the idea that Bombadil had any particular hold on Tolkien’s imagination or great significance within the legendarium, or that the professor used him to pose one last grand (but solvable) riddle to his readership.

If you plumb back through volumes Volumes VI and VII of HoME, you can trace Bombadil’s evolution (what little there is of it) in fair detail. Without going into a lot of particulars, you’ll find that the prof hit a six month dry spell in the early drafting of LotR, and that Bombadil, Old Man Willow, and the Barrow-Wight, characters and scenes that he already had on hand, were used to break the block. The subsequent development of Tom does not suggest any especially crafty subtext on Tolkien’s part as far as I can see.

I do get that people are fascinated by the topic and are interested in advancing and debating theories about who or what Tom “really is”. Everyone is welcome to their pet Bombadil theory, and equating him with some sort of amorphous “nature spirit” is about as close as you can come to fitting him in. This specific incarnation of the debate (Tom is Eä) doesn’t stand up to textual analysis. Eä is. Tom is. “I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?” (Tolkien) But that doesn’t make Winnie the earth or the universe or God or anything else.

[samrohan]

All very nice but scary for people to follow on after such a lashing of RATHER CLOMPICATED words.
I am but a silly Hobbit and reckon the last paragraph contains the best solution to the plot.

Tolkien like PJ and many great writers or directors placed himself in the book. But not wanting to be cast in a too crucial role he decided to do his bit in saving the Hobbits in the Downs and appearing as a lovely, bubbly though intriguing character that is Tom.

[lindil]

But, is it not the case that the marring of Arda taints both the Hroa and the Fea of those who inhabit it? Surely they would not be capable of committing evil if their Fea were not marred. And, if the Fea of Arda's inhabitants is marred, then the Fea of the embodiment of Ea (which encompasses Arda) would surely also be similarly marred.

I agree with this view completely Saucepan, what I was pionting out however that in some strains of Catholic Theology, the mind [and thus one can reasonably asssume the spirit as well] is unfallen, and that JRRT may well have subscribed to it.

Underhill is of course quite right, I think, in stating that JRRT 'clunked' Bombadil into the LotR and that much of his mystery is really obfuscation!

I don't think JRRT posed a riddle, does not one of his letters actually discount the idea? [sorry no reference books at hand].

However I admit I have fallen prey to aspects of Burrahobbits theory and find that with only a little bit of force, the shoe fits.Oh and a blind eye to the external history and context of Bombadil too. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]


I think however the urge to locate TB more exactly into the Legendarium is due to JRRT's own meticulous attempts [not always realized] at finding a home/position in the various heirarchies for everyone/thing.

Bombadil more or less breaks JRRT's own pattern of fitting everthing/one into a pattern. This of course is like a splinter in the mind for some, and thus we post...

[Mister Underhill]

Bombadil more or less breaks JRRT's own pattern of fitting everthing/one into a pattern. This of course is like a splinter in the mind for some, and thus we post...

Very well put, lindil, and right on the money into the bargain. Bombadil is a valuable lesson from a writing point of view: when faced with a large plot hole or a discordant element, less is more. Readers love an enigma!

[The Saucepan Man]

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

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

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

and

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

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

From his first appearance here in The Lord of the Rings, speculation about his identity and role in the story has been widespread, and no clear consensus has ever been reached on it. That this uncertainty is the writer's intention is apparent in an excerpt from one his letters: "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists);... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 174).

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

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

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

As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists). (emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

[Mister Underhill]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Sauce, but since you’ve revealed this gaping hole in your Tolkien library ( [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]), I don’t think we can get much further on the topic of Bombadil as riddle. Suffice to say that extracts like the ‘enigma’ one cited in that argument, without context, may be misleading. I urge you to check out Letters (and specifically letters 144 and 153 in relation to this discussion) when you get a chance. It is filled with gems beyond number, as I’m sure you’re aware.

[The Saucepan Man]

Alas, Mister Underhill, my presence in a bookshop never seems to coincide with the presence on the shelves of the Letters. Otherwise, I would have snapped them up by now. I have indeed found those excerpts that I have read on this site illuminating. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I still feel that it's an interesting theory nonetheless. Perhaps I will be able to develop my thoughts further once I have had the benefit of the Letters. One of the extracts on the thread to which you linked seemed to me to admit scope for argument ...

... but enough digression. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] On with the debate ...

[Dancing_Hobbit]

I personally can see no evidence whatsoever that Tom is marred. There is also evidence to me that he is not marred. How else could the ring fail to have an affect on him?

I do think that his not being marred makes it impossible for him to be the incarnation of Arda as we were looking on it. However, I think there is a way we could find that it would work. Perhapse he is one of the strains of music that Eru did not show the Valar, and thus remained unmarred? Or perhapse he somehow has that of Arda and of Eru in him? Or perhapse, for whatever reason, Eru somehow prevented him from being marred?

I oppologise if I'm being a dunderhead again, but I learn by being corrected by those more knowledgeable. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Annalaliath]

I still think that he is a creation that is pure. His silliness may have been a way to keep him afloat with willful naivety, or just part of his nature. Other than that I am baffled. I mean Tom probably would have some sort of power over the ring but since the ring has no power over him he sees no need to do anything with it. He is only concerned with those lives within his shrinking land. He is powerful ,though; you have to give him that. He was able with out the slightest problem to get rid of the Barrow Wight, without even flinching. So there is power in him as a created being.
It is hard to pin any explanation on him as Tolkien doesn't even tell us much in his letters or anything else for that matter. I think Bombadil will forever be a mystery.

This was something that I had discussed with my mother. I tend to agree with her that Tom is an unblemished creation, but I have also come up with a few more theories.

posted April 17, 2003 07:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unspoiled creation, the Green Man the old man of the wood. And so as the earth itself changes so does Tom. The world does change, but much slower than that of us. I am talking about the earth. If Tom is the embodiment of Ea than Tom would take on characteristics of Ea in how slowly he changes. If the two Toms in the two places he is mentioned are slightly different: maybe that would explain him. ( I am sounding stupider and stupider as I go on don't I?
)
Tom, to me, is the unblemished creation. He was not touched by the discord. This is the reason why he seems so naive at times, while all the time is wiser than probably evan Gandalf. but if he is the unblemished creation then he could be part of Ea. He was most likely a spirit of Ea, and he could take physical forms.( here i go rehashing all that has been said.) And so we have the spirit of the Old Forest. When the Old Forest diminishes so does Tom. But still I wonder if Tom is the spirit of the Old Forest than why were the trees so evil. was it because they were so old?( I know I am going off topic) But if so then why did Tom not get more evil as he got older, if he wasn't the unblemished creation?

SO here I repeat my question, and therefore come to the conclusion that Tom is not the embodiment of the Old Forest just something of a caretaker, and wrangler. And so here is my theory yet again with a few spelling and grammer corrections.