Who is the oldest? Bombadil or Treebeard

[Elu Thingol]

I might be able to add something important though. Back a couple of pages in the debate it discusses wether Tom is living or not. I believe he is not living and this is why. The ring has power over all living things but it has no power over Tom in fact Tom has power over it, this would lead one to believe that Tom is not really living.

 

[Úlairi]

The fact that Tom may have not been living is a loophole for Tolkien to escape contradiction, although, we will never know it and will never be able to prove it.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

Originally posted by Ulairi
pohuist! So nice to see you! Where ya been ol' buddy o' mine!!!



Grond agreed with it, I cannot see why you can't! However, that is not the answer you are looking for. The Encyclopaedia of Arda is a 'post-humous' book in which not entirely everything is given a proper look into, such as the issue on Bombadil. However, I derived my 'argument' or 'theory' or whatever you wish to call it from J.R.R. Tolkien's publications. Therefore, my argument is far more iron-clad then yours.

I think the only thing iron-clad here is your ego and I'm-right-ness...

 

[pohuist]

Originally posted by Ulairi
pohuist! So nice to see you! Where ya been ol' buddy o' mine!!!

Grond agreed with it, I cannot see why you can't! However, that is not the answer you are looking for. The Encyclopaedia of Arda is a 'post-humous' book in which not entirely everything is given a proper look into, such as the issue on Bombadil. However, I derived my 'argument' or 'theory' or whatever you wish to call it from J.R.R. Tolkien's publications. Therefore, my argument is far more iron-clad then yours.

I've been very busy at work ond on vacation. It good to be back, though. There is no place like home.

I do not dispute Grond's (and yours) knowledge of Tolkien, but everybody has a right to their own opinion, and mine shouldn't necessarily concur with that of Grond. Getting to the point, you should be more attentive: I was referring to Encyclopaedia of Arda only to the extent that it provides a link to the essay. If that wasn't clear, I am sorry -- that essay is not a part of E.of A., it is a separate piece of work. The essay is post-humous and so is the EofA. However, The Encyclopaedia seems accurate enough and it itself does present points in both support and rebuke of your theory. I beleive that by 'Tolkien's publications' you mean his letter (correct me if I am wrong) in which he says that Bombadil is an 'intentional enigma'. This definition opens a door to many theories and arguments of what's Tom's origins are. While I recall another letter in which he said something to the effect that Tom represents the [dieing]spirit of the English Berkshire (not a quote, of course), I think this letter is earlier and writer's view of his material changes over time. But even if not, these two statements are not contradictory as mentioning of what someone represents is not necessarily a statements about his/her origins. I still think that you presented an argument (albeit, a good one) but NOT 'clearly shown'.

 

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by pohuist
I do not dispute Grond's (and yours) knowledge of Tolkien, but everybody has a right to their own opinion, and mine shouldn't necessarily concur with that of Grond.

I agree, I just wasn't expecting it, that's all pohuist.

Originally posted by pohuist
Getting to the point, you should be more attentive:

Uh-uh pohuist, I was attentive enough, you weren't clear on what you were saying.

Originally posted by pohuist
I was referring to Encyclopaedia of Arda only to the extent that it provides a link to the essay.

Exactly, which is why I said my argument was more...

Originally posted by Ulairi
"...iron-clad..."

...then yours. (Someone just shot himself in the foot )

Originally posted by pohuist
...it is a separate piece of work.

I know.

Originally posted by pohuist
However, The Encyclopaedia seems accurate enough and it itself does present points in both support and rebuke of your theory.

I know, however, it is post-humous, whereas Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was not. Therefore, as I have said, the Encyclopaedia of Arda should not be believed as much as the thoughts of Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings.

Originally posted by pohuist
I beleive that by 'Tolkien's publications' you mean his letter (correct me if I am wrong) in which he says that Bombadil is an 'intentional enigma'. This definition opens a door to many theories and arguments of what's Tom's origins are.

And that's how the argument ended, at a stalemate. We will never know where Bombadil is from and if he was a 'living creature' or not. Therefore, Tolkien escaped contradiction via loopholes.

Originally posted by pohuist
...but NOT 'clearly shown'.

It is probable that what I have said is the 'clearest' solution that you will find, and you will find that a lot of people would agree with me. The Encyclopaedia of Arda does not give an insightful enough look into the enigmatic Tom Bombadil as The Lord of the Rings does, where I derived my theory from.

Originally posted by Wonko the Sane
"The only thing "iron-clad" is your ego."

Well, at least I have a reason to be egocentric.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

That's a mouthful...
And a helluva a lot of quotes.

But a good point.

 

[pohuist]

Originally posted by Ulairi

And that's how the argument ended, at a stalemate. We will never know where Bombadil is from and if he was a 'living creature' or not. Therefore, Tolkien escaped contradiction via loopholes.

I never argued with that and I was clear enough on what I argue with
All I was saying that you did not 'clearly show...' and that, in fact, it is impossible to say anything definitive about the origins of Tom. I am glad, you concede it, though

 

[Úlairi]

I conceded a stalemate, not defeat pohuist. Thanks for the compliment Wonko the Sane.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

Hey, when you take the time and energy to contstruct a well-developed argument you deserve the props.

 

[Brent]

Re: Who is the oldest?

Originally posted by Ulairi
There is a contradiction as to who is the oldest creature on ME is. Here are a couple of quotes from 'The Lord of the Rings':


On the next page it says:

These are the words of Elrond and Glorfindel. Later in the novel(s) Gandalf the White after being found for the first time by Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli:

Has Tolkien contradicted himself in his writings? ]

It doesn't matter. Your reading the works as if they're the washington post quoting what happened today. Tolkien was a student of anglo-saxon and the people of that time oft contradicted themselves. Old people were held in high respect for their memory of the things that were but often this was not always clear. what for you appears a contradiction may not be for others. i.e. you can say something was old and then you can say something was very old but you have no real concept of which is greater.

 

[pohuist]

Originally posted by Ulairi

I conceded a stalemate, not defeat pohuist.

You REALLY should be more attentitve. My argument wasn't about who's the oldest and if Tom's living (in which you conceded stalemate). My argument was that you did not "clearly show that Tom could not be a Maia, a Vala or Illuvatar" as you claimed.

We will never know where Bombadil is from.

Exactly. And you said it yourself, thus, conceding defeat. So, who shot huimself in the foot?

 

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by pohuist
You REALLY should be more attentitve. My argument wasn't about who's the oldest and if Tom's living (in which you conceded stalemate). My argument was that you did not "clearly show that Tom could not be a Maia, a Vala or Illuvatar" as you claimed.

My apologies pohuist, I wasn't being attentive. It was late at night and well...you know the drill I'm sure. However, I believe that that argument of which I so carefully came up with cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it is the most viable solution to the problem, yes, I admit there are holes in it, but it is the best explanation I believe that anyone could come up with.

Originally posted by pohuist
Exactly. And you said it yourself, thus, conceding defeat. So, who shot huimself in the foot?

I concede defeat, but only on the basis that my argument could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not by the fact that you defeated me yourself. Therefore, technically, I shot myself in the foot yes, but I believe it was a shot in the foot that showed a little verity in what I was saying.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

I should shoot MYSELF in the feet...

That would solve SOO many problems.

 

[Úlairi]

LOL Wonko. That was very funny...and true.

 

[Wonko The Sane]

Oh if you only knew...

 

[Grond]

Why has this argument continued on for additional pages? It was apparent over 3 pages ago that no rational determination could be made as to who was the oldest. The entire argument hinges on whether Tom is deemed a "living creature" or not. JRRT in his letters specifically states that he included Tom not because he really fit in with Middle-earth but because he (Tolkien) wanted to. Tom was a character Tolkien had previously developed and he simply found a place for him in the works.

Tom was eldest, Tom was first...yada yada yada. Tom is an enigma who exists yet doesn't exist. On him the Ring has no effect. Nothing appears to hold power over him, not Barrow-wights, not Old-man Willow, not no stinkin Nazgul..... nothing. My opinion continues to be that Tom is something non-human from the mind of Eru. He ain't no Valar, he ain't no Maiar, he ain't no Elar, he ain't no man. I still think he's a Munchkin.

 

[Walter]

Originally posted by Grond
Why has this argument continued on for additional pages? It was apparent over 3 pages ago that no rational determination could be made as to who was the oldest.

Yes and no, I was hoping someone would "pick up" the quote from Of Aule and Yavanna I gave earlier:

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.

and

'Nay,' he said, 'only the trees of Aule will be tall enough. In the mountains the Eagles shall house, and hear the voices of those who call upon us. But in the forests shall walk the Shepherds of the Trees.'

for this IMO can only mean that the Ents like the Eagles are "spirits summoned from afar" which throws a different light at the topic.

 

[Grond]

Walter, Eagles of Manwe are Maia and the Ents are the creatures of Yavanna created by Eru at the request of Manwe on behalf of Yavanna. They are creatures of the earth and are therefore not from elsewhere. The Eagles are Ainur.

 

[Walter]

Originally posted by Grond
Walter, Eagles of Manwe are Maia and the Ents are the creatures of Yavanna created by Eru at the request of Manwe on behalf of Yavanna. They are creatures of the earth and are therefore not from elsewhere. The Eagles are Ainur.

Grond, this was exactly what I thought before I stumbled across said passage again and read it more carefully, but now I am no longer sure about it.

Anyway, I have opened another thread in the Silmarillion Forum, maybe this is worth further discussion...

 

[Úlairi]

Grond, I couldn't agree more. I said that also. But a few ignorant people (not Walter and pohuist and Brent mind you), decided to keep my thread going a little further.