Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: What is Tom Bombadil? From: <<>> (Steuard Jensen) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:40:38 GMT Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" <<>> in article : > "Steuard Jensen" <<>> wrote: > > WHAT IS TOM BOMBADIL? > Hey! No fair! I was gonna put you on the spot by finishing my > essay and now you've gone and turned the tables. I was chuckling to myself as I posted, actually... I pushed through the last of my essay hoping that I'd beat you to the punch. :) You're it! > > In this essay, I will try as best I can to explain why some ideas > > can be firmly rejected, and why a few remain appealing. > Heh. I've often wondered if we shouldn't have a FAQ on 'Who WASN'T > Tom Bombadil' - since, as you note, it is easier to find evidence > excluding various suggestions than showing who/what he was. In fact, that's really what I set out to write: I wrote the whole "Flawed Theories" section before Christmas, and a good bit of the Maia section not too long after that... those were the easy bits (though I did keep updating them as I refined the essay). > > Also published during Tolkien's lifetime (and thus to be > > considered a canonical source) is _The Adventures of Tom > > Bombadil_, but the poems it contains are not necessarily reliable > > sources of information: they are explained as inventions of the > > hobbits of Buckland based on minimal knowledge of Bombadil > > himself. > This is an interesting point. I tend to dismiss the 'said to be > written by' arguments in general... after all LotR was said to be > written by hobbits of Hobbiton. Are we to assume that Hobbiton > hobbits are more veracious than Buckland hobbits? :) No, but I feel that we can assume that hobbits writing memoirs and histories about events that they witnessed are more likely to be correct than hobbits writing poetry about the zany adventures of mysterious beings that they know of mostly from rumor and hearsay. I interpret the note in the introduction largely as a disclaimer by Tolkien that what follows may not be entirely trustworthy. And, as you point out, there really isn't that much in the poem that tells us much about Tom's nature anyway. > > Bombadil also appears in the "History of _The Lord of the Rings_" > > volumes of the History of Middle-earth series, but for the most > > part evidence from those books will not be presented here. > Which is good and bad because that info is somewhat convoluted. > However, that info also gives possible insights into what Tom > could have been at different points in time. I gave a lot of thought to that, as you might guess. (I actually bought a copy of _The Return of the Shadow_ not long after Christmas, mostly because I hadn't read it in ages but also because I wanted to look for juicy Bombadil tidbits.) There are a _lot_ of interesting comments on him in the text, as you point out. One of the most interesting to me were the places where he said "I am Ab-Origine" as part of his answer to Frodo's "Who are you?" (For those who are Latin-challenged like myself, my dictionary translates "ab origine" as "from the beginning"). The capitals in particular make this seem like a statement that he is THE unique original inhabitant of Middle-earth or at least his part of it. However, also as you point out, the textual situation is immensely complicated. At one point, Gandalf claims that he and Bombadil are of the same (unspecified) type (though he says that Bombadil "belongs to a much older generation", whatever that means). As Gandalf wasn't a Maia yet, Bombadil presumably wasn't one either. However, Gandalf later changed to being a Maia, and there is no indication that I know of proving whether Tom stayed the same, changed with him, or changed into something entirely different... and of course this doesn't help much anyway, as we don't know _what_ they were meant to be to begin with. At any rate, I decided that including this discussion would just add length and confusion without adding any new information. > > Bombadil was introduced into the story before its relationship to > > the greater mythology was established, and thus his place in the > > Silmarillion cosmology may have changed a great deal between the > > first and final drafts. > I'm going to disagree. Even before starting work on LotR Tolkien > recognized that the greater mythology had 'crept in' to TH even to > the extent of including Sauron. Hmm. You're probably right to some extent... but I don't think I'd go beyond "was fully established". There was certainly a long way to go before the concepts in the two were fit together well, and as I pointed out before, it is entirely possible that Bombadil's nature could have changed substantially in the interim: Gandalf's certainly did. > > "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)." > > For those who accept the first of these interpretations, this > > amounts to a statement that Bombadil is eternally an enigma: > > Tolkien intentionally left us without enough information to > > figure out his true nature. > > I'm not understanding the interpretation where the above is NOT > the case. How else to read the last two sentences of the quotation > above than to mean that Tolkien deliberately made Tom an enigma > to >us > On the other hand, those who accept the second interpretation > > take this quote as "proof" that Tolkien did write Bombadil with a > > specific explanation for him in mind. Furthermore, this > > interpretation implies that Tolkien would have tried to make at > > least the _existence_ of that explanation apparent, which would > > almost certainly require him to leave a good many hints at the > > answer. Ok, I've thought about it, and I think that what I'm saying in this "interpretation" is very similar to what you were saying earlier. I'm starting to think that rephrasing here would be good, and even some substantial trimming, but maybe not completely rewriting. :) > > Unless Glorfindel is simply flat out wrong, this makes it clear > > that Bombadil is weaker than Sauron in a direct conflict of > > "power," whatever may be meant by the term. > Hmmm, I'd argue that there is an implied pre-requisite here... that > Sauron should have conquered everything else and be sending all his > force against Bombadil. As such the implied conflict is not > between Bombadil and Sauron personally, but between Bombadil and > all of Sauron's forces. Good point. While I think that Aule (for example) could make mincemeat out of even a huge army of Orcs, I'll admit that he might not want to rend Middle-earth apart in the process. I'm not quite sure how to modify this to take account of the possibility, though, or whether this really is the serious objection that it seems to be. > > Galdor admits to knowing "little of Iarwain save the name", so it > > must not take any great learning to make at least a general > > statement about his power and perhaps its source. > The lack of objection strengthens this point, but it could be argued > that the Wise were content to let what they knew of Bombadil's true > nature remain hidden. This is part of what I had in mind when I added the section defending my use of the statements at the Council at face value, though I didn't say so directly. (Maybe I should.) I mean, sure, maybe they were covering up the fact that Bombadil was the Witch-king, but assuming so doesn't get us much closer to the answer to the puzzle. :) > However, there are other arguments against 'Tom the disguised Vala' > which you do not mention; > 1: Tom is stated to have been in the same general region all along > while we know where the various Valar were during different parts > of that same period. Unless they can be in two places at once > Tom is therefor not any of the known Valar. Is he said to be? As I point out elsewhere, he seems to have wandered at least a fair bit more in the past than he now does. He could have had a "summer home" in Middle-earth, for example. :) > 2: The Valar were the 'governors' and 'caretakers' of Arda. They > were directly concerned with the lives of the Eruhini and the > resistance against the Shadow. Tom was explicitly NOT... and > indeed was stated to not even UNDERSTAND the importance of such > things. That might be a decent argument to add, now that you point it out. A Vala would at least "understand the need" to keep the Ring hidden, though he still might refuse it. > As such, I would say that Tom was clearly not any of the known > Valar. He could be supposed to be a 'Vala level' Ainu who had an > entirely separate agenda, but there is no basis for such an entity > in the mythology. Why not call him a Maia, then? Some of them were "well nigh as great" as the Valar (if not the Aratar). At this point, we're mostly talking semantics, I think. > > Finally, it seems quite safe to claim that Bombadil could not > > belong to any of the "major races": Elves, Dwarves, and humans > > (including hobbits). > Agreed. No chance. Might mention the 'Thingol and Melian' thing > as a particularly common suggestion in this vein which does not > hold up (Tom predates Thingol). I originally mentioned Thingol explicitly, and then realized that I hadn't seen the suggestion in years, and that it really didn't have any particular merits beyond any other Bombadil-as-Incarnate theory, in addition to having further difficulties (e.g. HE'S DEAD). > > First, that Bombadil is a Maia, presumably one not named > > specifically elsewhere in the texts. > Might argue 'Ainu' rather than Maia in the above... I've addressed this earlier, but I figured I'd make a reference here just to get the reply in the right place. :) > > Next, that Bombadil is some sort of nature spirit, of a type > > never explicitly described in Tolkien's writings. > I lean this way myself, though there is some info on nature spirits > in some of the early texts which might be considered similar to > Bombadil. Yeeeeeesss... but if we're thinking of the same spirits, those are _really_ early texts. The hordes of sprites and pixies and other natural spirits (or whatever they were... I'm not looking at the Lost Tales just now, which is I think the source of this) vanished completely from view in later versions of the mythology (at least as an explicitly mentioned presence), and I'm very hesitant to draw arguments from what is in many ways an entirely different world (to paraphrase someone now gone from the groups). > Well, I'd argue that the 'nature spirit' origin DOES also have > direct support from Tolkien himself. Indeed, it has support > from JRRT in relation to Bombadil personally - which the Maia > view does not. But he never really says that there is a separate class of being called nature spirits: those references could easily (in my mind, at least) refer to Maiar "gone wild" even more than Melian did. [Referring to Gandalf's comparison of himself to Bombadil:] > As such I might argue that this 'appearance of kinship' is left over > from when there WAS a kinship, and that as the explicit references > to such were all removed it might be taken as a possible 'rejected > idea'. But, unfortunately, we're stuck with texts that include this implied kinship, whether in error or not. It's got to be recognized, and it _does_ support the Maia theory at least to a fair extent. > > What could "Eldest" or "First" mean for one of the Ainur? As I > > understand it, there is no normal concept of time outside of Ea, > > so this is unlikely to mean that Bombadil was the first created > > of the Ainur. > An interesting note is that in earlier stories there were a number > of references to different Ainu being 'older' than others... Hmm. I'm not sure whether to change this bit (or drop it) or not. My current feeling is that the "Timeless Halls" were just that... but this really isn't an important enough issue to risk raising objections, I think. > Glorfindel and Tom both seem to count Tom as the 'first' and 'last' > in relation to the Eruhini... NOT the Ainur. Which suggests yet > another origin for Tom that is rarely seen; that he might be a > unique >living being< created by Eru just as Elves and Men were. Tom also places himself as older than the trees (or at least, older than the second generation of oaks :) ), just for the record. But that's an interesting point nevertheless, and one that might deserve to be explored further. > > On some level, nothing in Ea except for the Children of Iluvatar > > can be "wholly independent" of the minds of the Ainur, for all of > > the Ainur had a hand in the Music. Some of them may have focused > > mostly on their own parts in the Music, but none could have been > > entirely ignorant of the other parts around them. > Hmmm... seems a stretch to me. Consider Melkor; > "Sauron was not a beginner of discord; and he probably knew more of > the 'Music' than did Melkor, whose mind had always been filled with > his own plans and devices, and gave little attention to other > things. ... It is indeed probable that he was simply unaware of the > minor or more delicate productions of Yavanna: such as small > flowers. You make a good point here, and I should probably take it into account. On the other hand, the Ainur seem to have behaved in Ea very, very similarly to how they behaved in the Music. As such, I'd be amazed if Tom had been part of the Music, ignored all the interesting details around him, and then entered Ea and spent his entire existence studying the other things in the world. > Actually, Yavanna and Manwe at least initially even overlooked bits > that THEY THEMSELVES had done... the Ents and Eagles. This is a good point, and come to think of it, if Bombadil did pay close attention to other parts of the Music he might well have paid close attention to them in Ea as well. On the other hand, I still don't know that they would count as "wholly independent of the enquiring mind". Hmm. The "difficulties" section of the Maia part of the essay isn't all that vital anyway, and including weak objections may be worse than leaving them unstated. I'll think about this one, too. > Goldberry is, if anything, even more difficult to place than Tom. I disagree, actually: to me, she seems like the most obvious nature spirit in the book (which is why I start with her in that section). In some ways, I find that she drives the entire nature spirit side of the argument. > > "Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford > > and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a > > story?" > > While this refers to Tom as he was represented outside of M-E (we > must remember that his story was first published before LotR) I'm pretty sure that I point this out in the essay, too. Still, I agree: this quote is one of the most significant inspirations for the nature spirit theory, despite its age and potential irrelevance. > Tom remained Tom in most apparent particulars, and thus it seems > likely that he remained a 'spirit of the countryside' But Gandalf remained Gandalf, too, in just about every way that I can name. Yes, his character got deeper in the later drafts and development, but fundamentally I don't think he changed much. Thus, making "he didn't change" arguments about Tom doesn't seem terribly convincing to me, and I haven't included them. > > Actual canonical support for this claim can be found in Galdor's > > statement at the Council of Elrond > Yup, though this too dates to an early point in the development > of LotR. But it _did_ remain into the final draft, unlike Gandalf's claim of kinship (for example). That's my usual criterion, anyway. > ...and as this isn't MY essay I don't have to do the impartiality > thing. :) When trying to argue for a position, I generally avoid as much bias as I possibly can, if only so that listeners and readers will recognize that I'm doing my best to be objective. But boy, it's nice to be able to say, "this is what I honestly feel is right!" at times. I honestly feel that Bombadil is a nature spirit associated with all of Arda (in some sense), with connections to the Flame Imperishable and consciousness and everything: it all just makes so much sense. :) [Referring to some of Tolkien's letters:] > I also think such 'embodiment of symbols' fits well with natural > spirits. Oooh... I don't know quite how I failed to include those references; they must not have flowed naturally in the direction I was writing at the time, and thus got left out. I'll look for a place for them. :) > One minor objection to this is that Goldberry is called the > River-WOMAN'S daughter in both ATB and LotR. Further, in ATB > there is a reference to the River-Woman independant of Goldberry; And she's also called the "River-daughter" directly at some points. Call me crazy, call me inconsistent, or just call me stubborn, but my own feeling is that "River-woman" is a poetic "anthromorphization" of the Withywindle itself, a figurative term that exists _because_ of Goldberry. I can't offer any substantial support for that position beyond what I already have, but it just _feels_ right to me... and there are the direct "River-daughter" and "Goldberry represents the seasonal changes in such lands" quotes to consider. Also, my conjecture about nature spirits doesn't seem to include any room for children, though I guess it could be extended to do so. That could easily be a weakness in the theory rather than a weakness in this evidence, though. > > "He stood as he had at times stood enchanted by fair elven- > > voices; but the spell that was now laid upon him was different: > > less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to > > mortal heart; marvelous and yet not strange." > In addition to the issues you note this passage seems a strong > argument against Goldberry being one of the Ainur... they would > almost certainly seem MORE 'lofty' than Elves. Very good point. :) > > (Giants did appear in early drafts of LotR, but the references to > > them were either removed or evolved into the Ents.) > Other than the one reference from early in FotR to a giant the > size of a tree. Though given that it was a bar tale perhaps not > the most reliable report. :) And Sam says "these Tree-men, these giants". I included this at least in part in the "evolved into the Ents" statement (I'm a sucker for optimism about Entwives). :) > BTW, you might try to include Ungoliant and even the Eagles amongst > the 'Other Nature Spirits' as both were quite 'primordial' in > earlier conceptions of the stories... Ungoliant is a great example; I don't know how I didn't think of her myself. As for the Eagles, if I include them I'll have to include the Ents, too, and I'm not ready to do so just yet. :) > Given his recollection of the first raindrop and the first acorn > I'd agree that Tom cannot be associated with any >particular< > natural feature... he was part of Arda when it was barren, but > given the option he seemed to prefer green and growing places. > Still, his domain might have been 'untamed spaces' rather than > all of Middle-earth. I justified that as his "activating feature", which I think is a decent resolution of the issue. Theories abound, I guess. :) Thanks for the excellent commentary! Steuard Jensen