![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 |
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?! ![]() 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 ( ![]() 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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |