Tom Bombadil

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom is, that being a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once imhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.

I never knew that. That changes everything, then. As in, actually everything.

[jallanite]

Denigration is an interesting word.

Its meaning is found at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate and various other dictionaries on the web.

But is not an accusation that one has denigrated another not also an attempt to denigrate a person?

If so, I could accuse Inziladun of attempting to denigrate me by accusing me of denigrating Tar-Jêx. See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...2&postcount=38 for Inziladun’s accusation.

Is it also against the rules here as understood by the moderators to denigrate another poster’s arguments? Is that allowed as long as one clearly does not denigrate the poster personally?

Furthermore, Inziladun does not point out where I have denigrated Tar-Jêx in person or in respect to his arguments, leaving his accusation vague in details. Was it unfair not to give details?

Tar-Jêx posted the statement: “If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point.” See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...1&postcount=31 .

Who does Tar-Jêx mean by you? Is Tar-Jêx here denigrating myself and any other viewers of his post who prefer Bombadil left as a mystery?

I think denigration is too vague a term to be useful by itself, especially if one expands the meaning to include denigration of the poster’s arguments.

I request that Inziladun not further accuse me (or anyone) of denigration without also giving full details of exactly what I or they are being accused of. I also request that Inziladun not make vague accusations that Ior anyone dislikes the topic, as this is also an accusation that might be made against him on occasion. I also don’t see that there is anything at all wrong in itself with someone who dislikes some features of a topic in posting on that topic.

Actually I personally aren’t bothered much by being vaguely denigrated. This is not a very serious complaint to me.

Reasons for my adding Tar-Jêx to my ignore list can be seen from viewing this thread and in the thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18847 by reading the posts by myself and Tar-Jêx. People can make up their own opinions about it by viewing the posts, if they wish.

[Morthoron]

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

[Tar-Jêx]

So, from what Morthoron said earlier, Tom Bombadil was similar to an inside joke.
If this is true, which I'm trusting Morthoron on, then trying to figure out how Bombadil fits in universe is just a fun exercise, because he doesn't fit at all.

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

Though indeed introduced as a character rather independent of the main story, Bombadil was at least important enough that Elrond considered in hindsight the value of having his opinion at the Council.
More noteworthy to me, as Gandalf's time in Middle-earth drew to an end at the fall of Sauron, he made a point of going to see Bombadil before leaving for good, saying they would have a "much to say to one another".

That alone makes Tom worth theorizing about in my mind.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives.

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

I quite agree with you that Bombadil is an enigma, and I believe that for Tolkien, also, Tom was an unsolved enigma, in part, indeed, because Tom originated in alien material, a poem in the Oxford Magazine where Tom was not connected with Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

I do not intend to post on the matter again. Please do the same.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.

Originally Posted by jallanite

I do not intend to post on the matter again.

Thank goodness! Given your seeming need to quantify and define even the most inconsequential points, I was expecting a Powerpoint presentation on the word "denigration". Followed by e-mails and a phone conference. With a pop quiz on Monday.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think Gandalf’s conjectures arise solely from Frodo’s tale or are mistaken?

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

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

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

This is my view on the matter. If you think this is an inconsequential point, you might just drop it from your argument. I think moot points weaken an argument.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

"I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil: such a talk as I have not had in all my time. He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another."

Originally Posted by jallanite

I think moot points weaken an argument.

Unless one is talking about Ents, of course.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

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

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

[Belegorn]

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

I always agreed with this theory the most, he and Golberry seem akin to me in the "spirits form far away" that became the Ents at Yavanna's wish or the rock giants in the Hobbit.
As much as Tolkien later tried to purge the fairy/pixie element from Middle Earth, it snuck back in here and there. Perhaps his own creation rebelled a little bit against him?

The is of course two schools of thought how to tackle this, and other Middle Earth questions. The in-universe and the real world explanation.

From an in-universe perspective it, the way many people wish it to be answered, it is moot wether Tolkien intended Tom to be just an "in-joke" he exist in Middle Earth. And since Tolkien strove so hard to categorize and explain the rest of his universe it is understandable that people wish more explanation to the identity of these characters.

However I quite like the idea that Tom and Golberry just "are" that in such a well explained world like Middle Earth, there can still be mysteries which (as Tolkien himself wrote) are often more interesting than the answer provided by the author.
It opens the door for all sorts of things, like if Tom, Goldberry and the Riverwoman are the only ones of their kind or if there is more of those Genii Loci around or maybe were in the Elder Days.
Would have been interesting if Tolkien had chosen to validate by making Melian a "kinswoman" to them, the spirit of the woods of Beleriand and returning her o her faery character as Gwendeling.

With them, the numerous talking animals and Beorn's shape shifting a of Fairy Tale and "magic" elements are provided which Middle Earth sometimes lacks.

Maybe there were unicorns in Aman, maybe Melian was what we would today call a faery spirit. Middle Earth, for all its sobriety is still fantasy.

Once I had the theory that Goldberry, Old Man Willow,t eh Riverwoman and the Barrow Wights were some of those "lingering' Elf spirits mentioned by Tolkien. The souls of dead Elves that ignored the Call of Mandos and chose to remain in Middle Earth inhabiting and "haunting" natural places of great beauty and which the dark powers often used for Necromancy (hence Sauron's title of the Necromancer)
With Goldberry I no lnger hold this theory, as it begs the question of where her body came from if that was the case (and she definitely had one, just as much Bombadil)
But with Old Man Willow I still hold this theory and with the Barrow Wights I'm almost certain.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

[Nerwen]

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

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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

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

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

[denethorthefirst]

I think it is quite believable that Elrond forgot about Bombadil, they lived in the same region (the north-west of ME) for roughly 6000 years and maybe met once (maybe only shortly) earlier in that time when Bombadil wasn't as reclusive as later. It's also obvious that they have very different Personalities: why should the worldly, active and engaged leader-politician Elrond "remember" some strange eccentric he met sometime maybe 4000 years ago, when he hasn't seen him since and we take in account everything that happened during that time! Another thing: 6000 years may sound old but compared to Gandalf, Saruman, or even Elves like Cirdan, Galadriel and other Exiles Elrond is rather "young"; everything he knows about the creation and cosmology of ea and arda and a large part of the prehistoric history he knows from second hand sources: of course Bombadil is a "strange creature" for him, Elrond is not all-knowing.
Tolkien didn't explain Bombadil because he understood that a believable mythology needs loose ends and inconsistencies (like the real world Greek and Germanic myths that inspired him - they grew over time and don't always fit together, different parts contradict each other, or make.no sense, there are differences and changes in tone, and so on.)
But there is only one logical in-universe explanation for Bombadil: he has to be an unaffiliated Ainu - nothing else makes sense. The real mistery however is Goldberry. Who is the mysterious "River-Woman"? Just an elven Woman that lived by the River sometime during the great journey westward, or maybe an Ainu of Ulmo that dwelled inside the river and mated with one of the passing Elves (like Melian and Thingol) - eventually her partner died and she returned to Valinor leaving her Daughter with Bombadil?

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

The real mystery however is Goldberry. Who is the mysterious "River-Woman"? Just an elven Woman that lived by the River sometime during the great journey westward, or maybe an Ainu of Ulmo that dwelled inside the river and mated with one of the passing Elves (like Melian and Thingol) - eventually her partner died and she returned to Valinor leaving her Daughter with Bombadil?

I think that Goldberry, moreso than Tom, is an entity from outside of the world. She is comparable to a water spirit/nymph from traditional folklore. I don't believe Goldberry was intended to be anything at all. Tom, however, was intended to be something, we just don't know what.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nonsense.

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

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

But you see that what I have been addressing is your other line of reasoning?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

Necessary for what? The word nonsense does not convince me that you are right. It merely, along with your supposed arguments, convinces me that you cannot argue coherently. That you continue to attempt to argue shows that you do not believe that the word nonsense is all that is necessary.

There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece.

Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story.

Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative."

I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.

So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible.

Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

"An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.

Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

You stated earlier:

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

I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing. And you ignore what Nerwen actually posts.

As I see it you originally attempted to show that Elrond and Gandalf’s lack of statements were significant, and failed so far as I see. This is not surprising when you only had an argument from silence. Now you attempt to show that because Tolkien had made Tom into an unsolved enigma with Middle-earth, that Elrond and Gandalf could not have known anything about him. But these two conclusions are completely unrelated.

Tolkien likewise never solved the history of Galadriel within Middle-earth, unless you wish to take Tolkien’s last theories in Unfinished Tales as his final solution. Yet I don’t think that anyone would take Tolkien’s different theories about Galadriel to prove that Tolkien also thought at any time that Elrond or Gandalf did not know her history, whatever it was at the moment. Similarly Tolkien in his late writings was very undecided about the origin of the Orcs. But I see no sign that Tolkien did not believe that, whatever his own beliefs at the moment, that Elrond and Gandalf were ever supposed not to know whether Orcs were longaeval or not. Tolkien himself was undecided, but his characters were not.

I have in more than one post here stated this, though not in such detail. Nerwen also stated it. Ignoring our statements is not a convincing way to argue.

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

I am uncertain if you are being purposefully inscrutable or just plain dense; I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and write off the comment as simply obscurant. You made the indefensible claim that both Gandalf and Elrond knew of Tom Bombadil's origins without question. You then rabbit on about currency and political systems that they must have been aware of, although not specifically stated in the book. I merely pointed out that they indeed do not know everything, and in fact are unaware of some crucial points that impinge far more on the story than Bombadil's origin.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Your analogies are completely off base, and absurd for the most part. Even in the case of Winnie-the-Pooh where the origin of the character was a doll, Bombadil was already quite a fully-fleshed character with the same peculiar idiom, the same geographical locus and the same cast of cohorts in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil:

Old Tom Bombadil was a merry fellow;
bright blue his jacket was and his boots were yellow

Per Tolkien, Bombadil was already "invented", and he simply lifted the persona wholesale and plopped him in LotR. Unlike your compromised comparisons, Bombadil was not based on someone or something else. "He is".

Originally Posted by jallanite

I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

No, Tom as an intentional enigma is not similar to every other character in the book. Every other character in the book has an origin and history. There are complete genealogies of many characters. There is a whole creation mythos wherein Tom does not fit. I can reply "so what" to most of your argument.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

You stated earlier:
I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

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

Originally Posted by jallanite

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing.

Elrond does not know Bombadil's origin, and is unsure if said Bombadil is even the same being as the one he knew of when he traveled in the West. It is not speculative but based on Elrond's own words:

But I had forgotten Bombadil, if indeed this is still the same that walked the woods and hills long ago, and even then he was older than old. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless.

Elrond is unsure if Bombadil is even the same as the being he knew previously. "older than old" denotes a lack of a set starting point and no parameter at all, historically-speaking. The term "fatherless" is indeed indicative of not knowing an origin. Add in the fact Elrond refers to Bombadil as a "strange creature", again indicative of not being able to categorize a being with any specifics, shows beyond speculation that Elrond does not know what the hell a Bombadil is. Unless, of course, you have some sort of abstraction you'd like to type out over several dull paragraphs that expounds on nothing.

This is not an "argument of silence" as you'd like to quote from your pals at Wiki. This is the spoken word of Elrond.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or it means Tom actually had no father.

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

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

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

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

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

[Balfrog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Tom's own words:

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


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

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Tom's own words:

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


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

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

Nonetheless, welcome to the Downs!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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

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

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

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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

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

[Zigûr]

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

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

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

[denethorthefirst]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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

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

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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

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

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

MINE HOLE FALL, HELD LEFT WING

and

WELL DONE, MINE FALL. FLIGHT EH

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

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

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mithalwen]

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13207

A long time ago we did have fun with anagrams. A mixed bag but some gold in there. And for the record my personal title is not a coded confession of a hard drugs habit.

[denethorthefirst]

Originally Posted by mhagain

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

There are actually plenty of logical in-universe explanations for what he could be, and none of them require him being a Vala or Maia.

I never wrote that he's one of those. "Vala" and "Maia" are job descriptions, but both are Ainur (their "race" so to speak). I think hes an unaffiliated Ainu ... Maybe he was a Maia in the beginning, but it's also possible that he was pretty independent from the start.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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

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

[Nerwen]

denethor, it's been been pretty well established that Tom is *meant* to be an enigma, so I don't think it makes much sense to claim that he's "really" any given thing.

Or are you just suggesting this as a way he could *theoretically* fit into Middle-earth? I mean without that being "the answer"?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

denethor, it's been been pretty well established that Tom is *meant* to be an enigma, so I don't think it makes much sense to claim that he's "really" any given thing.

Or are you just suggesting this as a way he could *theoretically* fit into Middle-earth? I mean without that being "the answer"?

It seems to me that Tom could be a Maia, or perhaps better an Ainu, since the name Maia refers to one of the People of the Valar and that doesn’t fit well with Tom.

Nor do we know in what sense Tom was an Enigma. I can imagine Tolkien quite willing to accept Tom as a creature of the Maia type. The Enigma part would come from how Goldberry and River-woman fit it.

But of course Tolkien did not say, seemingly on purpose. Mahgain’s post points out that beings of the Valar and Maia type are not the only spirits in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by jallanite

It seems to me that Tom could be a Maia, or perhaps better an Ainu, since the name Maia refers to one of the People of the Valar and that doesn’t fit well with Tom.

Nor do we know in what sense Tom was an Enigma. I can imagine Tolkien quite willing to accept Tom as a creature of the Maia type. The Enigma part would come from how Goldberry and River-woman fit it.

But of course Tolkien did not say, seemingly on purpose. Mahgain’s post points out that beings of the Valar and Maia type are not the only spirits in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

There is a difference between pointing out ways that Tom *could* fit into the universe, and claiming any one of them as the actual answer. I am not sure which of those things denethor is doing, which is why I asked him.