Tom Bombadil - Who or what?

[BlackCaptain]

I still don't see how we can be debating wether Tom is a Vala. The Valar removed themselves from ME, and the only Vala that would want anything to do with ME would be Ulmo, and he has no spouse.

 

[YayGollum]

Where does it say that there is no possible way for one of those Valar thingys to come back and do whatever it wants? Also, where does it say that Ulmo never gets to find some lady to hang out with?

 

[baragund]

Elwe's description of the faeries, leprauns, etc. etc. that are older than the earth is a plausible explanation of what Tom could be. The only thing about that idea that doesn't quite satisfy is how can these subordinate beings have such seemingly effortless mastery of living things (Old Man Willow), spirits (the Barrow Wights) and a complete disregard of the greatest artifact that had ever been created in Middle Earth (the One Ring)? Tom not only didn't care about the ring, to me he was completely beyond the Ring's sphere of influence. That is the reason why I think Tom is a manifestation of something REALLY powerful, Valar-level at least. Scanning through the earlier posts in this thread, it seems that Tom has characteristics of several Vala (Ulmo, Aule, Yavanna, Tulkas even). Why not reconcile all of that with the idea that Tom is the Big Cheese (Eru) himself?

Goldberry and River-Woman is a different matter. Personally, I prefer my Vala to stay within their gender. So for me, the best fit for River-Woman would be Yavanna with the connection that the waters are life-giving, the place of the origins of life. Goldberry, being a "daughter" of Yavanna under this approach would simply be one of Yavanna's Maia.

Tom is deferential to Goldberry in LOTR not because she is an equal, but she is a beloved subordinate or "child" if you will. If any of you are parents, you will know that you set your schedules, activities, careers even based on the needs of your children.

 

[Iluisa Olórin]

Originally posted by jimzeller

Personally, I prefer my Vala to stay within their gender.

"The Valar arrayed themselves in the form and temper some as of male and some as of female [although, physically, they were neither]."

The claim that Goldberry is the Riverwoman's daughter needn't be taken literally. The term "daughter" doesn't necessarily mean that she had parents; physically, the Valar are neither male nor female.

Originally posted by BlackCaptain

The Valar removed themselves from ME, and the only Vala that would want anything to do with ME would be Ulmo, and he has no spouse.

There is nothing to stop Yavanna from visiting and Aulë from being there for the purpose of studying Hobbits.

Originally posted by ithrynluin

He is not very in sync with nature, and neither are his creations, the Dwarves... He shows absolutely no interest in the Ring, which is a product of supreme craftsmanship. No, Tom is definitely not Aulë.

These are weak arguments on which to discard the plausibility of Aulë being Tom and I will quote from Gene Hargrove's essay to rebut them.

"Aulë was the maker of all the substances of the earth: minerals, gems, and metals... As the Maker he developed and taught all arts, crafts, and skills. Of all the Valar, he had the greatest interest in the Children of Iluvatar... ...Aulë delighted in making, not possessing, and "he did not envy the works of others, but sought and gave counsel."

"Like Aulë, Tom is not possessive. Although his power to dominate and control is always stressed - he is the master - he does not interfere with other beings except when they directly interfere with him. Although he has the power to possess whatever he may desire, he does not chose to possess or own the forest. As Goldberry explains, the animals, plants, and natural objects of the forest are all allowed to belong to themselves. This distain for ownership or possession is the reason why Tom is able to handle the ring without fear.

"We should not forget that of all the Valar Aulë was the one most eager to see the Children of Iluvatar. He is also the only one to make sentient, rational beings of his own. Given his interest in such creatures, it is not unreasonable to assume that, like Gandalf, he found Hobbits fascinating. As Hobbit songs about Tom Bombadil suggest, moreover, he had plenty of contact with Hobbits in Buckland and the Marish, no doubt allowing ample opportunity for Hobbit study.

"As Tolkien explained to his proofreader, Tom's role was to show that there were things beyond and unconcerned with domination and control. On the surface, this view of Tom seems to make him unrelated to all other things and events in Middle-earth - indeed, anomalous. As Aulë, however, Tom is not beyond and unconcerned anomalously, but rather is located at the core of morality as it existed in Middle-earth, as the ultimate exemplification of the proper moral stance toward power, pride, and possession."

 

[YayGollum]

Well, that was convincing. But no. I like Aule too much to think that he could be Tom Bombadil. Sure, Aule may just have some crazy and superly whimsical side that noone really knows about, but I would be afraid of that. oh well. Too many arguements. Yay for Eru! He can be Tom Bombadil and Goldberry if he feels like it, or she could just be some lesser Maiar type that we've never heard about.

 

[Ithrynluin]

These are weak arguments on which to discard the plausibility of Aulë being Tom and I will quote from Gene Hargrove's essay to rebut them.

Like Mr. Hargrove here, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do not think that Tom is a Vala at all, I only reminded many people who were so intent on him being Aulë, that the similarities were not so striking after all.

"Of all the Valar, he had the greatest interest in the Children of Iluvatar... "

He had a relatively great interest in the Children, in the sense that he wanted to teach them. So did Oromë who was eager for them to awake and looked for them and guided them and taught them a language. In fact, Tom resembles Oromë much more than Aulë. Oromë delights in running through the wild lands, hunting and taming fell beasts. Tom is also constantly on the move in his lands, not hunting, but definitely taming the likes of Old Man Willow and the Barrow wight. Like Oromë, he also has a horse, though we never see him ride it.
Aulë is always busy in his "workshop" - we don't see Tom busying himself with crafting, rather running to and fro in his little land, being master of all though not possessing anything.

...Aulë delighted in making, not possessing, and "he did not envy the works of others, but sought and gave counsel.

So tell me which Vala DID delight in possessing then? Which Vala DID envy the works of others? None of them. This statement holds absolutely no water in proving that Aulë could be Tom. It is true of all the Valar.

"Like Aulë, Tom is not possessive. Although his power to dominate and control is always stressed - he is the master - he does not interfere with other beings except when they directly interfere with him. Although he has the power to possess whatever he may desire, he does not chose to possess or own the forest. As Goldberry explains, the animals, plants, and natural objects of the forest are all allowed to belong to themselves. This distain for ownership or possession is the reason why Tom is able to handle the ring without fear.

Or rather "Like any Vala, Tom is not possessive." This looks to me like it was written to suit one man's flight of fancy. There is nothing in this passage that would provide any real textual evidence. Rather a bunch of general statements and Tom's characteristics applied to Aulë to make them look more alike.

"We should not forget that of all the Valar Aulë was the one most eager to see the Children of Iluvatar. He is also the only one to make sentient, rational beings of his own. Given his interest in such creatures, it is not unreasonable to assume that, like Gandalf, he found Hobbits fascinating. As Hobbit songs about Tom Bombadil suggest, moreover, he had plenty of contact with Hobbits in Buckland and the Marish, no doubt allowing ample opportunity for Hobbit study.

I would not say see, rather teach. Like I said, Oromë was the one eager to see them. The connection of Aulë (Tom) with the Hobbits is a little out there. Why would Aulë be that interested in Hobbits? Don't make the mistake of assuming that Aulë is interested in all the creatures of the world. He made the dwarves, who were like him, and delighted in the same things like himself - crafting, shaping, mining. Of the Elves, he befriended the Noldor, the Elves who were gifted in the very field of knowledge that was Aulë's specialty. We don't hear of any friendship of his with the Vanyar or the Teleri. Why would the Great Smith be interested in simple farmers such as hobbits?

There are so many similarities between many of the Valar and Tom. But he doesn't seem to fit any of them fully. He most resembles Oromë and he is very little like Aulë IMHO. I stand by what I said.

 

[Lantarion]

Excellent counter-arguments!
Just one minor note, of which I am sure you are aware yourself:

Originally posted by ithrynluin
So tell me which Vala DID delight in possessing then? Which Vala DID envy the works of others?

Melkor.
But as he is not actually even thought of as one of the Valar after he goes mad I suppose you are right.

 

[jallan]

Gene Hargrove’s essay hasn’t convinced many.

Consider the statement:

On the surface, this view of Tom seems to make him unrelated to all other things and events in Middle-earth - indeed, anomalous. As Aulë, however, Tom is not beyond and unconcerned anomalously, but rather is located at the core of morality as it existed in Middle-earth, as the ultimate exemplification of the proper moral stance toward power, pride, and possession.

The second sentence is almost unintelligible and contradicts Tolkien’s indications that Bombadil’s morality of pacifism and minimal interference may be a proper moral stance, but it is not the only proper moral stance.

Fluellenism alone fails.

Why is it so impossible to listen to Tolkien’s own explanation? Tom Bombadil is an engima.

Jimzeller posted:

That is the reason why I think Tom is a manifestation of something REALLY powerful, Valar-level at least. Scanning through the earlier posts in this thread, it seems that Tom has characteristics of several Vala (Ulmo, Aule, Yavanna, Tulkas even). Why not reconcile all of that with the idea that Tom is the Big Cheese (Eru) himself?

From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter 144:

Tom Bombadil is not an important person&#160–&#8211 to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a ‘comment’. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken ‘a vow of poverty’, renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.

This largely explains Tom&#8217s being immune to the Ring, as it is also explained by Gandalf in the chapter “The Council of Elrond”. Remember too, Dwarves were also mostly unaffected by the Great Rings, not dominated by them and not subject to fading or invisibility. There is nothing in Tolkien to indicate great power alone enabled one to escape from the lure and domination of a Ring. Gandalf an incarnate Maia was probably more subject to the power of the Ring than Frodo, a Hobbit who had never sought power.

Tom Bombail is largely free from its influence because the Ring has nothing to grasp in him, not because of Tom’s power.

A certain Peter Hastings wrote to Tolkien suggesting that Tom Bombadil was God. Tolkien replied in letter 153:

   As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. (Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator). You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday’s Epistle&#160&#8211 inappositely since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if ‘in time’ Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names. See and ponder Tom’s words in Vol. I p. 142.²

   You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name&#160&#8211 can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not ‘what is Tom Bombadil’ but ‘Who is he’. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of ‘I am that am’&#160&#8211 which is quite different from he is.* She adds as a concession a statement of pan of the ‘what’. He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.

   I don’t think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already ‘invented’ him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine)³ and wanted an ‘adventure’ on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but ‘allegory’ is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an ‘allegory’, or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are ‘other’ and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with ‘doing’ anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture . Even the Elves hardly show this: they are primarily artists. Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental&#160– and therefore much will from that ‘point of view’ be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion&#160– but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe.

   * Only the first person (of worlds or anything) can be unique. If you say he is there must be more than one, and created (sub) existence is implied. I can say ‘he is’ of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?

2. ‘“Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?”’ 3. i.e. the poem ‘The Adventures of Tom Bombadil’ was first published in that magazine in 1934.

So Bombadil is certainly not Eru. This discussion indicates quite well what Bombadil did mean to Tolkien, and it was not craftsmanship and the stone of the earth and making things.

Ihutton posted:

"The Valar arrayed themselves in the form and temper some as of male and some as of female [although, physically, they were neither]."

From the “Ainulindalë”:

But when they desire to clothe themselves the Valar take upon them forms some as of male and some as of female; for that difference of temper they had even from their beginning, and it is but boded forth in the choice of each, not made by the choide, even as with us male and female may be shown by the raiment but is not made thereby.

Tolkien’s Valar had gender even when pure spirit. At the time he wrote The Lord of the Rings they were still thought able to have offspring, some of these offspring born before the descent into Eä, including Oromë who was the son of Yavanna, but not by Aulë.

The claim that Goldberry is the Riverwoman’s daughter needn’t be taken literally.

She is a real person in the poem “The Adventures of Tom Bombadil”.

Of course one might claim that this is only a piece of Hobbit-lore and perhaps not intended to be accurate.

But in the light of Tolkien’s statements about Bombadil, why suspect that Tolkien was secretly identifying Tom and Goldberry with other persons?

Let them be what Tolkien protrays them as, and excatly that. Anything further is idiosyncratic fan fiction.

Seemingly Tolkien was not concerned with giving them a particular origin, hence they have none that can be ascertained.

There is nothing to stop Yavanna from visiting and Aulë from being there for the purpose of studying Hobbits.

There is nothing to stop Bombail and Goldberry being aliens for another planet if you are going to invent a story and ignore Tolkien’s own words whenever they conflict with the invention.

 

[BlackCaptain]

I think, now that I have understood more about Tom not wanting the Ring, and not being affected by it at all, he is just Tom. He isn't a Maia, because even Gandalf, a great maia, was even tempted by the Ring, and Tom couldnt care less about it, Tom is something else in my eyes. I don't see how he could be a Vala, Eru, or Maia any longer. And if he was indeed Eä, he would have more power outside his own forrest, which he doesnt.

I think Goldberry put it best:

'He is.'

Is classification really nescesary? We might want to think it is, but I don't. Tom is simply Tom. He is.

 

[BlackCaptain]

And Jallan, I agree with you completely.

 

[Iluisa Olórin]

Originally posted by jallan

Tolkien’s Valar had gender even when pure spirit. At the time he wrote The Lord of the Rings they were still thought able to have offspring, some of these offspring born before the descent into Eä, including Oromë who was the son of Yavanna, but not by Aulë.

As I wrote, that they had physical gender isn't inferred by the passage you cited.

But in the light of Tolkien’s statements about Bombadil, why suspect that Tolkien was secretly identifying Tom and Goldberry with other persons?

Which other persons? I think you misconstrued what I wrote.

There is nothing to stop Bombail and Goldberry being aliens for another planet if you are going to invent a story and ignore Tolkien’s own words whenever they conflict with the invention.

What story did you think I invented? You started off well, but went off on your own tangent.

 

[YayGollum]

Yikes! So it looks like we're all agreeing that Tom Bombadil was just something totally different that was never talked about?

 

[BlackCaptain]

Right.

Tolkien never classified him, and he did that on purpose. Mabey he did that so we could all have debates like this. Mabey he did it because he just wanted Tom to be Tom. He is. Thats all Tolkien may have wanted him to be. I like this idea...

 

[jallan]

Ihutton posted:

As I wrote, that they had physical gender isn't inferred by the passage you cited.

The passage states that Valar have gender even as spirits and the bodies in which they clothe themselves match that gender.

When clothed in fanyar they certainly have physical gender.

C.S. Lewis talks about this kind of thing in Perlandra, attributing gender but not sexuality to the spirits of Oyarsa of Malacandra and the Oyarsa of Perelandra, which may suggest borrowing from Lewis to Tolkien or from Tolkien to Lewis or a both from another Inkling ...

Which other persons? I think you misconstrued what I wrote?

Aulë and Yavanna are the other persons. Were you not supporting the plausibility of identifying them with Tom Bombadil and Goldberry?

What story did you think I invented? You started off well, but went off on your own tangent.

I was referring to Gene Hargrove’s identification of Bombadil with Aulë; and Goldberry with Yavanna which seems to me groundless, therefore an invention. Phrases like Gene Hargrove’s “It is not unreasonable to assume ....” in any writing set off warning indications that unfounded speculation will follow.

There is nothing wrong with unfounded speculation in fictional development of another work or history, etc., or in scholarship when presented fairly as an unsupported but perhaps interesting hypothesis, but only one of many others that might be invented, none of which should be assumed outside of its hypothesis.

I might hypothesize that Tom was the first incarnate fëa in Middle-earth, created by Eru, father of children upon whom sleep was cast and who awakened much later as Elves and Men.

But what of Golberry? In the poem “The Adventures of Tom Bombadil” her marriage to Tom is dated after Tom has an encounter with a Barrow-wight, and the Barrow-wights did not come into existance until sometime after 1409.

Well, it is not “unreasonable” to assume that there might have been at least one earlier Barrow-wight.

It would also be not unreasonable to assume that this poem, made up of Hobbit tradition is not chronologically accurate.

It would also be not unreasonable to assume that Tom Bombadil earlier had another wife.

But all these assumptions are unreasonable for any indication of any plausibility of my hypothesis.

It might make interesting fan fiction, as would identifying Bombadil and Aulë.

 

[baragund]

Jallan, I'm not about to argue with JRRT! From what you laid out above, it sounds like I was closer to the mark at the beginning... just enjoy Tom at face value and don't try to read too much into him.

 

[EL GALLO]

He could be an Ainu who isn't listed as a Maia or a Vala.

 

[Lantarion]

he could; but if he says he was the First (which probably means
'the first in Arda') he would have had to descend into Arda before Melkor.. And such an important issue as the first incarnation of Eru (i.e. living) is not something I think Tolkien would have overlooked!
But, like jimzeller said, the Prof. put it best; and it's his book, so I don't think it would be very scholarly to argue against his word. I think you should look for closure in the letter last posted by Jallan.

 

[BlackCaptain]

Listed? Not the right term, but I see what your getting at.

Thats what I originaly thought, but even the greatest Maia have some sort of temptation for the Ring, and Tom showed none. Also, Tolkien made it clear that he didn't want to classify Tom, so Tom has no classification, unless one would give him one. Even then one could proove nothing for sure, and would just have a strong belief; nothing more. I for one just think that Tom is Tom. Not Man, Elf, Hobbit, Ainu, Ea, Eru; just Tom.

'He is'
~Goldberry

If one would like to believe otherwise, wich I once did, they couldn't prove it. But I think since Tolkien made it clear that he didn't want to classify Tom, it would be in ones best interest to leave him unclassified...

 

[jallan]

Blackcaptain posted:

Thats what I originaly thought, but even the greatest Maia have some sort of temptation for the Ring, and Tom showed none.

Nothing indicates that all the greatest Maiar would have been tempted by the Ring.

We only know that Gandalf and Saruman were tempted, and Gandalf explains why. Gandalf also explains why Tom is free from temptation, because he is psychologically immune to the particular kind of temptation that the Ring exerts. Gandalf suspects that Tom Bombadil does not approve of Gandalf’s busybody activities and interference in the world.

Naked power is not the issue.

There may be many others also immune to it. Would Estë, the Vala of “rest”, for example, be tempted by the Ring? We just don’t know.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

9 Year old thread resurrected from the archives because this is one of my favorite topics and is a wealth of information on the subject. Just wanted to get some more current members' thoughts on Tom Bombadil, though your views may already be expressed in past pages of the TTF ancients. :*D

Also, the good Lantarion above posted some other threads with more information:

Welcome to the forums, Elwë!

The question you posted is probably the most commonly debated subject among Tolkienists, followed by whether Balrogs had wings.. If you have the time and patience, please read through these (rather extensive) threads.

What IS Tom Bombadil?
Thoughts on Bombadil
Tom Bombadil: A character for generations past
Who is Tom Bombadil really after all the debate?

Have fun.

And I like this one too: [Debate] Was Goldberry a Maia?