April 19, 2002

Who is Tom Bombadil?
Quirk

My first reaction to Tom Bombadil was that he was a sort of incarnate God. Not so much Middle Earth's direct equivalent of Jesus Christ--there is no talk of him being a Messiah, etc.--but maybe something roughly akin to the idea of an incarnate God? Maybe a mixture of the Bible's incarnate God, mysticisms unknowns and Deism's only partially interested God. I don't know, read on...

In support of this argument I would offer the following:

1. Tolkien was at least somewhat Catholic--at least professing, correct? And his Catholic views can be seen mixed here and there into LOTR.
2. Some of Tom's traits are easily explained by this--his not being affected by the ring, for example.
3. The "first and last" comment is similar to a Biblical reference to Christ--that he is the "first and the last" the "alpha and the omega."

As for some of the obvious problems with this view--Jesus didn't have a wife. True, but then (1) I'm not claiming a direct correspondance between Tom and Jesus; and (2) perhaps his wife represents, as some have suggested, some sort of personification of a sort of "Mother Nature."

Tom's alleged forgetfullness or disinterestedness would not fit well with Jesus as his model--the Biblical creator, incarnate or otherwise, is seen to be wholly other than forgetful and quite interested in creation, thus his incarnation (a disinterested God would not bother incarnating).

I'm not familiar enough with Tolkien's theology, but pehaps he was a bit Deistic, and this is what we are seeing illustrated in Tom's character?

Finally, perhaps Tolkien's "theological views," at least in LOTR, are a mix between mysticism, Catholicism and Deism. This would explain a lot about LOTR:

Catholicism: Tolkien's notion of "right and wrong" is not very relativistic, it is more "black and white." This is at least "Western" or "Judeo-Christian," if not specifically "Catholic." (Compare this to the world-views in Star Wars, for example, where good and evil are two sides of one and the same force.) Tolkien's concept of sin and man's inability to fight it (demonstrated in the ring's power to corrupt even those who are well-intentions). The notion that there is a "chosen" group of people who are able to fight these urges, and that this group of people, relative to all othres in Middle Earth, are the Hobbits, simple people.

Mysticism: Tolkien gets a bit more "eastern" in his thoughts as he allows both good and bad characters to utilize magic. I've only read the trilogy + the Hobbit, so forgive me if I'm not thorough here, but it seems he does not give an explanation of Gandalf's magic, who is good--while it seems he is of the same "order" as Sauruman, who is evil. Say what you will about western v. eastern religion, but good and evil drawing from the same source is much more Eastern than Western. The degrees of "wizardy" might not be un-Masonic, I don't really know.

Deism: it would seem hard to deny that there is some sort of God in LOTR, though what the nature of this God is is left undefined, and is not even directly spoken of. The world just makes more sense with it. This leads me to posit a sort of distant or distinterested God, as in Deism.

Maybe Tolkien liked certain elements of his Catholicism--the stability it seemed to offer, it's unchanging God, etc., yet perhaps he found it too constricting, thus the Deistic element--a distant God does not so much interfere, except to keep really important things on course--things like those happening in LOTR, while leaving most day to day things unbothered. As for the mystical element, well, Catholicism is pretty mystical anyway--just look at the mass, transubstantiation, etc.

Does anyone know if this is an accurate representation of his actual theological views?