Tom Bombadil as the Hobbit

 At least hear me out.

Tom Bombadil is the physical manifestation/spirit of The Hobbit (the book) within The Lord of the Rings. I have laid out the various sections of evidence and will explain in each how it connects back to Bombadil as The Hobbit.

1. Eldest and Fatherless

To begin with, this is the one element of Tom's character that I find has not been truly satisfyed in the other theories on Bombadil. He is literally described as the oldest and first. On the surface, this might seem to suggest Bombadil as Eru Illuvatar (God). But we know for a fact this is not the case because Tolkien himself directly said so in Letter 181:

'There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers...()...There is no ‘embodiment’ of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology.'

There simply seems to be no reason why Bombadil would be described this way if he were merely one of these many ancient beings who Eru created, though, and as shown above Tolkien himself has removed all possibility of him being Eru himself. None of the theories on Tom looking to The Silmarillion and suggesting him as Maia or a Vala or the Music of the Ainar, etc. etc. actually explain/address this problem beyond 'well, none of the other possibilities really fit with this either'. Which brings me to the fact that this one does. I will now move on to the specific quotes on Bombadil being the first and how they relate to and fit very well with to him being The Hobbit.

Bombadil on himself in Book I, Chapter 7, "In the House of Tom Bombadil":

‘Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that’s what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside.’

He calls himself "eldest" - which is exactly what The Hobbit is. The first "canon" part of the legendarium, and thus the universe of the book. He says he remembers the first raindrop and first acorn. I would speculate that he doesn't mean the literal first raindrop and acorn in-universe - but the first raindrop and acorn to appear in the story. Where would those be found? In The Hobbit. He says that he he was here before the Kings and the Barrow-rights - notice that these are elements introduced in the Lord of the Rings. From an in-universe standpoint there would seemingly be no fully satisfactory explanation for these allusions, as he cannot be Eru, but who else could be first? The most important line of this quotation is that he has existed since before the Dark Lord (Melkor / Morgoth) came from Outside. If we think outside the box, we can realise that he means he has existed since before the appearance of Morgoth in the legendarium. The Hobbit was written before the Dark Lord was referenced.

The idea that Tom is the oldest and the first is emphasised again by Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring, Book II, Chapter 2, "The Council of Elrond":

‘The Barrow-wights we know by many names; and of the Old Forest many tales have been told: all that now remains is but an outlier of its northern march. Time was when a squirrel could go from tree to tree from what is now the Shire to Dunland west of Isengard. In those lands I journeyed once, and many things wild and strange I knew. 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. But many another name he has since been given by other folk: Forn by the Dwarves, Orald by Northern Men, and other names beside. He is a strange creature, but maybe I should have summoned him to our Council.’

In the context of this new theory, it makes perfect sense that he would be referred to this way, and overall, I think this theory best explains these allusions.

2. Bombadil and the Ring

The next thing I will adress is a section of Bombadil's mystery which is arguably is essential to any Tom Bombadil theory: his relationship with the One Ring. In "In The House of Tom Bombadil" we see that he can see Frodo even when he is wearing the Ring. This can indeed be explained in the context of Bombadil as The Hobbit.

To address this first curiosity in Bombadil's realtionship with the Ring, let us take a step back to think about The Hobbit, the book itself, in which, this theory postulates, Bombadil was the story. In that book, the story knew where Bilbo was even when he wore the ring, because he is still described while wearing it. Therefore, that narrative, which is now represented as Bombadil, could 'see' Bilbo. As something which is not truly a part of this new part of the story, he is not bound by the this 'updated' reality. He still, however, remains the physical form or manifestation of the reality of The Hobbit. And that is where the One Ring actually comes from. Therefore, he can see Frodo even as he wears the Ring, as he could see Bilbo, because it is an element of a reality which is his whole being and in which he is essentially omniscient, for he is that reality or at least a "primitive" or particular form of that overarching reality.

There is another matter to address concerning Tom Bombadil and the Ring, which connected remarks to can also act as supporting evidence for this theory. In "The Council of Elrond", it is suggested by Erestor that the Ring be given to Bombadil, for he seems to have power ove it. Gandalf replies:

‘No, I should not put it so. Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others. And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.’

Firstly, The Hobbit has no direct power over the ring, as Gandalf says. While the plot would be omniscient of the things happening within it, as I have said earlier, it would have no true control over them - that privelege would go to the author, Tolkien, not the book itself. And the Ring would indeed have no power over the book in which it originated, nor the plot/storyline of that book. This would make no sense. Finally, on a matter not directly related to Bombadil and the Ring, Gandalf says here that Bombadil has "withdrawn" into a little land" which he will not step beyond. Beyond the physical portion of land which Bombadil inhabits, this can be interpreted as also alluding to the fact that The Hobbit / Bombadil will not step beyond its own small portion of the legendarium and interact or truly have affect on the rest of it, beyond something like Bombadil in which it is represented in a passive figure who refuses to truly be part of the story.

Erestor then says that within those bounds, however, nothing seems to dismay him, and that he would take the Ring and keep it there, forever harmless. Gandalf denies this, responding:

'No, not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.’

As The Hobbit, Bombadil would indeed not understand the need to keep the Ring, for within it's plot there is truly no darkness or evil in it introduced yet - Sauron is absent, and so it is essentially a harmless asset at this point. Therefore it makes perfect sense he would forget it or 'throw it away', and would be an unsafe guardian. 

3. Bombadil's Playful Nature and the Safety of His Home

Next, there is the fact that Bombadil is extremely playful and lighthearted in all of his character. Just look at his singing:

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

This is also shown in his strange manner of speaking, which we see right from when we meet him:

‘Whoa! Whoa! steady there! Now, my little fellows, where be you a-going to, puffing like a bellows? What’s the matter here then? Do you know who I am? I’m Tom Bombadil. Tell me what’s your trouble! Tom’s in a hurry now. Don’t you crush my lilies!’

It all seems almost out of place in the dark universe of Sauron, the Ring, etc. Now apply this to Bombadil's entire character, for which you will find a similar thing can be said.  Casting our minds back to The Hobbit, we must remember that it was a children's book. Doesn't Tom's singing, manner of speech and entire personality seem more akin to a children's story than the more adult tale of The Lord of the Rings?

But there is also another and perhaps stronger argument coming from this line of thought. In The Hobbit, readers are constantly reassured. In the Battle of the Five Armies, for example, not only is Bilbo placed next to Thranduil and Gandalf, but the reader is told that he will get through it. Now think back to Bombadil. The House of Tom Bombadil provides a safe place; a haven akin to the feeling of The Hobbit. This also links back to that first quote from Tom about himself - he knew the dark under the stars "when it was fearless, before the Dark Lord came from Outside". He is a remnant of a more light-hearted and "fearless" part of the legendarium. This adds another element to the phrase "before the Dark Lord came from Outside", as it also represents the incorporation of darker elements into the universe.

Conclusion

Overall, I think this is a somewhat stronger theory than Bombadil being merely a Maia, Vala, the Music of the Ainur, or anything else in-universe. It is the best explanation for the description of Bombadil as the first, oldest and fatherless, and has further evidence which I think make it as legitimate a theory as the predominant in-universe explanations. But that's just my humble opinion and it could be complete garbage which can be easily disproved by some piece of evidence I don't know about. Either way, I hope it has provided food for thought.