The Archangel Michael in Middle-earth - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Zigûr · 11-12-2017, 07:49 AM

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 · 11-12-2017, 08:04 AM

Quote:

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 · 11-12-2017, 09:42 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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)

Pitchwife · 11-12-2017, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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.

Even though the events in Tolkien's legendarium don't match those in Judeo-Christian mythology 1:1, I think Manwë qualifies as, shall we say, Ilúvatar's champion against Melkor, the one to challenge Melkor's dreams of domination with the words "Who is like God/Eru?", and Varda with him.

Balfrog · 12-07-2017, 11:09 PM

Andsigil

Yes – the author points that the Michael ley line was not even 'discovered' in Tolkien's time. Rather she has focused on the ancient connections of St. Michael to Oxford that Tolkien likely knew about.

My deductive reasoning concludes that the rest of your post is hardly worth the bother of replying to.

Inziladun

I believe the day in question is September 29th. Tolkien seems to have been groping for a plot early on. At what stage the 'quarter days' idea came to him is unknown – but it is not necessarily at outset.

Zigûr, Inziladun, Pitchwife

Our view of how the Archangel Michael physically looks have perhaps been tainted by Renaissance artists. I have a feeling that Tolkien's ideas would not have been in sync.

We all know the angelic beings of TLotR – namely the Wizards – came in the form of old men. Nevertheless Tolkien described them as near enough to incarnate angels.

Gandalf the Grey was portrayed himself as bent and aged – hardly epitomizing our stereo-typical angel. So I would not scoff at the idea of Bombadil being an 'angel' himself. The author of the article does point out at that appearances can be deceptive.

Besides, astute scholars – such as Professor Gene Hargrove have proposed Tom is one of the Valar. Hargrove thinks he's Aule – while others have suggested Tulkas and even Manwe. Again such scholars – see beyond the physical and our own inner vision of what the supposed 'majestic' Valar ought to look like.

Anyway Ms. Seth kicks the can down the road. At this point she is just considering the possibility of an allegorical affiliation of Tom to the Archangel without coming to a verdict.

I think perhaps the point is being missed – in that Tom is from the essay's viewpoint, an ancestral being from which much of the folklore and fairy tales of the British Isles originates. Not that he is actually one of those mythical or biblical beings. If this hasn't registered maybe another more careful read is in order.

Huinesoron · 12-11-2017, 06:11 AM

Okay - Michaelmas. I was all ready to point out that literally every day is a Catholic saint day, but the Quarter Days argument is convincing. The four Quarter Days are:

-Christmas Day, December 25th - the Fellowship leave Rivendell.
-Lady Day/Annunciation, March 25th - the downfall of Sauron. (Also traditionally New Year's Day.)
-Midsummer Day, June 24th - Mid-Year's day is when Gandalf wrote his letter at Bree in 3018; in 3019, it was the day of Aragorn and Arwen's wedding.
-Michaelmas, September 29th - in 3018, the hobbits escape the Barrow-Downs (but why would they want to leave?!

) and meet Aragorn in Bree. In 3021, the White Ship sails.

As well as being Christian festivals, the Quarter Days are the days for hiring new servants and settling accounts. It's worth noting that the events of all four days can be interpreted as this:

-Departure of the Fellowship, meeting with Aragorn: 'hiring servants', ie, new people join the quest.
-Fall of Sauron, Aragorn's wedding, the White Ship: 'settling accounts', ie, people receive their rewards.

Bombadil rescuing the hobbits from the Barrow kind of spans both, in that he shows up 'unexpectedly' (having already said farewell), and then promptly pays the hobbits for their time (

). It doesn't have quite the same metaphorical level of detail as the other examples, though.

Michaelmas is certainly the most crowded of those days, with a lot going on. And you know what, I can kind of see the Archangel Bombadil argument. Specifically, Michaelmas 3018 is a transfer of protector-ness. It opens with Bombadil as a magical figure, casting down the enemy and giving out rewards - a very 'Hobbit-tale' method of protection. By the end of the day, though, we've not only passed out of the Shire-lands - we've passed into a new type of protection. Aragorn isn't a bombastic, singing mage who can crush everything that stands in their way; he's a far more realistic character, who will nevertheless give his life for Frodo if needs be.

(Incidentally, the fact that Frodo is buried in a tomb only to rise again the next morning right at the cusp of his entry into Middle-earth proper just might have some religious antecedents...

)

So you know what? Yes, it seems plausible that Tolkien deliberately drew on religious concepts to build his world, just like he did linguistic and archaeological ones (it's a barrow, folks...!). But that doesn't mean that 'Tom Bombadil === Archangel Michael' holds true across the entirety of the character, any more than 'the Sindar must live in Wales because Sindarin was inspired by Welsh' does. (And if you don't think I could rattle off a whole list of Welsh-connections with the Sindar... ^_^)

hS

Marlowe221 · 12-20-2017, 01:09 PM

I think it also worth pointing out that Tolkien rejected the notion of an allegorical interpretation of his work. Of course, he was referring to those who thought LoTR was an allegory for WWII. But given his stated dislike for allegory in all forms I'm not sure why that would apply any differently to an overtly religious interpretation of his books.

Instead, Tolkien preferred "applicability," which lay, he believed, with the reader. Meanwhile, allegory was the "purposed domination of the author" over the reader.

Personally, I find myself somewhat annoyed by overly religious interpretations of Tolkien's stories. No doubt, there is Christian symbolism in some facets of the books. But I do not believe that the Professor set out to create an overtly religious work.

Instead, he drew on his own background of culture and history (along with the culture and history of England and northern Europe) to create Middle-Earth. That necessarily included elements of Catholicism and Christianity more broadly. There is nothing surprising in that, Christianity has been associated with Western culture for so long that even non-religious people inherently understand referrences to it. Tolkien used imagery that resonanted with him and that he knew would resonate with his (almost entirely) Western readers.

The literal catalogue of religous books available on Amazon that were written to capitalize on the popularity of the franchise notwithstanding, I found LoTR to serve as my introduction to Humanism (or Hobbitism?). After all, Frodo doesn't take the Ring to Mordor because some god tells him to do it - he does it because he loves his people and his home and wants to save them. Sam doesn't risk his life and future to go with Frodo because some holy book tells him to do it - he does it because he is devoted to Frodo.

Some of the elves may have more cosmic motivations, but most of the humans and Hobbits in the books do good because it is good. They do it without hope of profit, recognition, or even of success. They do right because it is right - not because of some hope of reward or fear of some enternal punishment. I found it inspiring as a child and still do today.

All of that said, I think Bombadil makes a poor analogue for Michael. Gandalf or even Glorfindel would probably be a better choice.

Andsigil · 12-21-2017, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balfrog

My deductive reasoning concludes that the rest of your post is hardly worth the bother of replying to.

Yes, the vastness of your deductive reasoning.

Balfrog · 01-14-2018, 02:42 PM

Huinesoron

Outstanding post!

Marlowe221

"I think it also worth pointing out that Tolkien rejected the notion of an allegorical interpretation of his work. Of course, he was referring to those who thought LoTR was an allegory for WWII."

From an overall standpoint that certainly seems to be the case.

"But given his stated dislike for allegory in all forms I'm not sure why that would apply any differently to an overtly religious interpretation of his books."

There is considerable doubt about this. Particularly from the eminent Tom Shippey (see J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the 20th Century). Shippey diplomatically questions and refutes Tolkien assertion - especially in certain circumstances. I think it's long overdue that such a doubt spreads to the fan-base.

"All of that said, I think Bombadil makes a poor analogue for Michael. Gandalf or even Glorfindel would probably be a better choice."

The author quite rightly points out that very little is known about the Archangel. That is especially true when it comes to appearances. Our views of what the Archangel Michael looks like are probably tainted by medieval and renaissance art. In any case what we do know of Tolkien's mythology is that of the good guys, such beings of angelic origin veiled their majesty in M-e as they saw fit. Indeed the Istari do not come across at all as 'angelic' in appearance when not 'in-action'.

If we set aside 'looks' Bombadil makes a better fit than either Gandalf or Glorfindel. Because:

(a) It is Tom that is in action on St. Michael's Day
(b) It is Tom that defeats a demonic spirit on this day
(c) It is Tom who casts out the evil spirit from the land in an analogous manner to the devil being cast out from heaven
(d) The spirit is told to depart to barren lands – in a analogy of the devil being cast into hell.
(e) It is Tom that recalls the souls of the hobbits – in an analogy of Michael's apocryphal role as weigher and recaller of souls.
(f) It is Tom's feet that is alluded to be on the foot of the devilish corpse-hand.

Very simply put, Glorfindel or Gandalf simply do not accomplish what Bombadil does on September 29th. However I would like to hear the substance behind your reasoning.

11-12-2017, 07:49 AM	#1
Zigûr Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 785	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. __________________ "Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir." "On foot?" cried Éomer.

12-11-2017, 06:11 AM	#6
Huinesoron Overshadowed Eagle Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: The north-west of the Old World, east of the Sea Posts: 3,957	Okay - Michaelmas. I was all ready to point out that literally every day is a Catholic saint day, but the Quarter Days argument is convincing. The four Quarter Days are: -Christmas Day, December 25th - the Fellowship leave Rivendell. -Lady Day/Annunciation, March 25th - the downfall of Sauron. (Also traditionally New Year's Day.) -Midsummer Day, June 24th - Mid-Year's day is when Gandalf wrote his letter at Bree in 3018; in 3019, it was the day of Aragorn and Arwen's wedding. -Michaelmas, September 29th - in 3018, the hobbits escape the Barrow-Downs (but why would they want to leave?! ) and meet Aragorn in Bree. In 3021, the White Ship sails. As well as being Christian festivals, the Quarter Days are the days for hiring new servants and settling accounts. It's worth noting that the events of all four days can be interpreted as this: -Departure of the Fellowship, meeting with Aragorn: 'hiring servants', ie, new people join the quest. -Fall of Sauron, Aragorn's wedding, the White Ship: 'settling accounts', ie, people receive their rewards. Bombadil rescuing the hobbits from the Barrow kind of spans both, in that he shows up 'unexpectedly' (having already said farewell), and then promptly pays the hobbits for their time (). It doesn't have quite the same metaphorical level of detail as the other examples, though. Michaelmas is certainly the most crowded of those days, with a lot going on. And you know what, I can kind of see the Archangel Bombadil argument. Specifically, Michaelmas 3018 is a transfer of protector-ness. It opens with Bombadil as a magical figure, casting down the enemy and giving out rewards - a very 'Hobbit-tale' method of protection. By the end of the day, though, we've not only passed out of the Shire-lands - we've passed into a new type of protection. Aragorn isn't a bombastic, singing mage who can crush everything that stands in their way; he's a far more realistic character, who will nevertheless give his life for Frodo if needs be. (Incidentally, the fact that Frodo is buried in a tomb only to rise again the next morning right at the cusp of his entry into Middle-earth proper just might have some religious antecedents... ) So you know what? Yes, it seems plausible that Tolkien deliberately drew on religious concepts to build his world, just like he did linguistic and archaeological ones (it's a barrow, folks...!). But that doesn't mean that 'Tom Bombadil === Archangel Michael' holds true across the entirety of the character, any more than 'the Sindar must live in Wales because Sindarin was inspired by Welsh' does. (And if you don't think I could rattle off a whole list of Welsh-connections with the Sindar... ^_^) hS

12-20-2017, 01:09 PM	#7
Marlowe221 Pile O'Bones Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 18	I think it also worth pointing out that Tolkien rejected the notion of an allegorical interpretation of his work. Of course, he was referring to those who thought LoTR was an allegory for WWII. But given his stated dislike for allegory in all forms I'm not sure why that would apply any differently to an overtly religious interpretation of his books. Instead, Tolkien preferred "applicability," which lay, he believed, with the reader. Meanwhile, allegory was the "purposed domination of the author" over the reader. Personally, I find myself somewhat annoyed by overly religious interpretations of Tolkien's stories. No doubt, there is Christian symbolism in some facets of the books. But I do not believe that the Professor set out to create an overtly religious work. Instead, he drew on his own background of culture and history (along with the culture and history of England and northern Europe) to create Middle-Earth. That necessarily included elements of Catholicism and Christianity more broadly. There is nothing surprising in that, Christianity has been associated with Western culture for so long that even non-religious people inherently understand referrences to it. Tolkien used imagery that resonanted with him and that he knew would resonate with his (almost entirely) Western readers. The literal catalogue of religous books available on Amazon that were written to capitalize on the popularity of the franchise notwithstanding, I found LoTR to serve as my introduction to Humanism (or Hobbitism?). After all, Frodo doesn't take the Ring to Mordor because some god tells him to do it - he does it because he loves his people and his home and wants to save them. Sam doesn't risk his life and future to go with Frodo because some holy book tells him to do it - he does it because he is devoted to Frodo. Some of the elves may have more cosmic motivations, but most of the humans and Hobbits in the books do good because it is good. They do it without hope of profit, recognition, or even of success. They do right because it is right - not because of some hope of reward or fear of some enternal punishment. I found it inspiring as a child and still do today. All of that said, I think Bombadil makes a poor analogue for Michael. Gandalf or even Glorfindel would probably be a better choice. Last edited by Marlowe221; 12-21-2017 at 08:56 AM.

12-07-2017, 11:09 PM	#5
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	Andsigil Yes – the author points that the Michael ley line was not even 'discovered' in Tolkien's time. Rather she has focused on the ancient connections of St. Michael to Oxford that Tolkien likely knew about. My deductive reasoning concludes that the rest of your post is hardly worth the bother of replying to. Inziladun I believe the day in question is September 29th. Tolkien seems to have been groping for a plot early on. At what stage the 'quarter days' idea came to him is unknown – but it is not necessarily at outset. Zigûr, Inziladun, Pitchwife Our view of how the Archangel Michael physically looks have perhaps been tainted by Renaissance artists. I have a feeling that Tolkien's ideas would not have been in sync. We all know the angelic beings of TLotR – namely the Wizards – came in the form of old men. Nevertheless Tolkien described them as near enough to incarnate angels. Gandalf the Grey was portrayed himself as bent and aged – hardly epitomizing our stereo-typical angel. So I would not scoff at the idea of Bombadil being an 'angel' himself. The author of the article does point out at that appearances can be deceptive. Besides, astute scholars – such as Professor Gene Hargrove have proposed Tom is one of the Valar. Hargrove thinks he's Aule – while others have suggested Tulkas and even Manwe. Again such scholars – see beyond the physical and our own inner vision of what the supposed 'majestic' Valar ought to look like. Anyway Ms. Seth kicks the can down the road. At this point she is just considering the possibility of an allegorical affiliation of Tom to the Archangel without coming to a verdict. I think perhaps the point is being missed – in that Tom is from the essay's viewpoint, an ancestral being from which much of the folklore and fairy tales of the British Isles originates. Not that he is actually one of those mythical or biblical beings. If this hasn't registered maybe another more careful read is in order.

01-14-2018, 02:42 PM	#9
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	Huinesoron Outstanding post! Marlowe221 "I think it also worth pointing out that Tolkien rejected the notion of an allegorical interpretation of his work. Of course, he was referring to those who thought LoTR was an allegory for WWII." From an overall standpoint that certainly seems to be the case. "But given his stated dislike for allegory in all forms I'm not sure why that would apply any differently to an overtly religious interpretation of his books." There is considerable doubt about this. Particularly from the eminent Tom Shippey (see J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the 20th Century). Shippey diplomatically questions and refutes Tolkien assertion - especially in certain circumstances. I think it's long overdue that such a doubt spreads to the fan-base. "All of that said, I think Bombadil makes a poor analogue for Michael. Gandalf or even Glorfindel would probably be a better choice." The author quite rightly points out that very little is known about the Archangel. That is especially true when it comes to appearances. Our views of what the Archangel Michael looks like are probably tainted by medieval and renaissance art. In any case what we do know of Tolkien's mythology is that of the good guys, such beings of angelic origin veiled their majesty in M-e as they saw fit. Indeed the Istari do not come across at all as 'angelic' in appearance when not 'in-action'. If we set aside 'looks' Bombadil makes a better fit than either Gandalf or Glorfindel. Because: (a) It is Tom that is in action on St. Michael's Day (b) It is Tom that defeats a demonic spirit on this day (c) It is Tom who casts out the evil spirit from the land in an analogous manner to the devil being cast out from heaven (d) The spirit is told to depart to barren lands – in a analogy of the devil being cast into hell. (e) It is Tom that recalls the souls of the hobbits – in an analogy of Michael's apocryphal role as weigher and recaller of souls. (f) It is Tom's feet that is alluded to be on the foot of the devilish corpse-hand. Very simply put, Glorfindel or Gandalf simply do not accomplish what Bombadil does on September 29th. However I would like to hear the substance behind your reasoning.