XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: steuard@slimy.com   
      
   In message , Troels Forchhammer   
    wrote:   
   > Steuard Jensen  spoke these staves:   
   >> I thought I'd share my first draft here before linking to it more   
   >> widely   
      
   > Another argument that carries a lot of weight for myself is related   
   > to Tom's origin, not the Dutch doll thing, but as the /genius loci/,   
   > the 'spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside.'   
   > This idea is, to my mind, wholly incompatible with the idea of Tom   
   > as a god who existed before Time and helped build the world. Tom, by   
   > his very nature /must/ belong to a limited geographical area, and   
   > this is inconsistent with Aule's world-encompassing nature.   
      
   I agree, but I haven't brought it up in my "anti-essay" for two   
   reasons. First, it's blatantly non-canonical as it dates to before   
   LotR was written or even imagined (and to the best of my knowledge did   
   not at the time relate to Middle-earth at all, regardless of the   
   eventual connection). That makes it suggestive but not really   
   convincing to someone determined to disagree. And second, the argument   
   as you've framed it here (especially without the final sentence) is   
   equally strong against the Maia theory, and a great many people would   
   bristle at that. (Unlike Aule, one could imagine a Maia being limited   
   to the region that was their limited part in the music. But only your   
   final comment makes room for that loophole.)   
      
   Oh, three reasons, actually: it's not really clear that Bombadil *is*   
   limited to a specific region in the final form of the story. He used   
   to wander much more widely, and the bounds of "his country" are   
   (according to the Council) where "he has set" them. So nailing down   
   whether and in what sense that quote from Letters still applies is   
   quite tricky. (My nature spirit theory takes a stab at it, but that is   
   of course quite speculative. And very hard to apply to the Maia   
   theory.)   
      
   > On the other hand, however, I think you are too restrictive in the   
   > possible interpretations of 'first' and 'eldest'   
      
   Hmm. Are you suggesting that those words are *meaningless*? They're   
   repeated an awful lot (in various forms), so they really do feel like   
   one of our chief pieces of evidence about Bombadil. Just as with   
   Treebeard (etc.), I think there must be some sense in which they're   
   true (and informative).   
      
   > Another way to look at it is of course to note that both 'first' and   
   > 'oldest' is related to Time, and that both these words are equally   
   > applicable to /all/ the Ainur who entered into Eä at the beginning   
   > of Time.   
      
   Again, though, Tolkien really *hammers* on those descriptions in   
   Bombadil's case: this isn't a case of a single throwaway line played   
   up for rhetorical effect! If the Elves went so far as to *name* him   
   "Oldest", they must have meant something by it, even if that something   
   was based on an incomplete or mistaken understanding of his nature.   
   And I don't buy your "they're all tied" notion in this case: the first   
   Elves had almost certainly all met at least one Vala (Orome) before   
   they met Bombadil ("When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here   
   already"), so it's not as if they would have thought being an Ainu   
   made him uniquely old to justify that name.   
      
   And you haven't addressed why we could overlook Glorfindel's "Last"   
   either. That one couldn't apply to all Ainur equally, because at a   
   minimum Sauron would remain after his victory was complete. I'll admit   
   that the meaning of "Last" is a huge question mark (and I quite   
   suspect that some sort of "rhetorical superlative" is part of the   
   explanation), but again, Glorfindel meant *something* by the word,   
   just as Tolkien meant *something* when he said Celeborn had the "last   
   living memory of the Elder Days". It may not be 100% literally   
   correct, but it suggests a relatively small range of possible meanings   
   that (I believe) can still teach us something.   
      
      
   Ahem. 'Scuse me, got a little involved there. So... do you think that   
   including that argument (and primarily in the "evidence not addressed"   
   section, as I recall) weakens my attempt to bludgeon this zombie horse   
   into submission? Or is it more of an issue when it's used to argue   
   about theories that are actually viable?   
      
         	       					Steuard Jensen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)