Bombadil

Ecthelion írta: Azt hiszem soem fogjuk megtudni ki volt valójában... (na most aztán újat mondtam)
Az az érdekes hogy tényleg csak egy van belőle, még negatívja sincs, semmi!! És Aranymag is hasonló kérdés...

Endóre írta: Tehét ez azt jelenti, hogy ő valaminek, vagy valakinek a jelképe volt Középföldén.

Uglúk írta: Nem, az nem opció!!!! És nem csak én, hanem olorin.papa is így gondolja, lásd lejjebb.

Uglúk írta: Nem, az nem opció!!!! És nem csak én, hanem olorin.papa is így gondolja, lásd lejjebb.

olorin.papa írta: Imádom és helyén való, hogy rendesen írásokkal alátámasztjátok a véleményeteket, de kérlek már aki nem tud angolul, azt ne zárjátok ki az információból, kérek némi nyers fordítást az angol szövegek alá... köszi

Ninniach írta:

Felagund írta: [size=9:21os1c23]OFF
Akkor nekem már roppant bölcsnek kéne lennem, de furamód még nem érzem [/size]

[size=9:21os1c23] Mert, Felekundu, akkorákat fújsz néha, hogy a pelyvával a magokat is szétszórod, aztán mások meg ügyesen felcsipegetik előled [/size]

Felagund írta: [size=9:1ag6jikt]OFF
Akkor nekem már roppant bölcsnek kéne lennem, de furamód még nem érzem [/size]

Elmoth írta: Tanulság: ha Amanival kötekszel bölcs leszel.
Köszi

A 19-es levélben JRR Tolkien írta: Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?

A 153-as levélben JRR Tolkien írta: 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 – 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 – 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' – 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 pan, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental – 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 – but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that pan of the Universe.

A 210-es levélben JRR Tolkien írta: The first paragraph misrepresents Tom Bombadil. He is not the owner of the woods; and he would never make any such threat.
'Old scamp!' This is a good example of the general tendency that I find in Z to reduce and lower the tone towards that of a more childish fairy-tale. The expression does not agree with the tone of Bombadil's long later talk; and though that is cut, there is no need for its indications to be disregarded.
I am sorry, but I think the manner of the introduction of Goldberry is silly, and on a par with 'old scamp'. It also has no warrant in my tale. We are not in 'fairy-land', but in real river-lands in autumn. Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands. Personally I think she had far better disappear than make a meaningless appearance.

Elmoth írta:

amanibhavam írta: Ő volt az Első és ő lesz az Utolsó. Ő a Megrontatlan Természet, Arda Unmarred. Nem avatkozik be, csak fenntartja a világ rendjét azon a területen, ami még megadatik neki.

Na pont ez az infó hiányzott ahhoz, hogy megvilágosodjak! Végre!
Így már nem személyként tekintek rá, Hanem vmi örök, változatlan rendszer/törvény/(nem találom a megfelelő szót) manifesztációjaként, de ezt félve írom le... Így minden a helyén van. Aranymagról van vmi hasonló leírás?

amanibhavam írta: Ő volt az Első és ő lesz az Utolsó. Ő a Megrontatlan Természet, Arda Unmarred. Nem avatkozik be, csak fenntartja a világ rendjét azon a területen, ami még megadatik neki.