Frodo, Gollum, Bilbo, and Leviticus 16

[banakil]

In the scapegoat story there are 2 goats: one cast into the wilderness to perish, and one that stays in the temple.

The fates of Frodo and Gollum are inextricably bound, and so together they represent one scapegoat. Bilbo is the other goat, the one receives the favorable lot.

Like Leviticus 16, the priest casts upon the head of the scapegoat (around Frodo's neck) the sin of the nation (the Ring), and then a designated man (Aragorn) brings the scapegoat (Frodo with Gollum) into the wilderness (toward Mordor) to a high cliff (Mt. Doom) to perish. But in a scapegoat twist provided by Tolkien, it is Gollum that perishes with the sin, not Frodo.

Technically in Leviticus 16 it didn't explain the scapegoat's death, so there is room for Tolkien's twist.

Meanwhile, Bilbo is the goat who received the favorable lot to enter the temple/mountain of treasure guarded by the dragon, and later (Lord of the Rings) Bilbo stays in Rivendell while Frodo goes into the wilderness.

In interviews, Tolkien highlighted that his dwarves were similar to Jews. The dragon in Bilbo's story (the Hobbit) represents Satan.

Frodo has a sacrifice and redemption theme. Frodo goes to sacrifice his own life as an offering, in order to stop the incessant killings from Mordor. How does Frodo's choice to sacrifice his life create anything other than death? The answer may be that life and death are made from the same foundational substance: probability. Remember the casting of lots. Miraculously, the Lord saves even a portion of the scapegoat!

When a lot is cast, it has two sides.

Frodo is the likeable side of the scapegoat, and Gollum is the unlikeable side. Together they fulfill one purpose. In Leviticus translated into English, the scapegoat is called a "buck", but in the original Hebrew that word is pronounced "Shire" שעיר

Tolkien knew this language of original Hebrew. He had studied Leviticus 16. Whether he knew about these parallelisms or not, who can say? I'm not advocating for allegory, of course, but the parallels I think are worth noting.

In Frodo's family tree, he is a Brandybuck.

There are many wordplays in Leviticus 16. Some examples:

Leviticus 16:2 (priest enters the temple alone to find the "ark"); Hobbit (Bilbo enters lone mountain to find "arkenstone")

Leviticus 16:3 (bifur); Hobbit (dwarf named bifur)

Leviticus 16:14 (blood on finger); LOTR (ring on finger)

Leviticus 16:21 (aiunth); Silmarillions (ainur)

Tolkien's word for ring (written in the black speech of Tengwar) was nazg. That puts the Hebrew word for goat (az) right in the middle.

Indeed, the Hebrew word for scapegoat is like saying goat twice: azazel, which just so happens to be the same name as the leader of the fallen angels.

In Leviticus, the priest is Aaron who puts the sin on the head of the scapegoat. In LOTR, it is Elrond who puts the ring on Frodo.

The entire purpose of the scapegoat is this Hebrew word: כפר. It has a dual meaning: deny/atone.

It is the same word used in the gospel, where Peter denies the Messiah three times, and therefore he must atone three times (John 21).

The Frodo/Gollum duality fulfill this purpose: Frodo atones while Gollum denies.

It is in the death of denial (כפר) that we learn to atone (כפר).

Gollum is to Frodo
as
Boromir is to Aragorn
as
Saruman is to Gandalf
as
Melkor is to Manwe
as
Sauron is to Aule

In each duality, the destruction of the dark side proves the valor of the light. This is the duality of כפר ("deny/atone").

There is so much to discover and think about. Consider the duality between Sauron and Aule. Sauron was 2nd in command after Melkor, just like Aule was 2nd in command (in a sense) after Manwe. Sauron was known for his handicraft (especially making the rings) and teaching the elves. Aule also was known for his handicraft and teaching the dwarves.

In an interview, Tolkien likened the ring to "the machine" in the general sense. Modern Jews (in particular the kabbalists) liken their spiritual power to technology -- they literally call it "internal technology".

And here we are on the cusp of transhumanism, a time where Tolkien has never been more relevant. It's like Orwell or Huxley. They wrote decades ago for times such as these.

The day of כפר (Yom Kippur) is considered the holiest day of the year in the bible. In Leviticus it was the one day that the head priest (Aaron) was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle (a 15 foot cube room). Anyone else would die.

Remember when Elrond and Isildur entered Mt. Doom together. Isildur ended up dead (days later when the Ring slipped from his finger), but Elrond lived.

Mt. Doom is a picture of the corrupted temple. When Arda was first formed, Mt. Doom was likely beautiful and lush, probably with a name that preceded even Orodruin. But in later days, Mt. Doom was corrupted by the enemy. In the Hebrew bible, there are many passages that refer to the darkness that transpired in the temple. See e.g. Ezekiel.

Later, Sam and Frodo, followed by Gollum, enter Mt. Doom. Like priests themselves (remember they were commissioned by Elrond), the final test of faith is manifested, and Gollum falls.

Samwise fulfilled his duty to his friend, even carrying him up the mountain in the end. Frodo got as far as he could, he did the best he could. If Frodo had the inherent power to accomplish the mission without his darker side Gollum, it would have undermined the essential role of God (only God saves).

The journey of Frodo and Sam resonates with us today because we see in the story the essentialness of faith, and the works that result from faith. Each character was faithful to something, and the Lord over all worked it to good, and Aragorn was crowned king to begin the fourth age.

To my mind, the parallel for Yahshua (Jesus) is clearly Aragorn. Born a man (but with eternal blood of elves in his deep lineage) and rightful heir to the kingdom. Born into a fallen world that does not recognize him. Lives as Strider among sinners. Fulfils a great mission, casting out demons, healing people, and protecting his people though they know it not fully. With his great sword he enters the mountain of death and preaches to the dead. Alights from the mountain alive, commanding the dead, and defeats the enemy in battle to regain the great city. In his final test of faith, he storms the black gate and is victorious. He is crowned king and his bride is eternal.

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

I appreciate your thoughts and find the Hebrew connection very interesting. I do not doubt the linguistic connections; Tolkien is all about them!

However, I wonder if it is dangerous to say so-and-so is ____. I fear we would be mixing fantasy into truth. I think it would be safer to say one character is representing something/someone but is NOT the actual person the character "represents". For example, I would especially not say Aragorn or anyone save Eru/Eru's Son (who does not appear) is Jesus. I think it is safer to say Tolkien set up Isildur and Aragorn to be representations: one who failed and one who did not, a reflection of the First Adam and the Second Adam. Countless other connections can be made.

Tolkien's legendarium in itself is a story of redemption and sacrifice. It is undeniably in many ways very similar to the Bible, but it is not the same. Many analogies can be derived from the text, but we must be careful to not make it become the Truth itself. Tolkien certainly "labored over every word". I would even say he was inspired by God to write what he did. But Tolkien's work is not God's Word, and we must be careful how much we hold a torch to anything other than Scripture.

 

[banakil]

I appreciate your thoughts and find the Hebrew connection very interesting. I do not doubt the linguistic connections; Tolkien is all about them!

However, I wonder if it is dangerous to say so-and-so is ____. I fear we would be mixing fantasy into truth. I think it would be safer to say one character is representing something/someone but is NOT the actual person the character "represents". For example, I would especially not say Aragorn or anyone save Eru/Eru's Son (who does not appear) is Jesus. I think it is safer to say Tolkien set up Isildur and Aragorn to be representations: one who failed and one who did not, a reflection of the First Adam and the Second Adam. Countless other connections can be made.

Tolkien's legendarium in itself is a story of redemption and sacrifice. It is undeniably in many ways very similar to the Bible, but it is not the same. Many analogies can be derived from the text, but we must be careful to not make it become the Truth itself. Tolkien certainly "labored over every word". I would even say he was inspired by God to write what he did. But Tolkien's work is not God's Word, and we must be careful how much we hold a torch to anything other than Scripture.

100%

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Some interesting parallels, though some appear in other traditions and cultures -- the scapegoat, for example, the pharmakos, goes far back in Greece, and forward into myth, ritual, and literature, and is still with us today.

Some seem a stretch; Bifor's name, for instance, like those if the other Dwarf companions of Bilbo's, comes, as Tolkien said, out of a list in the Völuspá. Likewise, "Arkenstone" is related to words in Old English and Old Norse.

we must be careful how much we hold a torch to anything other than Scripture.

I'm unsure what's meant here; I don't guess you're suggesting burning anything. 😄

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

I'm unsure what's meant here; I don't guess you're suggesting burning anything. 😄

Aha, nay. I simply coined an expression signifying we should be cautious in how much veracity we give to other writings; "holding a torch to" meaning how we study other books in analyzing for truth.

 

[banakil]

Some interesting parallels, though some appear in other traditions and cultures -- the scapegoat, for example, the pharmakos, goes far back in Greece, and forward into myth, ritual, and literature, and is still with us today.

Some seem a stretch; Bifor's name, for instance, like those if the other Dwarf companions of Bilbo's, comes, as Tolkien said, out of a list in the Völuspá. Likewise, "Arkenstone" is related to words on Old English and Old Norse.

I hear you, I did think the Bifor reference in Leviticus was a pretty funny coincidence, but yeah the appearance of similar sounding words (especially when considered in isolation) is not meant to be offered in any scholarly sense. It just works like a trail marker to the mind of the casual reader, 'perhaps there are parallels here to explore?'

The history of scapegoats is the study of bizarre ways that scapegoating creates social order.

In this particular application, after the scapegoat Gollum was cast into Mt. Doom, social order was restored.

There is one biblical character that parallels Bilbo in my mind... Lazarus. I'm going to try to follow Glorfindel's caution though and say this right... To my mind as a reader, I am setting up Bilbo to be a representation of Lazarus. Countless other connections can be made.

Companion of dwarves (Jews), even knows the head dwarf. Went to certain death inside the Lonely Mountain but came out alive holding the greatest treasure of the dwarves, and also another treasure (Sauron's ring), while a son of man (Bard of Dale) slayed the dragon that would have surely devoured Bilbo. Bilbo's relatives presumed he was dead, until he showed up alive. Sauron and company learn of Bilbo and desire to find and kill him, but Bilbo left his home for Rivendell. Author of "There and Back Again".

Lazarus went into the mountain but was resurrected. He was probably the author of the fourth gospel (he's at least always been the runner-up choice, because of the statement in John 21 regarding the gospel author "a rumor went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die” - that only makes sense applied to Lazarus because he had already died once). If Lazarus is the author of the fourth gospel, then it was Lazarus with Mary at the cross who received the Messiah's words, "Woman, behold your son. Behold your mother." This language was literally in Hebrew law the same language used to convey inheritance (last will and testament). The greatest treasure of the Jews was their assembly/synagogue/temple/priesthood. If so, Yahshua appointed Lazarus the new head priest, in a sense. Or the first bishop if you prefer.

Application to Bilbo...as ring bearer, Bilbo was hunted down by Sauron. If Lazarus was being hunted by the ruling class who wanted to kill him (as the gospel states) and Lazarus fled Jerusalem, would he change his name (i.e., to John)? Was the name Baggins safe everywhere?

And to my mind Boromir is a parallel representation of Judas. In the original language, Judas was called Yehuda. Like an apostle (sent on a mission), Boromir was chosen to be in the small company of Aragorn (Yahshua in this parallel). Boromir's family (Yehuda) held stewardship over Gondor (Israel). Boromir wanted to seize the ring (Judas held the purse, and sold out in the end for 30 pieces of silver), and though Boromir repented (as Judas did) he still died cruelly by wooden arrows (Judas suicide on a tree).

Faramir, the brother of Boromir (Yehuda), valiantly accepted Aragorn (Yahshua typology in a limited sense) as the rightful king of Gondor. Faramir's father Denethor (representing the greater tribe ruling Yehuda) rejected Aragorn as king. This would make Denethor like Herod in the thought experiment.

 

[Ent]

Ah, my dear @greg glaser, I find your musings quite interesting and am thankful you have shared them. Very nice food for thought.

I've recently laid into my library, and am working through, 16 different books related to authors' probings into Tolkien's 'intents' and 'extractions' from Biblical sources into his work. And of course, I have done some of that myself in some cases, such as with Ungoliant and what she represents, where in my opinion the comparison is very clear.

And it's true Tolkien said while he does not prefer or like any 'overt' reference to Christianity in fantasies and mythologies, he also said Myth and Fairy-story 'must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit." Religion MUST be in any such work.

However, I find most (dare I say all?) the authors I'm working through extend Tolkien far beyond what I feel Tolkien's own intent, extraction, comparison and delivery to have been. I also feel they misunderstand what he meant by 'contain in solution elements.' They take it into their own territory - what they'd personally like to see or find within his work...moving it into the very territory he considered 'a fatal mistake.'

At the end of the day, I believe Tolkien's intents were far more basic... simplistic... fundamental... and as I prepare materials for my book I'm finding the greatest difficulty to be the elimination of what I might read into the text or want to extract from it, vs. what Tolkien has actually included in the text. (Letter 131 to Waldman contains some hints of the extents and limitations he drew for himself, if we read between the lines, and consider the 'elements' he was working to incorporate. Letter 269 to Auden also contains a statement of import.)

His intent was to write a Mythology for the People. And while your musings are certainly 'deeper' and not 'overt' references, I myself must question whether Tolkien would have looked that deeply or sought to dive that deeply, in many of the cases cited, to include parallels.

In any event, I'm going to print your stuff out for careful consideration as I work toward my book. On the surface, given my current predilections, I think there's a bit too much 'stretching'... but I'm always challenging my predilections.

 

[ZehnWaters]

In the scapegoat story there are 2 goats: one cast into the wilderness to perish, and one that stays in the temple.

The fates of Frodo and Gollum are inextricably bound, and so together they represent one scapegoat. Bilbo is the other goat, the one receives the favorable lot.

Like Leviticus 16, the priest casts upon the head of the scapegoat (around Frodo's neck) the sin of the nation (the Ring), and then a designated man (Aragorn) brings the scapegoat (Frodo with Gollum) into the wilderness (toward Mordor) to a high cliff (Mt. Doom) to perish. But in a scapegoat twist provided by Tolkien, it is Gollum that perishes with the sin, not Frodo.

Technically in Leviticus 16 it didn't explain the scapegoat's death, so there is room for Tolkien's twist.

Meanwhile, Bilbo is the goat who received the favorable lot to enter the temple/mountain of treasure guarded by the dragon, and later (Lord of the Rings) Bilbo stays in Rivendell while Frodo goes into the wilderness.

In interviews, Tolkien highlighted that his dwarves were similar to Jews. The dragon in Bilbo's story (the Hobbit) represents Satan.

Frodo has a sacrifice and redemption theme. Frodo goes to sacrifice his own life as an offering, in order to stop the incessant killings from Mordor. How does Frodo's choice to sacrifice his life create anything other than death? The answer may be that life and death are made from the same foundational substance: probability. Remember the casting of lots. Miraculously, the Lord saves even a portion of the scapegoat!

When a lot is cast, it has two sides.

Frodo is the likeable side of the scapegoat, and Gollum is the unlikeable side. Together they fulfill one purpose. In Leviticus translated into English, the scapegoat is called a "buck", but in the original Hebrew that word is pronounced "Shire" שעיר

Tolkien knew this language of original Hebrew. He had studied Leviticus 16. Whether he knew about these parallelisms or not, who can say? I'm not advocating for allegory, of course, but the parallels I think are worth noting.

In Frodo's family tree, he is a Brandybuck.

There are many wordplays in Leviticus 16. Some examples:

Leviticus 16:2 (priest enters the temple alone to find the "ark"); Hobbit (Bilbo enters lone mountain to find "arkenstone")

Leviticus 16:3 (bifur); Hobbit (dwarf named bifur)

Leviticus 16:14 (blood on finger); LOTR (ring on finger)

Leviticus 16:21 (aiunth); Silmarillions (ainur)

Tolkien's word for ring (written in the black speech of Tengwar) was nazg. That puts the Hebrew word for goat (az) right in the middle.

Indeed, the Hebrew word for scapegoat is like saying goat twice: azazel, which just so happens to be the same name as the leader of the fallen angels.

In Leviticus, the priest is Aaron who puts the sin on the head of the scapegoat. In LOTR, it is Elrond who puts the ring on Frodo.

The entire purpose of the scapegoat is this Hebrew word: כפר. It has a dual meaning: deny/atone.

It is the same word used in the gospel, where Peter denies the Messiah three times, and therefore he must atone three times (John 21).

The Frodo/Gollum duality fulfill this purpose: Frodo atones while Gollum denies.

It is in the death of denial (כפר) that we learn to atone (כפר).

Gollum is to Frodo
as
Boromir is to Aragorn
as
Saruman is to Gandalf
as
Melkor is to Manwe
as
Sauron is to Aule

In each duality, the destruction of the dark side proves the valor of the light. This is the duality of כפר ("deny/atone").

There is so much to discover and think about. Consider the duality between Sauron and Aule. Sauron was 2nd in command after Melkor, just like Aule was 2nd in command (in a sense) after Manwe. Sauron was known for his handicraft (especially making the rings) and teaching the elves. Aule also was known for his handicraft and teaching the dwarves.

In an interview, Tolkien likened the ring to "the machine" in the general sense. Modern Jews (in particular the kabbalists) liken their spiritual power to technology -- they literally call it "internal technology".

And here we are on the cusp of transhumanism, a time where Tolkien has never been more relevant. It's like Orwell or Huxley. They wrote decades ago for times such as these.

The day of כפר (Yom Kippur) is considered the holiest day of the year in the bible. In Leviticus it was the one day that the head priest (Aaron) was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle (a 15 foot cube room). Anyone else would die.

Remember when Elrond and Isildur entered Mt. Doom together. Isildur ended up dead (days later when the Ring slipped from his finger), but Elrond lived.

Mt. Doom is a picture of the corrupted temple. When Arda was first formed, Mt. Doom was likely beautiful and lush, probably with a name that preceded even Orodruin. But in later days, Mt. Doom was corrupted by the enemy. In the Hebrew bible, there are many passages that refer to the darkness that transpired in the temple. See e.g. Ezekiel.

Later, Sam and Frodo, followed by Gollum, enter Mt. Doom. Like priests themselves (remember they were commissioned by Elrond), the final test of faith is manifested, and Gollum falls.

Samwise fulfilled his duty to his friend, even carrying him up the mountain in the end. Frodo got as far as he could, he did the best he could. If Frodo had the inherent power to accomplish the mission without his darker side Gollum, it would have undermined the essential role of God (only God saves).

The journey of Frodo and Sam resonates with us today because we see in the story the essentialness of faith, and the works that result from faith. Each character was faithful to something, and the Lord over all worked it to good, and Aragorn was crowned king to begin the fourth age.

To my mind, the parallel for Yahshua (Jesus) is clearly Aragorn. Born a man (but with eternal blood of elves in his deep lineage) and rightful heir to the kingdom. Born into a fallen world that does not recognize him. Lives as Strider among sinners. Fulfils a great mission, casting out demons, healing people, and protecting his people though they know it not fully. With his great sword he enters the mountain of death and preaches to the dead. Alights from the mountain alive, commanding the dead, and defeats the enemy in battle to regain the great city. In his final test of faith, he storms the black gate and is victorious. He is crowned king and his bride is eternal.

It's certainly a robust assessment. Excellent work!

 

[Olorgando]

JRRT himself realized, and stated so, that people could and would find aspects of his sources in his figures, locations, geography, occurrences, story lines ...
But first of all his sources are not exclusively scriptural. Norse, Finnish, and probably Celtic mythologies all belong to his sources, very likely the odd bit from Classical (Graeco-Roman) mythologies, too. One danger in focusing on these - partial! - aspects of any one character (etc.) is to become blind to other aspects that make up the whole character.
Gandalf was "resurrected", yes. But being a Maia, his equivalent was an (arch-) angel. He is also ancient in mortal terms. He can have a short temper. He constantly has contact with the leading figures of his time, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, Denethor, Théoden, Aragorn ...
In letters, JRRT also mulled over aspects of Galadriel that had made letter-writers think of Christ's mother Mary. But the differences between the two women far outweigh any similarities - the latter being implicit, anyway.
So finding aspects of scriptural figures in JRRT's writings, or of figures from Norse mythology, the Finnish Kalevala, other mythologies is all very well, and often accurate. Mistakes occur when one takes one part for the whole. Selective reading, a plague that has probably being going as long as there has been writing.

 

[Ent]

but we must be careful to not make it become the Truth itself.

Yes, not only careful to not let it become 'the truth', but to become 'Tolkien's meaning or intent.' @Olorgando points to principles to keep in mind.

The more I personally work at this, though I'm but a beginner, the more I believe I see Tolkien's element here through his very careful use of words, syntax, etc. resides in the realm of 'themes', more than in 'specifics'... elemental themes consistent in and across a great span of literature, history and mythology.

One of the books on my 'list' to work on, should I get the first six (6) done, is where and how Tolkien DIFFERS altogether from his own Catholic Christian background, and that of the more broadbased Christian views.

Such a book would not be a short one..!

 

[banakil]

Ah, my dear @greg glaser, I find your musings quite interesting and am thankful you have shared them. Very nice food for thought.

I've recently laid into my library, and am working through, 16 different books related to authors' probings into Tolkien's 'intents' and 'extractions' from Biblical sources into his work. And of course, I have done some of that myself in some cases, such as with Ungoliant and what she represents, where in my opinion the comparison is very clear.

And it's true Tolkien said while he does not prefer or like any 'overt' reference to Christianity in fantasies and mythologies, he also said Myth and Fairy-story 'must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit." Thus for him, religion MUST be in any such work.

However, I find most (dare I say all?) the authors I'm working through extend Tolkien far beyond what I feel Tolkien's own intent, extraction, comparison and delivery to have been. I also feel they misunderstand what he meant by 'contain in solution elements.' They take it into their own territory - what they'd personally like to see or find within his work...moving it into the very territory he considered 'a fatal mistake.'

At the end of the day, I believe Tolkien's intents were far more basic... simplistic... fundamental... and as I prepare materials for my book I'm finding the greatest difficulty to be the elimination of what I might read into the text or want to extract from it, vs. what Tolkien has actually included in the text. (Letter 131 to Waldman contains some hints of the extents and limitations he drew for himself, if we read between the lines, and consider the 'elements' he was working to incorporate. Letter 269 to Auden also contains a statement of import.)

His intent was to write a Mythology for the People. And while your musings are certainly 'deeper' and not 'overt' references, I myself must question whether Tolkien would have looked that deeply or sought to dive that deeply, in many of the cases cited, to include parallels.

In any event, I'm going to print your stuff out for careful consideration as I work toward my book. On the surface, given my current predilections, I think there's a bit too much 'stretching'... but I'm always challenging my predilections.

(bows very low) most gracious Ent, you are kind.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Looking this over, I'll say that there's nothing inherently wrong with finding Biblical parallels or sources -- I've pointed some out myself, in several threads. As to going "too far", that determination lies with the commentor and his reader.

At least in part; but of course we have Tolkien's own input to consider. For example with languages: in Letter 297 he gives origins for a number of words, including nazg, noting that ". . . it remains remarkable that nasc is the word for 'ring' in Gaelic . . ." and that though he didn't have it in mind at the time of writing, "It is thus probable that nazg is actually derived from it, and . . . became lodged in some corner of my linguistic memory".

But this, along with his use of Erech, seems to be an exception, and earlier in the paragraph he points out that " . . . actual congruence (of form + sense) occur in unrelated real languages, and it is impossible in constructing imaginary languages to avoid such resemblances (I do not) . . .".

As a further example, in the same letter he responds to another suggestion for a Biblical "source":

As for the 'land of Moriah' [. . .]: that has no connexion (even 'externally') whatsoever. Internally there is no conceivable connexion between the mining of Dwarves, and the story of Abraham. I utterly repudiate any such significances and symbolism. My mind does not work that way; and (in my view) you are led astray by a purely fortuitous similarity, more obvious in spelling than speech, which cannot be justified from the real intended significance of my story.

There's more in this vein, but I'll leave it there, and recommend a reading of the entire letter; he was emphatic on the subject, I'll say that.

He did indeed make a comparison of Dwarves and Jews, but only in that both are "at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their private tongue".
Letter 176

And somewhere he said he did not use Hebrew as a source for any words or languages.

As for wider parallels in symbol or structure, the Bible has been a source in literature for centuries, so it's not surprising to find them in many places, "intended" or not, just as it's not surprising to "find" political or psychological parallels. I can give one of my own:

Some time ago, I came across an old copy of LOTR I'd filled with notes of various kinds; I'd been struck by a passage in "The Shadow of the Past", beginning with "There were rumours of strange things happening in the world outside . . .". I'd marked this "Autumn 1938", and despite Tolkien's disclaimer, couldn't help noticing some "obvious" parallels with contemporary political events:

It seemed that the evil power in Mirkwood had been driven out by the White Council only to reappear in greater strength in the old strongholds of Mordor. The Dark Tower had been rebuilt, it was said. From there the power was spreading far and wide, and away far east and south there were wars and growing fear.

Elves, who seldom walked in the Shire, could now be seen passing westward through the woods in the evening, passing and not returning; but they were leaving Middle-earth and were no longer concerned with its troubles.

But now Frodo often met strange dwarves of far countries, seeking refuge in the West. They were troubled, and some spoke in whispers of the Enemy and of the Land of Mordor.

I'd noted:
"Mordor=resurgent Germany under Nazis?"
"Dwarves=Jews?"
"Elves possibly=fleeing intelligentsia?"*

Under this I wrote (and underlined) "This is going too far"*. But of course the parallels are "there", whatever that may -- or may not -- mean. I certainly wouldn't make a serious argument for it; it can be inferred by readers if they are so inclined, or ignored. Intended by the author or not, it does at least seem to point to two facts about literature: that it is contemporary with its own time, and is contemporary with ours.

Another fact about literature: an author may have had a single idea in mind, when inserting a symbol or passage, but its relationships to the rest of the work creates many new meanings for it; otherwise, how to explain the vast and ever-growing body of commentary on LOTR, which far outweighs the original text?

Each reader has to decide individually which "parallels" to follow, and where to draw the line of "too far". I'd just say -- cautiously -- that while there are some seemingly "obvious" parallels, there are no necessary ones.


* Though I also note I must have come back later and added "Oh yeah, Einstein?" 😄

 

[Ent]

most gracious Ent, you are kind.

difficult to imagine, especially if one is an Orc.

 

[Ent]

Each reader has to decide individually which "parallels" to follow, and where to draw the line of "too far". I'd just say -- cautiously -- that while there are some seemingly "obvious" parallels, there are no necessary ones.

Indeed.

And even in the broader based 'themes' mentioned in my post above, such themes are resident in many sources.
Tolkien, as wide a reader as he was, had many things jumbled into his 'brain attic' (Sherlock Holmes) or 'central computer' if you will, and references continually how 'thoughts would just occur to him.'

Unlike AI he is not a 'reproduction machine' but a relational filtering and presenting device, with a very murky relational capacity and filter full of holes.

In fact, at times I look at Tolkien's Syntax and conclude he's referencing an 'external source' - i.e. providence - for the event. Yet he himself is an example of why we should not necessarily derive such a conclusion. He has so mush 'stuff' in his databanks, something may 'come to him' having nothing to do with a Providential external source, but everything to do with historical exposure and experience coalescing 'without conscious thought'.

Stripping ourselves down to "what Tolkien's 'real' intent was" is an extremely difficult, and in the end impossible, task.
We can take clues from a very careful study of what he actually said... something @Squint-eyed Southerner is masterful at doing... but even then our conclusions can be but tenuous at best.

This is my problem with these 16 books I'm inhaling.... and they're awakening me to flaws in my own thiniking as well. (The primary reason I got them..! Seeing flaws in others' approaches helps me question issues in my own. Otherwise, there's nothing of them translating into a 'learning experience'... we're just a 'consumer of ideas' without evaluation and integratoin, and may end up actually agreeing with things having no basis. Not that the human world has a problem with that, of course...we always dig to the nth degree to make sure we're truly critically analyzing things to derive proper conclusions. (said with branch firmly stuck in bark..!!)

 

[banakil]

to the nth degree

I like the way you say that, and look forward to reading your books!

Times are sooo good when we make time to read for the joy of it.

"For a moment it appeared to Sam that his master had grown and Gollum had shrunk: a tall stern shadow, a mighty lord who hid his brightness in grey cloud, and at his feet a little whining dog. Yet the two were in some way akin and not alien: they could reach one another's minds. Gollum raised himself and began pawing at Frodo, fawning at his knees." The Two Towers, p. 623.

This is an insightful comment about the nature of middle earth, and the power of the one ring. Indeed only a few paragraphs earlier, Tolkien reminds the reader of the infamous inscription, "One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them."

Here in the darkness of Emyn Muil, Gollum binds himself to the the Master of the precious. Frodo has only just met Gollum, yet from Sam's perspective Frodo and Gollum can reach one another's minds.

It must be the ring's effect on Sam to perceive this.

We can see aspects of Tolkien in many characters, but here we see Tolkien in Sam, foreshadowing the intertwined destiny. Why the effect on Sam?

Teammates Sam and Frodo are well on their quest. And then boom, the dreaded slinker and stinker shows up and suddenly there is a new teammate, one who can reach Frodo's mind.

Frodo and Gollum share a oneness ("one ring to rule them all") psychologically.