Posted on 12/17/2007 11:09:50 AM PST by Greg F
I watched the movie versions of Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" over the last three days and tried to sort out the symbolism in Christian terms. Here's what I came up with, would love the insights of any regarding.
Hobbits: Your home and hearth Christians. Humble and happy, not seeking power and acclaim to the same extent as others, perhaps, and content with small things.
Elves: Angels. They are superhuman in their understanding and abilities and they can choose to leave middle earth unlike the other races.
Orcs: Demons. They are a race of elves abused, corrupted and changed by Sauron.
Men: Men.
Dwarves: ?
Sauron: Satan.
Gandolf: The Holy Spirit (?). Gandolf can be seen as a Christ figure, but most often he is advising men, hobbits and elves, and acting through them. That said, he does act directly as well, and at the end of the movie he sails away with the elves (does this end correspond to the book?). If he were a Christ figure I think his actions would be much more definitive. He would be the actor that saves and no army would stand before him.
The Ghost Army: Tolkien was a Catholic. Souls in purgatory given a chance at redemption.
The Ring of Power: Temptation. Only the humble Christian (Hobbit) can withstand the temptation. The lords and kings cannot.
The genesis of Middle-Earth came about as a way of making a concrete history to place his created languages in, and then just kind of took on a life of its own.
His histories and short stories of Middle-Earth can be found in not just his three novels (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Children of Hurin), but in The Silmarillion, The Book of Lost Tales, and The Histories of Middle-Earth edited by Christopher Tolkien.
Lewis created the World of Narnia in his novels. Tolkien set The Lord of the Rings in Middle-Earth, a completely constructed world outside of that one story.
And that is why Tolkien's theology is infused in the story in a more subtle, and yet thorough, way than Lewis could have accomplished.
As others have oberved, Tolkien rejected all attempts to view the LOTR as an allegory. Also, though Tolkien was a Catholic, the LOTR is has more in common with Norse and British mythology than Christian scripture. The completeness of Tolkien’s cosmology is staggering. Read the Silmarillion.
To the extent that there is metaphor of Christ that is God.
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Some very interesting insights into his views of God and Creation.
Makes sense, thanks for the insight. I just finished the Lewis space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet,Perelandra, That Hideous Strength) which was theologically very interesting. I highly recommend it if you haven’t read it. I think Tolkien’s theology permeates LOTR in a more organic, less intentional way than Lewis’. I’m not sure that makes it more thorough, but it might.
Sam Wise. Frodos disciple. When Frodo leaves, he is his representative on Earth.
Gandalf was raised from the dead or the depths of hell though and can act directly with immense power against the evil supernatural forces which is more Godlike or Angelic. Could be Pope but then where are the bishops, priests and the structure of the church? I think Tolkien may have intentionally left the church as an overt entity out of his world in order to keep the book open to all rather than purely sectarian.
Tolkien's work is by nature not Theological or Philisophical. It's more mythical, and as such his views come through when you look at the broad canvas much more clearly than trying to examine the stitching. It's the fact that it is so engrained that make me view it as much more thorough than Lewis' Narnia or Space novels.
Tokien said that he didn't write allegory. He didn't like allegory because the personificatins and symbols are reduced to one meaning only, the meaning that the author specifically intended.
He said that he wrote myth, and myth can be interpreted in many ways. Each generation will have its own interpretation, as will each individual. Here is the way C.S. Lewis puts it in his review of Tolkien's book:
What shows that we are reading myth, not allegory, is that there are no pointers to a specifically theological, or political, or psychological application. A myth points, for each reader, to the realm he lives in most. It is a master key; use it on what door you like.So, interpret it as you please. The book is rich in mythic imagery and invites the reader to find his own meaning.
Frodo does suffer a great deal to return the ring into the fire from which it came. But when that moment comes, he desires to keep the ring for himself. His friend Sam steps forth to throw the ring into the fire. Sam was there to serve and protect Frodo. But he didn't carry the weight or the temptation of the ring. Frodo did that for him. And at last Sam overcomes his fear and must throw the ring in the fire for Frodo who has succumbed to temptation after all his efforts to resist it.
Yes, I think you are right. The book is very rich in mythic imagery, but it is up to the reader (or the viewer of the movie) to come up with his own interpretation. That is why I consider The Lord of the Rings the best work of mythology written in the last century.
I thought JK Rollings said Gandalf is gay.... oh wait, that was the other wizard guy....
Yes, Tolkien stated on a number of occasions that he did not write a work of allegory, but rather of myth. And the wonder of myth is that it can be interpreted in a number of ways. Perhaps the confusion comes in because his friend CS Lewis did write an allegory called The Pilgrim's Regress. Lewis also wrote a brilliant book called The Allegory of Love which revived interest in allegory from the Middle Ages, a genre that had fallen out of favor.
Neither can the Hobbits. At the end, Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it as his own. Gollum then bit Frodo's finger off, tripped, and fell into the volcano. Tolkien wasn't into Pelagianism (even in an alternate universe).
Oh yes, thank you for reminding me. I read the story so long ago, I mixed up the story and was thinking Sam threw the ring into the fire. But it was Gollum that fell in with the ring. Yes, that makes very good sense.
Tolkien had his own mythology but bits of the Christian one peep through nearly everywhere. This, for instance:
(Gandalf speaking) "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by Sauron."
These are very deep waters. I would suggest ignoring the movies - they are lush realizations of the visual aspects of LOTR but so superficial as to be useless when discussing what Tolkien actually meant. There are as many different interpretations of LOTR's congruence to Christianity as there are commentators, but there are a few themes that are basic to the argument.
Both Frodo and Gandalf are very unsatisfactory Christ-figures, the one because his sacrifice was, in the event, unsuccessful, and the other his was not a willing sacrifice but a casualty of war. One does not need to be a Christ figure to sacrifice what is dearest so that others can retain it. Frodo is much closer to a metaphor for those WWI veterans with whom Tolkien served, IMHO, who gave up sight and health and life so that England could remain England. They were not Christ but mere men, and so, in the end, was Frodo.
One central theme that is common both to LOTR and to Christianity is redemption, and it is explored in several forms - Boromir, Theoden, Eowyn, Frodo himself, and especially that most interesting character in LOTR, Smeagol/Gollum. I think it is exquisitely clever that his fall constituted Frodo's redemption and vice versa.
Great literature holds great ideas, and LOTR qualifies in every regard. Do not be disappointed if there are multiple answers to these sorts of questions.
No, that isn't correct. My memory failed me. It is Gollum who falls into the fire after biting off Frodo's finger with the ring still on it.
Tolkein didn't make Gandalf gay, but Ian McKellen did.
Correct, it wasn’t anyone who decided to destroy evil, it was the hand of Providence that took action and finished the good works that Frodo and Sam had faithfully undertaken.
Much more can be found here:
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.