April 14, 2002

The Eldest, Allegory and Disciples
Everett V.

Regarding who is older, Bombadil or the Ents, I would have to come down on the side of Bombadil being older. I have no conclusive evidence to support my position, but I can construct a reasonable argument in defense of it based on events in /The Silmarillion/ (For those of you haven't read it, bear with me.).

When one reads /The Silmarillion/, one sees described the origins of the various races of Middle Earth (Eldar (Elves), Edain(Men), Orcs, Dwarves, etc.). The origins of the Ents is relayed after the Vala Aule creates the dwarves (After they were created, they were put to sleep in stone by Eru until after the Eldar awoke.). The Vala Yavanna, who brought the forests of Middle Earth into existence, found out about the creation of the Dwarves (She is Aule's wife.) and was distressed because the Dwarves would be cutting down the trees she had made. In her distress, she appealed to Manwe Sulimo, Lord of the Valar, to do something to protect her trees because the could not defend themselves. Manwe, seeing her distress, allowed tree-shepherds to protect the trees, the Ents.

There is no such description regarding the origins of Bombadil in any story that I have read. This was most likely an oversight on Tolkien's part, or possibly that of his son, Christopher, who actually edited and compiled /The Silmarillion/, but the way it plays out in the history of Middle Earth is that Bombadil is a being of unknown origin, if indeed he has an origin.

It has been put forth by some that Bombadil is actually Eru, but I find this difficult to believe because if he were, one would think that he would be able to destroy the Ring and dfeat Sauron on his own, even if Sauron had the Ring.

Regarding the presence of any meaning within /TheLord of the Rings/, I would like to quote Tolkien's Foreward to the Second Edition: "As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical or topical." That is not to say that Tolkien did not draw on experiences from his past or principles and philosophy in writing /The Lord of the Rings/. Instead, he used them to build a story, not use the story to comment upon mankind. Consequently, if one can draw some principle or fact of nature out of /The Lord of the Rings/, fine. Just don't say that Tolkien meant to put it in there as a comment upon some matter or other, even though it may be applicable to something important.

Finally, it is a stretch to compare Sam to St. Peter, especially in light of Peter's actions during the Passion of Christ. After all, it was Peter who denied Jesus three times after saying he wouldn't. If Sam is going to be compared with Biblical figures, one would him to be a combination of St. John, St. Thomas and Simon of Cyrene. St. John, of course, was the only one of Jesus disciples to be present when Christ was crucified. St. Thomas, when Jesus was going to go Bethany in Judea, said "Let us also go to die with him." Simon of Cyrene was the man who helped Jesus carry the Cross. John, being the beloved Disciple and staying with Jesus to the end; St. Thomas, being willing to die with him; and Simon of Cyrene, helping Jesus bear his burden, fairly well, though not entirely describe Sam Gamgee.