The Archangel Michael in Middle-earth

[Balfrog]

Aaron

Considering Tolkien's own deep Christian value system, were Tom meant to be analogous to Michael, there would not be so much about his portrayal which was so open to interpretation.

How much do you think the date of September 29th is open to interpretation? Do you think it's of zero significance when it comes to Tom?

I view that possibility as remote. Especially as there are two separate occurrences of this date which can be linked to 'angels'. Tolkien, in my mind – must have had a reason.

If September 29th is a fluke, it also means all the other points Ms. Seth brings up that are associated to Archangel Michael's special day - are also coincidences. This is then getting to be a real stretch. Moreover we might then assume that all the books' 'special' happenings on: March 25th, Christmas Day and Mid-years Day also possess Christian symbolism by complete 'accident'. That is getting to the point of being … simply unbelievable.

Now according to Ms. Seth's latest essay, the reason why Bombadil is linked to St. Michael has a lot to do with our world's local folklore. Ms. Seth starts to reveal this connection with respect to the Celtic god Lugh in her latest essay. Note that Bombadil has not been stated to be the Archangel himself as per Christian doctrine – just the source of legends about him in England somehow carried through from Tolkien's mythical era to our world.

This new essay is located per the thread: Celtic Roots and Infrastucture in Book I

[Andsigil]

This ley-line connection theory by Seth is nothing but coincidence-driven conjecture. One might as well make an association between the "St. Michael ley line", Lugh, and anyone driving the M3-A303 stretch, which also goes through "Bombadil country."

I appreciate the fact that Ms. Seth writes about Tolkien, but I've seen better deductive reasoning from Kardashian viewers and disaffected college protestors.

[Pitchwife]

[Inziladun]

Ha ha. Nice!

His next line was "Don't you crush my lilies!"

[Zigûr]

It seems to me that Manwë, Tulkas and Ëonwë all possess a degree of comparability with the archangel Michael, or at least fulfil comparable roles at certain times.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It seems to me that Manwë, Tulkas and Ëonwë all possess a degree of comparability with the archangel Michael, or at least fulfil comparable roles at certain times.

Perhaps. And maybe Varda?

Bombadil, though: I don't see it.

I know Balfrog introduced the caveat about having 'evidence' apart from the Sept. 30 date of Tom saving the hobbits, but I think it's worth noting that the date fluctuated in early drafts of the story, according to HOME. If Tolkien really intended for that day to be significant, I wouldn't think that would have occurred.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Perhaps. And maybe Varda?

The more I think about it, the more I question my own connection (Manwë, Tulkas, Ëonwë). I was thinking of this in comparison to Michael casting out Lucifer, but nothing quite like that happens in the tale of Eä:
1. Melkor left the Timeless Halls (comparable to Heaven, perhaps) to enter Eä of his own volition.
2. Tulkas drove Melkor into the Void (either Space or Nothingness); hardly the same as being cast out of the bliss of Heaven and falling to Earth.
3. Melkor fled Aman (another place comparable to Heaven) of his own volition.
4. Someone (Tulkas? Ëonwë? Mandos?) cast Morgoth into the Void after his trial and execution following the War of Wrath. Again, not a Heaven-to-Earth transition.

Thus even those examples don't really fit. The other roles of Michael in Catholic tradition, accompanying souls to judgement, weighing souls and guarding the church, don't seem to fit terribly well with anyone either, although I suppose the roles related to souls have perhaps a limited correlation with Mandos. Yet why should they? I've always had the impression that Professor Tolkien did not wish for the Christian elements of his work to be too overt and literal, but rather thematic.

the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little (Letter 142)