Christ figures in Middle-Earth

[Beren]

I had this debate on another Tolkien board I go to:
There are many characters in LOTR and the Sil. who can be thought of as Christ figures:

-Gandalf
-Aragorn
-Frodo
-Earendil
-Finrod

and maybe more; my question is, what do you think Tolkien meant by including more than one Christ figure in his books?

[Hammersmith]

I personally see Christ figures only in Gandalf, and perhaps in Aragorn. It is, I think, possible to stretch the term to include all noble characters who accomplish incredible feats and win the day.

[Beren]

I personally see Christ figures only in Gandalf, and perhaps in Aragorn. It is, I think, possible to stretch the term to include all noble characters who accomplish incredible feats and win the day.

What about Earendil who sacrificed the ability to return to ME in order to reconcile the Valar with Elves and Men?

But the specific Christ figures aside, why do you think, in general, that Tolkien created more than one Christ figure?

[Hammersmith]

What about Earendil who sacrificed the ability to return to ME in order to reconcile the Valar with Elves and Men?

But the specific Christ figures aside, why do you think, in general, that Tolkien created more than one Christ figure?

As I said, I'm not convinced that he did. That's one way of looking at Earendil. Another would be to say that he was a glorified messenger boy whose only concern was the woman he loved. Sure that's a wee bit cynical, but it's as valid as your interpretation. I believe that Gandalf is Tolkien's Christ figure, and that any characteristics that would not have fit into Gandalf's character were put into Aragorn. The reasoning for this I would assume to be Tolkien's unwillingness to sacrifice the story (and its characters' intended personalities) for the sake of analogy. If indeed he did create other such Christ figures (I'm still not convinced), then they could easily hold other facets of the one personality which he was otherwise unwilling to force into one certain character. If you see what I mean.

[Beren]

As I said, I'm not convinced that he did. That's one way of looking at Earendil. Another would be to say that he was a glorified messenger boy whose only concern was the woman he loved. Sure that's a wee bit cynical, but it's as valid as your interpretation. I believe that Gandalf is Tolkien's Christ figure, and that any characteristics that would not have fit into Gandalf's character were put into Aragorn. The reasoning for this I would assume to be Tolkien's unwillingness to sacrifice the story (and its characters' intended personalities) for the sake of analogy. If indeed he did create other such Christ figures (I'm still not convinced), then they could easily hold other facets of the one personality which he was otherwise unwilling to force into one certain character. If you see what I mean. Well, that's a very interesting way of looking at it! So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Tolkien just "distributed" the Christ-like characteristics among a couple of characters so as not to muck up their individuality?
And, wow your view of Earendil is "cynical" as you put it. But if Earendil was only concerned about Elwing, why did he set foot in Aman at all? He could've just returned to ME with her and lived in hiding...

[Greenwood]

I really don't see that any of the characters mentioned are "Christ-like". The only one that, it seems to me, you can stretch into a Christ-like figure is Gandalf and that only because he was returned from the dead to finish his mission. Before your question of "what do you think Tolkien meant by including more than one Christ figure in his books" can be addressed, you have to prove that Tolkien included "more than one Christ figure in his books". Otherwise, the whole question is moot.

So, how do you believe the characters you have named, or any others, are Christ-like? Self-sacrifice alone does not make a character Christ-like, unless we are going to adopt a very narrow view of Christ. Despite his "back-from-the-dead" bit I don't see Gandalf as very Christ-like.

[Beren]

Before your question of "what do you think Tolkien meant by including more than one Christ figure in his books" can be addressed, you have to prove that Tolkien included "more than one Christ figure in his books". Otherwise, the whole question is moot.

Happy to oblige :)

Before I start expounding my POV, let me just say: when you compare Gandalf to Christ based upon the sole incident of his returning from the dead, you are also adopting a narrow view of Christ, as you're only considering one aspect of the mentioned character.
Anyway, here are some points:

-Aragorn: he was a prophesied king who didn't reveal himself until "his time had come." He had "the hands of a healer," just like Christ and he gave hope to people: it is said somewhere of Christ that His name will be the hope of all nations (I think that's what Gabriel tells St. Mary in the anunciation)

-Frodo: I can't prove to you that Frodo is a Christ-figure because we agreed not to use the "self-sacrifice" aspect.

-Eärendil: his deed reconciled the people of ME with the Valar and with Eru, just like Christ's crucifixion reconciled us with God.

-Finrod: he was a wise teacher and he loved Men and taught them many things.

Good enough?

[Greenwood]

when you compare Gandalf to Christ based upon the sole incident of his returning from the dead, you are also adopting a narrow view of Christ, as you're only considering one aspect of the mentioned character.My statement in no way implied a narrow view of Christ. I said the only Christ-like aspect I saw in Gandalf's character was that he was returned from the dead. You have not given any other aspects of Gandalf that you consider Christ-like.

As for your other choices:

Finrod: You can as easily call him Promethean since Prometheus was a friend and teacher to Men and suffered for it.

Eärendil: Sailing across the sea to beg for help and then be rewarded with a place in the heavens hardly seems akin to crucifixion. He ends up more as a cross between Venus and Mercury -- a messenger to the gods visible as the morning and evening star. And what he brought to Middle Earth was aid in war, not reconciliation through worship of himself or Eru.

Frodo: has already been dealt with.

Aragorn: Your best case, except that many non-Christian and pre-Christian mythologies (and we know Tolkien used some of these) have hidden kings, lost kings, saviour kings, healers, etc.

[Hammersmith]

I would say that Gandalf is a discipler of Frodo and the rest of the fellowship. He is sent to Middle Earth to bring the final defeat upon Sauron which incidentally includes his death and resurrection. He comes as an emissary of Eru, The One, an adequate character to play God in this instance. When he is resurrected, it is to a glorious form that is stronger than his prior incarnation in the world (Christ's resurrected body was glorious to the point that he insisted Mary did not touch him, that he was unrecognised at first by some, etc).


I'm not saying that it is a perfect analogy; in fact I am adamant that it is not. However, as a Christian writer engaged in penning a secular novel, Tolkien would have identified "goodness" or the apex of greatness with the highest figures available to him through his religion. We are seeing through Tolkien what he admires in his Christianity, superimposed on other characters (mainly I believe in Gandalf, but with incompatible qualities given to others, as I have surmised earlier). When someone writes, they put themselves, their ideologies into the characters. I doubt that Tolkien was any different. I do not think that he was trying to make a profound point by including these attributes in his characters. I think that the attributes reflected his own personal beliefs of perfection and goodness.

[HLGStrider]

I don't think there were any "intentional Christ figures" meaning I don't think Tolkien in any way, shape, or form wanted an allegorical link between a character and Christ, but I would say there are some similarities that you could draw from them, which I attribute mostly to Tolkien's own Christianity more than the characters themselves. As a Christian, Tolkien's ultimate idea of heroism, love, and goodness would have been Christ. Therefore, any heroism is by default Christlike in Tolkien's world. Therefore we do see some very Christ like characteristics, such as humility and self-sacrifice.

However, if anything, I think Frodo is an image of a human being going as far as he can without divine help, and failing in the end, despite his utmost goodness, self-sacrifice, and courage. In the end, Frodo fails. He isn't Christ. He can't take it to the end. He is corrupted. Only divine intervention saves him (Gollum combined with a fortunate mis-step). I think Tolkien said somewhere that no mortal, no being in fact, even Gandalf, would be strong enough to destroy the ring, no one could have suceeded, and it was all left up to a higher power in the end.

So the analogy only goes so far. I would say that Frodo is a Christ-like-human character, but in no way is he Christ.

A few slips do make Frodo a tempting character, most noteably the "Don't go where I can't follow" and the image of him as a light bearer or a clear vessel filled with light. I just think this symbolism came naturally to Tolkien. I don't think he put it in intentionally.

[Greenwood]

Hammersmith and Elgee,

I agree with both of you that as a devout Catholic, Tolkien's writings were influenced by his beliefs. He was not likely to write something that was in direct conflict with his profoundly held beliefs. However, Tolkien also said repeatedly that he disliked allegory and specifically said many times that LOTR was not allegorical. A look at the index in the volume of his collected letters will give many instances os his protestations about people trying to make his work into allegory. Letter 131 is one of those letters in which, not only does he specifcally say his stories are not allegorical, but he states what his goal was: "But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite." He goes on in this letter to say how he wanted to create an English myth or "legend" such as he found existed for other lands; "Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me) ..." He mentions the King Arthur legends but specifically discounts them as not fully English. He also discounts the Arthurian legends because: "For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion."

Given Tolkien's repeated statements of his dislike for allegory, his stated intention of creating an English myth, his discounting of the Arthurian legends as being not truly English, and more importantly, being "explicitly" Christian, I think it is simply wrong to then contend that Tolkien specifically populated his stories with "Christ-like" figures. Especially, when the same characteristics that are pointed to as being Christ-like can be found in non-Christian and pre-Christian myths and legends which Tolkien has specifically cited as influencing him.

Clearly as a devout Christian, Tolkien's beliefs influence his writings, but also clearly he went to great pains to avoid any direct religious references in LOTR and most of his other Middle Earth writings. Indeed, there is no sign of any organized religious beliefs in LOTR. Making various characters into "Christ-like" figures, merely imposes the reader's belief on the story.

And Elgee, you are absolutely right that Tolkien wrote that in the end, at the place of its forging in Mount Doom, no one could have resisted the power of the Ring, and he does not restrict that to mortals alone (Letter 246).

[Hammersmith]

Hammersmith and Elgee,

I agree with both of you that as a devout Catholic, Tolkien's writings were influenced by his beliefs. He was not likely to write something that was in direct conflict with his profoundly held beliefs. However, Tolkien also said repeatedly that he disliked allegory and specifically said many times that LOTR was not allegorical.
Which is why no Christ figure in his book is complete. I believe that taking any of his characters as pure allegory is dangerous, in that because he did not intend allegory, they are impossible to present as such. Yet rather than "direct conflict", his characters are in parallel with his beliefs, so much to the point that partial allegories can be found if you look hard enough.

[Greenwood]

... so much to the point that partial allegories can be found if you look hard enough.

One can find just about anything if one "looks hard enough", however, that does not mean it exists anywhere but in one's own looking. Tolkien repeatedly stated his dislike of allegory and his clear intent that LOTR was not allegorical. To state that "partial allegories can be found" is to disregard the author's repeated and clear statements and substitute one's own wishes. Of course, one can make many things in the story allegorical and then discuss them that way, but one has to recognize you are then merely using Tolkien's writings as a departure point to discuss these allegories. I do not say that that is not a valid discussion, or that it cannot be interesting and perhaps even fruitful in its own way, but we must recognize that we are not discussing Tolkien's intent, but ours. The question that started this thread was "what do you think Tolkien meant by including more than one Christ figure ... "? The question is meaningless if Tolkien did not intend to include any Christ figure as his own words tend :) to indicate.

I repeat that I do not see that any of the characters mentioned are specifically Christ-like, as opposed to Promeathean or other mythological figures that could be invoked. Further, contending that they are Christ-like goes against the author's stated intent, so how can the question of what did Tolkien mean by including more than one Christ-like figure be addressed. :confused:

[Hammersmith]

One can find just about anything if one "looks hard enough"
I walked into that :D
I'll repeat that these partial allegories seem convincing when compared with Tolkien's beliefs, more so when you realise that he may not have written them as allegories but rather as a reflection on his own thoughts and convictions.

[Greenwood]

I'll repeat that these partial allegories seem convincing when compared with Tolkien's beliefs, more so when you realise that he may not have written them as allegories but rather as a reflection on his own thoughts and convictions.

What it comes down to is a question of "intent". I would never argue that Tolkien's beliefs did not influence his writings. That I think is obvious and certainly his letters reflect that. Given the intensity of his beliefs I would argue that he would have had to make obvious, and very conscious efforts to write things that went against those beliefs. In some cases, I think that happened by accident. (More about that below.) But, I think there is considerable evidence that he struggled to avoid Middle Earth being a specifically Christian mythology (as I cited previously). And as I said earlier this thread was about Tolkien's intent.

To return to my point above that I think sometimes he accidentally went against his beliefs, I would point to his struggle with the origin and nature of orcs, something he struggled with until his death. For years Tolkien struggled with orcs: were they corrupted elves, men or creations of Morgoth? But Morgoth could not make an independent creation. Were they irredeemably evil? But he did not believe anything was created evil. If they were corrupted elves, were they immortal? We all know the debates that Tolkien fans still engage in, in large part because Tolkien never settled the questions in his own mind, in large part because some of the questions went against his personal beliefs.

[Hammersmith]

To return to my point above that I think sometimes he accidentally went against his beliefs, I would point to his struggle with the origin and nature of orcs, something he struggled with until his death.
Which is why it's an incomplete anallogy. Maybe even why he so strongly insisted that his story was not to be taken as an analogy; in case people became confused.

[Greenwood]

Which is why it's an incomplete anallogy. Maybe even why he so strongly insisted that his story was not to be taken as an analogy; in case people became confused.Are we talking about analogy or allegory? They are two very different things.

[HLGStrider]

However, Tolkien also said repeatedly that he disliked allegory and specifically said many times that LOTR was not allegorical.

Actually, I don't think a character being "Christ like" implies allegory. It can imply, as Hammersmith and I both suggested, emulation and admiration, either intentional or unintentional. I would go as far as to say that it is intentional in some cases.

There are a lot of Christ figures in literature and myth, some intentional, some unintentional. Dostoevsky's Mishkin and the prositute in Crime and Punishment. were I believe intentional but not allegorical.

The preacher JC in the Grapes of Wrath is both intentional and allegorical.

I'm sure everyone around here has heard of the book "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings." I've never read it, but I seriously considered writing an essay called "Finding God in Harry Potter" because there are some good moral lessons in parts of those books (I've only read three of them) . . . including Ron's sacrifice in the first one. That is a very Christian act, and I would bet millions that Rowling had no intention of making Ron Christ-like.

And there are some obvious paralels even if they were unintentional. You mention Tolkien was avoiding the Arthurian in these tales? Isn't Aragorn very Arthurian, however?

So I, as a Christian*, think looking for "Christ figures" is very vallid in these books. Looking for allegory is not. Looking for moral lessons is very vallid. Looking for parables is not. It's a fine line, but I think you have to understand Tolkien's Christianity to truly understand how his characters work, what his idea of noble and right is, why things end up the way they do.


*I add this qualifier not because I think these things are only in there if you are a Christian, but I think only a Christian would find it worthwhile to seek them out, because only a Christian would find any moral-instruction or spiritual-excitement from them.

[Hammersmith]

Are we talking about analogy or allegory? They are two very different things.
I was tired. I meant allegory :o

[Greenwood]

I was tired. I meant allegoryI thought it likely it was a typo, but since "incomplete analogy" would also have fit, I thought it best to get a clarification.

Actually, I don't think a character being "Christ like" implies allegory. It can imply, as Hammersmith and I both suggested, emulation and admiration, either intentional or unintentional. I would go as far as to say that it is intentional in some cases.We are talking the author's intent here, not the reader's. I think we need to go to a dictionary here:
admiration -- 1. a feeling of pleasure, approval, and often respect or wonder. 2. an object of such feelings: She was the admiration of all her friends. 3. the act of regarding with approval and pleasure.
emulation -- effort or desire to equal or excel others.
allegory -- the representation of spiritual, moral, or other abstract meanings through the actions of fictional characters that serve as symbols.

How can one have unintentional admiration? I am not quite sure how you meant to use emulation in this discussion, but once again it seems difficult to make emulation unintentional. Finally, I might be willing to consider the possibility that an author wrote a story that was unconsciously allegorical, however, that possibility becomes quite impossible when the author repeatedly makes it clear that they are aware of allegory, dislike allegory, and had no intention of making their work allegorical. In that case to insist on the story, or the characters, being allegorical is to call the author a liar or a fool. Something I am unwilling to do with Tolkien.

There are a lot of Christ figures in literature and myth, some intentional, some unintentional. Dostoevsky's Mishkin and the prositute in Crime and Punishment. were I believe intentional but not allegorical.Of course, there are lots of Christ-like figures in literature. I am at a loss to understand your reference to Dostoevsky's characters. He wrote them, so naturally they are intentional. What do you mean by they are intentional but not allegorical?

The preacher JC in the Grapes of Wrath is both intentional and allegorical.And with the initials JC, it isn't very subtle. :D

I seriously considered writing an essay called "Finding God in Harry Potter" because there are some good moral lessons in parts of those books (I've only read three of them) . . . including Ron's sacrifice in the first one. That is a very Christian act, and I would bet millions that Rowling had no intention of making Ron Christ-like.How do you know Rowling's intent? Can you point to any statements by her that are relevant? More importantly, are you contending that sacrifice (and I am assuming you mean self-sacrifice) is exclusively Christian? That is absurd!

You mention Tolkien was avoiding the Arthurian in these tales? Isn't Aragorn very Arthurian, however?That is not what Tolkien's quote says. In talking about the lack of any truly English myths, he said he did not consider the Arthurian legends truly English and he also objected to the inclusion of Christian religion in it: "For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion." -- Tolkien. This is clearly a reason why he would not include Christianity in his tale. It does not preclude him from using an Arthur-like character in the sense of a rightful king striving to claim his kingdom. This is not an exclusively Christian theme.

So I, as a Christian*, think looking for "Christ figures" is very vallid in these books. Looking for allegory is not. Looking for moral lessons is very vallid. Looking for parables is not. It's a fine line, but I think you have to understand Tolkien's Christianity to truly understand how his characters work, what his idea of noble and right is, why things end up the way they do.

*I add this qualifier not because I think these things are only in there if you are a Christian, but I think only a Christian would find it worthwhile to seek them out, because only a Christian would find any moral-instruction or spiritual-excitement from them.I fear we are veering dangerously close to religious discussion here which is now banned from this forum and properly belongs on the ProjectEvil.com forum. Of course, Tolkien's beliefs are important in understanding his writings and of course they influenced his writings. I have never denied that. The question remains one of intent. Did he intend LOTR to be specifcally Christian. His own statements indicate he did not.

However, I have to say that I find the apparent underlying assumptions of your agruments, particularly your final statement breath-takingly arrogant. You seem to be claiming all morality, all nobility, all spirituality, all ideas of self-sacrifice, for Christianity alone!

[Hammersmith]

However, I have to say that I find the apparent underlying assumptions of your agruments, particularly your final statement breath-takingly arrogant. You seem to be claiming all morality, all nobility, all spirituality, all ideas of self-sacrifice, for Christianity alone!
Greenwood, I think that she's claiming all morality, nobility, spirituality and self sacrifice in Lord of the Rings is Christian, or at least has a Christian foundation, due to the beliefs of the author. Is that such a radical claim to make?
My apologies if my assumption is wrong...

[HLGStrider]

You are mostly right, HS, though I am being even more specific than that. I really don't see what enjoyment a Hindu would get reading Lord of the Rings and saying, "Hey! Frodo does this and this and this and represents these Christlike characteristics!" It would be worthless for him. Why would he want to? Now, the Hindu may very well be interested in the ideas of nobility and honor in there, but what does he care if you can draw paralels between Frodo and a Christian god? If the paralels are intentional, and I have already stated the majority of them are not, then it might be interesting for him from a literary sense, just as it might be interesting for me to pick out where O Brother, Where Art Thou? paralels Homer. . .or was it Virgil? I am too far away from any book shelf to check today. However, we will all agree Tolkien did not intentionally make these things connect to each other.

And honestly, I think he seperated the Lord of the Rings from his religion because of his religion in some ways. I think he wanted to be careful not to set up some sort of bizarre "Church of Eru."


emulation -- effort or desire to equal or excel others.



Yes, I am using the wrong word. There is a similar word that means desire to immitate based on admiration. Let's say a person wants to write a political novel about a good politician and has always admired JFK so they write their politician resembling JFK but put him in different situations and for the better part of his personality make him a new character, just standing for similar things as JFK. Is this an allegory?

I also argue that you can do this unintentionally. When I was very young and just starting my writing career my first hero ended up an awful lot like the very handsome guy three grades up without me even trying. More subtly, I have been accused of ripping off Aragorn in a few of my works.

He wrote them, so naturally they are intentional. What do you mean by they are intentional but not allegorical?


I think the character intentionally resemble Christ. For a character to be allegorical, they would have to BE Christ within the context of the tale. Neither of those characters are. JC, on the other hand, is supposed to take the place of Christ in the context of GoW by offering himself up as a sacrifice for another character and being persecuted by a system that is corrupt and doesn't understand him.

Frodo resembles Christ in being figure sent on a huge mission that will probably kill him to save the world. He isn't Christ because in the end he fails and because he simply isn't Christ.

JC receives a sort of deification or at least spiritualization. Frodo never does. At the most he becomes a better Hobbit, but he is never super-hobbit.

More importantly, are you contending that sacrifice (and I am assuming you mean self-sacrifice) is exclusively Christian?

I am saying it is Christian. I wouldn't say exclusively. It's like 'Love thy neighbor' is Christian, but it is also found in other religions. However, a Christ like sacrifice is by default Christian.


This is clearly a reason why he would not include Christianity in his tale. It does not preclude him from using an Arthur-like character in the sense of a rightful king striving to claim his kingdom.



But would you say that Aragorn is intentionally Arthurian?


I fear we are veering dangerously close to religious discussion here which is now banned from this forum and properly belongs on the ProjectEvil.com forum.



Unless the administrators have changed the rules since the last ban, religion and politics are still allowed in the context of Tolkien (Did you know there are actually Tolkien political discussions?). It would be ridiculous to do otherwise, I think. There are just too many religious discussions that come out of Tolkien's work.

I agree the "intent" question is pretty much decided. However, I still think you can have an interesting literary discussion of the paralels.

[Thorondor_]

Perhaps this will help the discussion:

Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees
Letter 181 of J.R.R. Tolkien

[Greenwood]

Greenwood, I think that she's claiming all morality, nobility, spirituality and self sacrifice in Lord of the Rings is Christian, or at least has a Christian foundation, due to the beliefs of the author. Is that such a radical claim to make?YES! Given Tolkien's statements about his intent when writing LOTR, especially given his many other statements of other countries/cultures influences on his work. I point especially to Finnish and the Finnish saga Kalevala which in several letters he calls the "germ" of The Silmarillion. Tolkien also refers to the Icelandic sagas as influences. Given Tolkien's comments, one could make a perhaps stronger claim that "all morality, nobility, spirituality and self sacrifice in Lord of the Rings is Finnish, or at least has a Finnish foundation". I would find such a claim about as silly as it all being Christian.

I could also point to the far greater similarity of Manwe,the various Ainu and Maia, Valinor, etc. to Greek legends of Zeus and Mt. Olympus, or Nordic legends of Thor and Valhalla, than to anything in Christianity. Tolkien was a classical scholar and was certainly well acquainted with all these legends. Do you think it reasonable to contend none of these influenced him? Would you find a claim that "all morality, nobility, spirituality and self sacrifice in Lord of the Rings is Greek (or Nordic), or at least has a Greek (or Nordic) foundation" reasonable. The Greek legends predate Christianity, therefore they even have the strength of priority on their side.

[Added in edit: HLGStrider's response was posted while I was off composing my response to Hammersmith. I will have to take some time to read her post before I can respond.]

[HLGStrider]

Well, actually, I'd leave the ALL out of it, but I would say the morality is more influenced by Christianity than Finnish myths while the story and characters are more influenced by Finnish myths than Christianity.


If you think that the Valar have any bearing on this argument, you are missing my point. I am saying that characters like Frodo are Christ like, not that the mythological setting is Christian. I say this is due to Tolkien's own faith, his own idea of right and wrong. For instance, I would point out that revenge killing is less acceptible in Middle Earth than in most of the Norse legends I have read.

Tolkien drew off many sources. I already pointed out Arthur. I would say, however, that some of them he was less interested in exposing or willing to admit. Arthur is apparently one of these. I think his religion was another, otherwise he would not conclude that it was a "Christian and Catholic work" which I believe he did somewhere.

[Alatar]

I do not think that tolkein delibertly tried to make christ figures. Thogh as some caracters have christ like qualities, i think it is safe to asume that a devout christian, may, when writing caracters he admired , slip in some christ persoallity traits, as simply he thought these traits were noble,wise and heroic, and so, when writing about some noble,wise or heroic caracters used thoses traits.

Ps This is just a comment i thought when arthur and aragorn came to mind, Merlin useally dressed in blue, and a blue wizzard who never returned to his home some 6ages ago. Tolkein linking in to our myths again?

[Greenwood]

Well, actually, I'd leave the ALL out of it, but I would say the morality is more influenced by Christianity than Finnish myths while the story and characters are more influenced by Finnish myths than Christianity. Well, taking the ALL out of the earlier statement does remove a large chunk of my objection. As I have said many times, I do not deny that Tolkien's religious faith (which was Christian, and specifically Catholic) influenced his writings. What I dispute is that he meant for the LOTR to be specifically Christian, or that his Christianity was the only influence on his work.

I am saying that characters like Frodo are Christ like, not that the mythological setting is Christian. I say this is due to Tolkien's own faith, his own idea of right and wrong.You said:Frodo resembles Christ in being figure sent on a huge mission that will probably kill him to save the world.But, I would still point out that stories of heroic missions/quests, sometimes at great self-sacrifice are not uniquely Christian and Tolkien as a classical scholar was certainly well acquainted with many of them.

Tolkien drew off many sources. I already pointed out Arthur. I would say, however, that some of them he was less interested in exposing or willing to admit. Arthur is apparently one of these.You seem to be accusing Tolkien of being less than honest in his statements about his intent in writing LOTR.

I think his religion was another, otherwise he would not conclude that it was a "Christian and Catholic work" which I believe he did somewhere.Yes, I am aware of letter 142 in his collected letters (written to a Jesuit priest friend), but I am also aware of the many statements Tolkien made privately and publicly that do not fully support that letter. And, as I have said, repeatedly, I do not deny the influence of Tolkien's faith on his writings, which in my view is all he is really saying in letter 142.

[Hammersmith]

Well, taking the ALL out of the earlier statement does remove a large chunk of my objection. As I have said many times, I do not deny that Tolkien's religious faith (which was Christian, and specifically Catholic) influenced his writings. What I dispute is that he meant for the LOTR to be specifically Christian, or that his Christianity was the only influence on his work.
I didn't say that. Or did I?
Oh, pants, I think I may have. I think that I was mainly suggesting that much of it or some of it had a Christian foundation, rather than a Christian message. That could be similar to your saying that he had a Christian influence. As to the last, yes, I too would dispute that he meant for LOTR to be specifically Christian, or that his Chirstianity was the only influence on his work.

[HLGStrider]

But, I would still point out that stories of heroic missions/quests, sometimes at great self-sacrifice are not uniquely Christian and Tolkien as a classical scholar was certainly well acquainted with many of them.


I would say, however, that the Christian story is the one he would have been best aquainted with and would admire the most. There are many, many such quests, but there are many, many other sorts of stories in mythology. He could have just as easily written a tragic love tale. I would say his Christianity drew him to the tale, helped shape it, and made it what it was.

You seem to be accusing Tolkien of being less than honest in his statements about his intent in writing LOTR.

Well, I would say it wasn't intentional in the writing, but if we are going to go with how it ended up, I'm going to go with the statement that it did end up with enough influence that it is worthy of discussion.

Occasionally I like to wonder if he did somethings on purpose. I mean, why the heck did Sam pull out that, "Don't go where I can't follow" line? Mostly, I think it was just his morals working on the work.

[Greenwood]

I think that I was mainly suggesting that much of it or some of it had a Christian foundation, rather than a Christian message. That could be similar to your saying that he had a Christian influence. As to the last, yes, I too would dispute that he meant for LOTR to be specifically Christian, or that his Chirstianity was the only influence on his work.I think we are pretty much in agreement. :)

[Hammersmith]

I think we are pretty much in agreement. :)
*Sighs in relief* :D
You construct good arguments, Greenwood. Compelling and intelligent. You too, Elgee. I enjoyed this debate immensely. Now let's find some other aspect of the question to unravel!

[HLGStrider]

Agreement is always a pleasant place to be in (thought not always as interesting. . .;).)
If we do find another "route to explore" I'd suggest taking it to a fresh thread. Keeps things neater that way;).

[Greenwood]

Hammersmith,

Thank you for the kind words. :o

[starcrystal]

I always say Gandalf more than any others. He has the power given to him by Iluvatar, he descends to the lower parts of the earth to slay the balrog, and he leads the people to victory against Sauron (Although we can credit Aragorn, Frodo, and others with this as well - Gandalf did play a major role.)
While he is not crucified or killed, he is almost killed by the Witch King but the Witch King is diverted at the last moment and is slain by Eowyn.

While I look at Gandalf as a Christ figure I do not perceive him as "The" Christ of LOTR. He is more like Moses with his staff and great powers to deliver the people.

[Daranavo]

I do not consider Gandalf a Christian figure for several reasons. He did not share his knowledge and beliefs freely to anyone. He keeps others at a distance and leads them in a very need to know basis. He lived much of his days in solitude and not among others. He possessed no family or close relationship with anyone.

[Thorondor_]

I do not consider Gandalf a Christian figure for several reasons
I think that your statement is in tune with what Tolkien said in letter 181 ("the Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees"); though, at least to me as a reader, he is the saviour figure in Tolkien's universe.
He did not share his knowledge and beliefs freely to anyone
Well, perhaps his mission forbade him to do so. ("their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power" - UT, "The istari")
He lived much of his days in solitude and not among others
Hm, I am not so sure; Imo, he interacted alot with others and I think he stayed true to the words of Cirdan when he received the ring - "to rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that grows chill".

[Walter]

An interesting thread...

One thing I have been missing throughout the debate was: none seems to have bothered to ask: What exactly is a "Christ-figure" or a "Christ-like-figure"?

Greenwood was the only one who came close to asking it...

Christos means anointed - or the anointed one - and I'm not sure that this applies for any character in Tolkien's legendarium.

And except for the fact that one of the world's largest religions has been founded under this synonym - which also doesn't apply for Tolkien's legendarium - there's not much which can be considered unique to Christos or the person to which this term is usually applied.

Thus - IMO - usage of the term "Christ-figure" without further explanation, begs a question for clarification or else part of the discussion may be based on - maybe unwarranted - assumptions...

[Noldor_returned]

I think you're all missing who really is Tolkien's Christ figure. In the Bible, God created all things, including all of his children. In the Bible, Satan rebels against God and performs many evil deeds. There is only one character who fits: Eru Illuvatar. He created Middle- Earth and his children, the Valar, Maiar, elves etc. Morgoth is one of the Valar, and he rebels against Eru. Therefore Tolkien's Christ figure is Eru Illuvatar.

In terms of who is most like to Jesus, the answer is Gandalf. Just like Jesus, he was sent to Middle-Earth to help mankind and 'save' them.

[Barliman Butterbur]

... my question is, what do you think Tolkien meant by including more than one Christ figure in his books?

I never thought he did; just Gandalf, and even that falls far short of a one-to-one comparison between he and Jesus. If I remember rightly, I believe that Tolkien was for some reason or reasons dissatisfied with his whole treatment of Gandalf's "resurrection," and wished he'd never written it in. But the details escape me.

Gothmog, are you ready to ride to the rescue on this one? :)

Barley

[Gothmog]

Tolkien did not write the LotR as a 'Christian Allegory' but as a 'Pre-Christian Myth'. The Christ of the Bible (if he were ever to appear in ME) was something for the distant future.

The story is compatible with Christian beliefs of good and evil and many points of aplicability can be seen. However, Tolkien believed that the overt inclusion of the Christian Religion in Mythology was to ruin the Myth.

So there are No 'Christ-Figures' in the LotR though there are many that show 'christ-like' virtues, some more than others. Just as in the 'real world' many people can be found that have these virtues in greater or lesser extent.

It is not a case of Tolkien 'Writing Christ-figures in to the books' but of readers 'Reading them there'. Or as Tolkien would have it. It is not Allegory but Applicability.

[Maerbenn]

I think that the clearest Christ-figure is in ‘Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth’ published in HoMe X: Morgoth’s Ring. According to Andreth, those of the ‘Old Hope’ say that “the One will himself enter into Arda, and heal Men and all the Marring from the beginning to the end.”

[Hammersmith]

Tolkien did not write the LotR as a 'Christian Allegory' but as a 'Pre-Christian Myth'. The Christ of the Bible (if he were ever to appear in ME) was something for the distant future.

The story is compatible with Christian beliefs of good and evil and many points of aplicability can be seen. However, Tolkien believed that the overt inclusion of the Christian Religion in Mythology was to ruin the Myth.

So there are No 'Christ-Figures' in the LotR though there are many that show 'christ-like' virtues, some more than others. Just as in the 'real world' many people can be found that have these virtues in greater or lesser extent.

It is not a case of Tolkien 'Writing Christ-figures in to the books' but of readers 'Reading them there'. Or as Tolkien would have it. It is not Allegory but Applicability.
I think we're going in circles here. I've already said that as a Christian, Tolkien would have had clear ideas as to what made up an exemplary character or a perfect hero, elements of which are strewn throughout his ensemble of goodies and extremely similar (though never identical) to Christ.

@Maerbenn - Show off! :p

[Gothmog]

Hammersmith, if you read the post by Barly immediately before mine, you can see that my post is in direct answer to his. Perhaps I should have made this more clear. :)

[Hammersmith]

Hammersmith, if you read the post by Barly immediately before mine, you can see that my post is in direct answer to his. Perhaps I should have made this more clear. :)
I figured that may have been the case, but I can never resist shouting my own opinion :o

Did you have any letter quotes referring to Tolkien's dislike of the Gandalf resurrection?

[Thorondor_]

I think the way in which Gandalf's return is presented is a defect, and one other critic, as much under the spell as yourself, curiously used the same expression: 'cheating'. That is partly due to the ever-present compulsions of narrative technique. He must return at that point, and such explanations of his survival as are explicitly set out must be given there - but the narrative is urgent, and must not be held up for elaborate discussions involving the whole 'mythological' setting. It is a little impeded even so, though I have severely cut G's account of himself. I might perhaps have made more clear the later remarks in Vol. II (and Vol. III) which refer to or are made by Gandalf, but I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms

I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind; it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend
I don't think that Tolkien dislikes the resurrection of Gandalf (only the presentation of it he admits is a defect).

[Gothmog]

I figured that may have been the case, but I can never resist shouting my own opinion :o

Did you have any letter quotes referring to Tolkien's dislike of the Gandalf resurrection?
Don't worry about it. I have a similar problem :D

Thorondor_ beat me to the quote. I agree with him that it was the presentation that Tolkien disliked not the resurrection itself. :)

[Walter]

I think we're going in circles here. I've already said that as a Christian, Tolkien would have had clear ideas as to what made up an exemplary character or a perfect hero, elements of which are strewn throughout his ensemble of goodies and extremely similar (though never identical) to Christ.
Very well put, I like the terms exemplary character or perfect hero much better than the reference to Christ. The Christ we encounter in John is a different one, than in the synoptical gospels, both are different from the descriptions of Christ we find in non-canonical scripture. Also death and resurrection is a common motif in myths, from the first agricultural societies originating probably from the neolithicum up to the Christian tradition...

God- and hero-figures in myths are quite often inseparably entwined in real - tradited - myths as well as in Tolkien's - invented - myths, and that we can detect traces of Tolkien's sources and influences in his myths, should be no surprise at all...

[Barliman Butterbur]

I don't think that Tolkien dislikes the resurrection of Gandalf (only the presentation of it he admits is a defect).

Aha! Letter #156! That's what I'd seen, thanks! :)

Barley