Who is older - Tom Bombadil or Treebeard?

[Elros]

The idea that he is an Iluvatar is dismissed.
But like I said, he could be a nature spirit, a being that represents a facet in nature.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Truthful enough. Yet I always felt he was more than merely Man or Eldar. There is more to him, and that much is evident.

 

[Elros]

And there is no problem with the idea that he is an Maia

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Indeed. That is true.

 

[Ent]

is an Maia

It's all speculation, and I thought for a time I would hold with Maia as well for my personal opinion just for what that's worth.
We know many Maiar came along with the Valar to assist them.

There is no reason a Maia could not have 'fallen from his/her original task' and gone his/her own way, just as the Istari (who were almost certainly Maiar) all did save Gandalf. Perhaps that Maia could have taken on a 'bodily form', and remained therein. Hence, Bombadil becomes.

It could equally be true that he is one of the 'spirits from afar' called by Yavanna's thought at the awakening of the Firstborn "some of whom" dwelt in the olvar and telvar. (thus, not all of them did, yet they came.)

If that is the situation, this would likely put Bombadil more or less of the 'same age' as Treebeard, who, being an Ent, was one of those such a 'called spirit' chose or was instructed to indwell.

There is a "charm" to considering Bombadil and Treebeard to be 'called spirits' of the same age and arriving at the same time.

But we still have the issue that Bombadil calls himself 'eldest' - a term never used, nor appropriate, to any Maia or spirit. Yet he may have used that term just for the benefit of his audience.

And Elrond of Bombadil saying: "But I had forgotten Bombadil, if indeed this is still the same that walked the woods and hills long ago, and even then was older than the old. That was not then his name. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless."

Then we have Gandalf calling Treebeard "the eldest and chief of the Ents, and when you speak to him you will hear the speech of the oldest of all living things." And of course Celeborn called him "Eldest". Did that mean eldest of all as a term of honor, or just eldest of all those currently present as a term of honor? We do not know.

Additionally, Maiar and Spirits are never called "living things."

Of course, the existence of the trees preceded the Firstborn and the Followers...
BUT Yavanna's thought called the spirits from afar "when the Children awake"... (another hard concept to pinpoint exactly because of other things said... but I will not enumerate as this whole thing is complex enough already.)

And we do have the one member sharing that Christopher has said his father was given to use of such terms without really meaning or trying to indicate real 'specificity' or precise applicaition in their use. (My interpretation of the quotation given.) Thus... what did Tolkien MEAN? Our crystal ball is cracked..!

At this time for me the 'weight of evidence' does not tip the scales in one direction or the other very much, and if/as it does, it is tipped toward the issue that neither can be either a Spirit or a Maia - and their relative ages cannot logically or textually be deduced - thus I must leave the thing unresolved in my mind.

And I find I'm quite happy within myself with that conclusion as it turns out.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

R_l, I'm not accusing anybody of anything ... but I can well imagine that JRRT would, or might, consider such - well, allegory of? - the Bible in such a way, given the strength of his religious beliefs. To clarify, with "consider", I don't mean he would state as much in writing. From what I believe I can gather from Humphrey Carpenter's book "The Inklings", JRRT was not the confrontational type. That would be much more in character for C.S. Lewis, who once described himself (in discussions at Inklings meetings) as a "bow-wow dogmatic".

To put it another way, my views on people who use the term "blasphemy" etc. in earnest ... way outside anything I could post while conforming to TTF rules ...

I hoped you would say specifically that you were not accusing HALETH of blasphemy, but I guess I was hoping for too much. I don't see why such a strongly emotive word should be used in a discussion of works of fiction. There are far more serious things happening in the world (wars, disease, starvation etc.).

And at whom was "All I can say to that is that those making the comparisons cannot have read at least one of the books closely enough, perhaps even both" aimed? If not HALETH, then was it some mysterious "them"? That would make it a pointless unfocused diatribe.

 

[Ent]

@Olorgando , @Rivendell_librarian -
Maybe we should drop this before it becomes any more strained?

I too was a little surprised at the original remark and its followup's intensity by Olorgando, thinking it was a little harsh and didn't necessarily 'give space' to the right of the member who shared the original thought and express the concept for consideration. In short it could have been said differently and with less directed sting.

But the original poster, choosing to engage in such a forum, certainly has the maturity and ability to pursue an offense (if one was taken) in a PM with the 'offender' (if one was given) until they clear the air.

That said, I'm not sure we are at all well served by keeping it at the fore and in public. To you, Librarian, I might suggest there's also an old saying: "Do not take up another person's offense".

IF there was a 'present' given to the original poster, it was given all wrapped up and with its bow tie in place, to that poster. It's not our right to try to take the present from them, open it, deal with its contents, and decide what to do with it, on the owner's behalf.

Perhaps, if there's a personal item you feel needs to be considered and discussed, it could be done between you via PM until you reach a resolution or decide to agree to disagree?

That's my suggestion to bring this (and any other such thing) to a conclusion.

 

[Olorgando]

I hoped you would say specifically that you were not accusing HALETH of blasphemy,

R_l, I'm not accusing anybody of anything ...

Since I clearly stated that I'm not accusing anybody of anything, that includes HALETH - or what is it you do not understand?

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

What the Ent said. Leave it there, or continue via PM, if you feel you must. This isn't the place.

 

[Aldarion]

I think Bombadil is actually manifestation of the spirit of the nature, and so is technically "not alive". Therefore, Treebeard is the "oldest living thing" while still being younger than Bombadil.

Didn't Tolkien write something to that effect, or my rotten memory is playing tricks on me? Honestly, I am worse than Butterbur at times.

 

[Ent]

Didn't Tolkien write something to that effect

I find in Letter # 153 September 1954 - To Peter Hastings (draft) Tolkien wrote this:

"Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time."

And he wrote this in the middle of a discussion about 'who Tom was' based on being challenged that he was trying to make Tom "Eru".
Note the ending "in Time" capitalized. VERY important clue to Tolkien, his capitalization always being very Intentional.

Definition: Primeval - includes "first, original, earliest". So in one sentence we have a dual statement indicating position*.

Now... Treebeard was definitely "in Time" as well.
So if Tom is "Eldest in Time" to Tolkien, well... perhaps that settles the argument?

This is largely why he is an enigma. The only one 'unexplained' in his origin.

It's important to note that this letter was drafted 2 months after LoTR was first published, so certainly Tolkien knew of both the existence of Tom and Treebeard at the time he wrote this, and that he had referred to both as "Eldest".

I have chosen, as of today, to let this settle 'who is Eldest' for me, though I certainly will not insist anyone must adhere to my view..!

It could well be, since he's "Eldest in Time", that he even precedes the tree that became Treebeard once a 'spirit from afar' came to dwell within him. (But I go back to but plausible speculation again with this.)

Now: why Gandalf, who knew of the existence of both Bombadil and Treebeard, referred to Treebeard as "the oldest living thing that still walks" when speaking of him to Legolas, I do not know. Perhaps it is because to Gandalf, Bombadil was also an enigma. There were other things the Maia did not know the origin of, such as Ungoliant.


*Note: If we're going to accept he used 'confusticated' correctly, though the application he used of it is based on a far more obscure deep dive into one of the words actually used to define it rather than on one of its own definition words, then we certainly should accept his use of 'Eldest' as an accurate application and statement in this case.