# Religion in Middle Earth?



## Firawyn (Apr 12, 2008)

I was thinking today about how all of 'our' countries and people groups have their own religions that dictate to them the moral standards by which to live.

What examples of this to we see in Middle Earth, not only in reference to their own God figures (Eru, for example), but also in comparison to our own religions.

For instance, who (what characters) are living by the religious standards that Tolkien had (Catholic/Christian)? 

I've thought a bit about this and had the notion it might make a good discussion topic here on TTF.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 12, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> I was thinking today about how all of 'our' countries and people groups have their own religions that dictate to them the moral standards by which to live.
> 
> What examples of this to we see in Middle Earth, not only in reference to their own God figures (Eru, for example), but also in comparison to our own religions.
> 
> ...



Offhand: There is no formalized religion at the level of elves, men or hobbits. There is the sensibility of right and wrong, cruel and kind, good and bad, honest and dishonest, "demonic" (Mordor, etc.) and "angelic" (Lothlorien, etc). The whole thing functions without a "God" concept. Very Buddhist. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought of that...

Barley

PS to Fir: glad to see you've "lightened up" in the sig department!


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 13, 2008)

Barley, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were watching my every move (or post, more accurately). 


ON TOPIC NOW - 

Have you ever seen the movie Timechanger? 

In summery - A man from 1890 write a paper about how human beings know good and evil without the God factor at all. Then he is sent into the future where God is no longer that...what's the word...revered. He's shocked by how people act and treat each other with the God factor removed. 


So that said - how can the races of Middle Earth, as realistic as they can be, function so honorably and (pardon the pun) godly, when there seems to be no God figure to speak of?

By nature, humans (and dwarves, hobbits, elves, etc) are fallible. How can they realistically be expected to be that _good_ without a moral plum line defined by some form of religion?


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 13, 2008)

I wouldn't exactly call the Vala gods but they serve as holy beings and specific groups revere certain Vala more than others. Eru also is godlike without necessarily being worshipped as godlike, which is interesting. 

I think Tolkien said somewhere that he purposefully avoided religion in his writings because he didn't want to try and replace his existing religion or create an allegory for it, which really are the only two choices if you add a religion to the fantasy world: make up a religion (upon which some person somewhere will start practicing it if you reach any level of fame . . . like Jedi knights) or you can do what Lewis did and take an existing religion and make a spiritual point. This point does not have to necessarily build up an existing religion, either. Pullman's work uses a very thinly veiled Catholic/Christian style church and proceeds to bring out the worst in it to turn people off from organized religion. 

I have tried to do what Lewis did in my work, as a Christian writer, but I find no one does it as well as him, so generally I do what Tolkien does: provide a sense of right and wrong and an innately good creator but avoid the greater details of religion. Unless I've based it in the real world.

We do see Devil-Worship in the villains and we see people criticized for attempting to hold themselves as gods (Isn't that one theory with the "blue wizards"). 

But rambling aside, I think it all falls back on Tolkien not wanting to write in a religion.


----------



## chrysophalax (Apr 13, 2008)

Seems to me that the different races (not necessarily individuals within said races) act according to oral traditions passed down to them from their forefathers, some of which, in Tolkien's world, actually had dealings with either the Valar, or the Maiar. Of course in LotR we have good and evil represented by Sauron and Gandalf, both of whom had first-hand knowledge of those who pass for god-like beings (both good and evil) on Arda.

As to individuals, in ME as in our own, apparently free will is a factor, not only at the mortal level, but at the Maiar level, thus we have Saruman changing sides as it were, as well the more commonplace characters such as Smeagol and Saeros.

Eru himself seems to be the ultimate orchestrator of everything, but chooses to remain distant for purposes of him own.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 13, 2008)

All of which brings me to this: It's all about behavior choices. It's all about "like begets like." It's about "You get what you give." It's about "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." It's about cooperation rather than competition; about compassion and kindness, a willingness to help. It's about how well you treat yourself and others.

Barley


----------



## Confusticated (Apr 13, 2008)

I think the morals in Middle-earth were things that naturally followed from being a good faithful person of hope who has knowledge of God, either indirectly by the Valar or more indirectly - from Vala to Elf to Man. Of course Men who knew better didn't always stay in line. With the loss of hope came evil. Over several generations the Numenoreans went from the most Faithful Men in history to Morgoth-worshipping human-sacrificers.

But as the Fourth Age came on, I would expect that even in the West of Middle-earth Men began to start up religions (and in one fourth age tale, JRRT mentions the existance of 'cults'), many with good intentions. Eventually all real knowledge of God would be lost or mixed with myth.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 13, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> All of which brings me to this: It's all about behavior choices. It's all about "like begets like." It's about "You get what you give." It's about "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." It's about cooperation rather than competition; about compassion and kindness, a willingness to help. It's about how well you treat yourself and others.
> 
> Barley



Agreed Barley, but _why_? Why would they think that killing their neighbors was bad or helping the poor was good? 


I'm really trying not to pick a fight with you m'dear.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 13, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> Why would they think that killing their neighbors was bad or helping the poor was good?



Hmmm. Well — to a reasonably normal person whose life hasn't been _too_ overly stressed or traumatized, whose situation isn't _totally_ desperate, whose spirit hasn't been _too_ badly damaged, it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt. 

Barley


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 13, 2008)

Not necessarily. If we were just dealing with "live and let live" you could argue that if you give everyone enough of whatever they need they'll just "get along" but as there is always (no matter what system) an unequal division of goods/services/valuables/power you will always encounter at least greed, jealousy, and some corruption and someone is going to realize that occasionally it helps them to hurt some other them, if only a little bit. . . and if there is no reason, no law, then why not? Everyone knew the "King's Laws" were good and followed them just because they were the "King's Laws" but what if there had never been a king? 

Even if we assume that people will not hurt other people just because it is mutually beneficial, why would people sacrifice themselves to aid other people if there is no moral law telling them to do it? 

Frodo must realize that he, himself, does not benefit from his attempt at the destruction of the ring. He is motivated in no way by self-preservation, and assuming no moral law and no after life there is no reason to do what he is doing. Sure, the world suffers, but if Frodo dies, the world does not exist as far as he is concerned, so for Frodo it really isn't a problem.

People can be asked not to detract from others for the sake of living and let living, but if it comes to detracting from oneself to prevent the difficulties of others, you need a better reason. Frodo obviously had something within him that told him that even if it cost his life, there was a good worth pursuing in the destruction of the Ring.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 14, 2008)

HLGStrider said:


> If we were just dealing with "live and let live" you could argue that if you give everyone enough of whatever they need they'll just "get along" but as there is always (no matter what system) an unequal division of goods/services/valuables/power you will always encounter at least greed, jealousy, and some corruption and someone is going to realize that occasionally it helps them to hurt some other them, if only a little bit. . . and if there is no reason, no law, then why not? Everyone knew the "King's Laws" were good and followed them just because they were the "King's Laws" but what if there had never been a king?
> 
> Even if we assume that people will not hurt other people just because it is mutually beneficial, why would people sacrifice themselves to aid other people if there is no moral law telling them to do it?
> 
> ...



Agreed: people are people and some will do the right thing (including self-sacrifice for the sake of another) and some will do the wrong thing: that's the normal range of human nature and human behavior. And for the negative end of it we need laws; I never said or implied we don't. But laws need not be religiously based. I do not wish to take this discussion further publicly, because (knowing you) I believe it would drift more and more into a discussion of the need for religion and God as enforcements on human thought and behavior (a concept with which I disagree), and that kind of discussion is not allowed.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 14, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Hmmm. Well — to a reasonably normal person whose life hasn't been _too_ overly stressed or traumatized, whose situation isn't _totally_ desperate, whose spirit hasn't been _too_ badly damaged, it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt.
> 
> Barley



But what makes it so self-evident? You're argument is based on you presumption that people a) in general have relatively easy lives, and b) would base a decision on how to treat others on pure logic.

The vast majority of people in the world have been hurt emotionally directly or indirectly. When people have to decide "do I help or hurt?", then often do it without thinking logically, but with hormones, or out of rebound, and many other things.

People can't always see that their actions would hurt someone else, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Right and wrong, good and bad, are not so "self-evident" as you would think.


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 14, 2008)

It is an interesting discussion, but both sides of it really aren't Tolkien related. We should return to the original question which is the representation of religion within Tolkien's works. 

In this world we don't have undeniable proof of the existence of a god let alone an exact model of what that god is like, but in Tolkien we have both. We know that Eru exists. We know basic points about his nature. We know the structure of his world simply because Tolkien told us and Tolkien made the world (in some ways Tolkien is the god of Middle Earth, but he passed the creator baton onto Eru and the Vala.).

Since we know Eru exists, we have to answer other questions.

1. Do the majority of creatures know/acknowledge that he exists?
2. Does Eru not demand any form of worship? Why or why not? Does he approve of any worship? Is there any race that actively worships Eru?
3. Did Eru give a collective conscience to his creations? IE Is there a universal right and wrong acknowledged by all his creations because of him?
4. Are there other (false) gods acknowledged by other races? How do they differ?
5. Does Eru have a plan for his people's afterlives? Do they know this? Is there any "judgment" where some make it and some do not? 
6. Do the Dwarves, as not part of the original plan, fall under a different set of rules than the other races?

etc.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 14, 2008)

You're right, of course. Back on topic. I was thinking the same thing anyway.



HLGStrider said:


> 1. Do the majority of creatures know/acknowledge that he exists?
> 2. Does Eru not demand any form of worship? Why or why not? Does he approve of any worship? Is there any race that actively worships Eru?
> 3. Did Eru give a collective conscience to his creations? IE Is there a universal right and wrong acknowledged by all his creations because of him?
> 4. Are there other (false) gods acknowledged by other races? How do they differ?
> ...



1. Know, perhaps. But I've only heard the Elves really acknowledge Eru.

2. I keep thinking about all the Elven songs and how we have our "Praise and Worship Songs". Could there e a connection?

3. That is the premise of the question Barley and I have been grappling over. 

4. Souron?

5. The Grey Havens?

6. Well women were created after man, and they follow the same rules as men...most of the time anyway!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 14, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> But what makes it so self-evident? You're argument is based on you presumption that people a) in general have relatively easy lives, and b) would base a decision on how to treat others on pure logic.
> 
> The vast majority of people in the world have been hurt emotionally directly or indirectly. When people have to decide "do I help or hurt?", then often do it without thinking logically, but with hormones, or out of rebound, and many other things.
> 
> ...



You are reading all sorts of things into what I said that aren't there. Take what I say at face value. "...it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt." "But what makes it so self-evident?" Which would you rather have, a kiss or a punch in the mouth? That's what I mean by self-evident. And Strider's right: this discussion has no place here.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 14, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> You are reading all sorts of things into what I said that aren't there. Take what I say at face value. "...it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt." "But what makes it so self-evident?" Which would you rather have, a kiss or a punch in the mouth? That's what I mean by self-evident. And Strider's right: this discussion has no place here.
> 
> Barley



Okay...face value...back on topic...*grin* Um...about that punch or kiss scenario - it would depend greatly on whom the punch or kiss was coming from.


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 14, 2008)

> 6. Well women were created after man, and they follow the same rules as men...most of the time anyway!



But women and men were created by the same being. Dwarves were created independently of Eru's will . . . though it was Eru who gave them their free will so you could argue that he did bless their creation and complete it.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 14, 2008)

Would it make an difference to note that God created animals, then man, then woman. 

I guess animals don't have to follow the same rules though, so that's probably a mute point. 

Thoughts on this Barley?


----------



## Starbrow (Apr 14, 2008)

I think it's interesting that when Tolkien specifically mentions a form of religion it tends to be very negative. For example, the Numenoreans who worshiped Melkor, the people cursed by Isildur who worshiped Sauron, and the cults mentioned in the Fourth Age. I can't recall any positive expressions of religion beyond the songs to Elbereth that the Elves sing.
Am I missing anything?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 15, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> Would it make an difference to note that God created animals, then man, then woman.
> 
> I guess animals don't have to follow the same rules though, so that's probably a mute point.
> 
> Thoughts on this Barley?



Nope, I'm bowing out of this.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 15, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Nope, I'm bowing out of this.
> 
> Barley



Well have it your way. Your loss. 


Well I think that religion on a whole was frowned upon by Tolkien. He didn't like how much conflict the different sects caused. Could this view have been shown in is books?

You know in all my study, I've always heard that Tolkien did not let his works be influenced by his personal views - not on religion, not on the war, not on anything. 

But for some reason this bothers me - how could such an intelligent man not put a little of himself into his masterpiece?


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 15, 2008)

He put a lot of himself into it. He put a lot of himself into characters, especially. He put in his dislike for machinery and his love of foods and friendship and coming home again to a comfortable place.

I think he put in his dislike for the war of men against men and what an ugly business it was. 

I wouldn't say Tolkien disliked religion. He didn't like sectarianism, but honestly very few religious people like this. It just happens because humans have a very hard time getting along in any situation and religious gatherings are no exception. This is partially why people of nearly all faiths have at one point or another have gone to unfortunate and evil lengths to try and force people to agree with them. We desperately want unity but can't have it.

The guy who invented the qwerty layout must've been left handed. It is so much easier to type left handed only than right handed only . . . holding a baby while doing this.

Tolkien experienced some of this in his own home with his formerly Anglican wife whose conversion was for his sake not hers. Carpenter's bio states that she disliked going to mass and confession and that this was a conflict in their marriage, but it wouldn't have been a conflict if Tolkien hadn't have liked his religion or felt these things were important. 

In my marriage there is conflict over the fact that when you marry a Marine they've had it pounded into their head that exercise is very very important and he seriously thinks I'm hurting myself because my idea of exercise is a lazy stroll and some pilates . . . Once a week . . . you don't pressure/nag someone you love to do something like mass or exercise unless you think they are hurting themselves by neglecting it, so we can surmise from Carpenter's account that Tolkien felt religion to be vital in a persons life and something that would be to their detriment not to practice.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 15, 2008)

Well said HLG. Especially with a baby in your arms.


----------



## Alcuin (Jul 1, 2008)

*Barley* is out of the thread, which means that this is a really hot topic. (Hi, *Barley*!) I am merely passing through, so if Dave hits me, I guess I can tolerate the blow…

Tolkien was a deeply religious man. He and Hugo Dyson were the people who led C.S. Lewis to convert to Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien both recorded the event separately, but their stories match; I’d love to provide a citation tonight, but I cannot.

One thing I can cite is Tolkien’s own testimony to his son Michael, who was apparently suffering a crisis of faith, recorded in Letter 250, dated 1 November 1963 (pp 337-338 in my edition):


> You speak of ‘sagging faith’... In the last resort faith is an act of will, inspired by love. Our love may be chilled and our will eroded by the spectacle of the shortcomings, folly, and even sins of the Church and its ministers, but I do not think that one who has once had faith goes back over the line for these reasons (least of all anyone with any historical knowledge). ... The temptation to ‘unbelief’ (which really means rejection of Our Lord and His claims) is always there within us.
> …
> It takes a fantastic will to unbelief to suppose that Jesus never really ‘happened’, and more to suppose that he did not say the things recorded of him


I think that is a strong statement about how Tolkien felt about Christianity; there is a great deal more in the letter, but I am not certain that Dave would be too happy about my inflaming a thread and then departing for several more months: it will suffice to show that Tolkien wrote these words, and that there is strong evidence in many other places that he really believed them.

*HLGStrider* (Hi, *HLGStrider*, and congratulations!) is absolutely correct in asserting that Tolkien hated war: of his childhood and university friends, I believe he writes that he was one of less than a handful of survivors. (Again, I’d like to provide a citation and quotation, but can’t tonight. Someone else might…) His letters show considerable concern for Michael and Christopher, both of whom, I believe, served in World War II: Christopher did, I know, because _The Lord of the Rings_ was mailed to him (to a post South Africa, if I remember correctly?) in serial format as Tolkien wrote and rewrote it.

But as to religion, Letter 142 To Robert Murray, SJ (“SJ” means Murray was a Jesuit), written Wednesday 2 December 1953 (p. 172 in my copy), Tolkien wrote,


> _The Lord of the Rings_ is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.


 A draft Letter 153 To Peter Hastings (“manager of … a Catholic bookshop in Oxford”), dated September 1954 (pp-187-196), has something more.


> The immediate ‘authorities’ are the Valar (the Powers or Authorities): the ‘gods’…


to which is added a long footnote (pp 193–194)


> There are thus no temples or ‘churches’ … among ‘good’ peoples. They had little or no ‘religion’ in the sense of worship. For help they may call on a Vala (as Elbereth), as a Catholic might on a Saint… I do not think Hobbits practiced any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves). The Númenóreans … were pure monotheists. But there was no temple in Númenor (until Sauron introduced the cult of Morgoth). The top of … Meneltarma … was dedicated to Eru…, and there … God was … praised… Among the … remnants of the Faithful … religion … seems to have played small part; though a glimpse … is … in Faramir’s remark on ‘grace at meat’…


 In another missive to Murray, Letter 156, dated Thursday 4 November 1954 (pp 200-207), concerning religion within the contact of the narrative, he wrote,


> The High Elves ... had no 'religion' (or religious practices...) for those had been in the hands of the gods [noparse][[/noparse]i.e., Valar[noparse]][/noparse], praising and adoring Eru 'the One' ... on the Mt. of Aman.
> …
> The Númenóreans [noparse][[/noparse]were[noparse]][/noparse] monotheists ... like the Jews ... with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma...; [noparse][[/noparse]They[noparse]][/noparse] had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations. But they 'fell' again...
> 
> Sauron ... got Ar-Pharazôn’s mind under his ... control, and ... corrupted many of the Númenóreans, destroyed the conception of Eru, now represented as a mere figment of the Valar ..., and substituted a Satanist religion with a large temple [noparse][[/noparse]for[noparse]][/noparse] the worship of [noparse][[/noparse]Morgoth[noparse]][/noparse].


In fact, whenever “organized” religion appears in _LOTR_, it seems almost always associated with corrupted practice and belief, and is, as far as I can tell, always associated with Morgoth, his servant Sauron, or Sauron’s servant the Witch King. 

The one exception might be Tolkien’s reference to the Blue Wizards, who are said to have been “founders or beginners of secret cults and ‘magic’ traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron,” in Letter 211 to Rhona Beare, dated Tuesday 14 October 1958 (pp 277–284). (My impression is that this might be in imitation of Morgoth and his attempts to dominate Men and Elves, just as Saruman’s fall – and apparent demand for worship – was in imitation, or at least certainly in the same error as, the acts of Sauron, with whom he was in contention for the position of “dominant” Maia in Middle-earth, for which Gandalf cast him from the order of Istari. Sauron, of course, not only demanded and received the worship of his mortal followers, but at the end of the Third Age, actually claimed to be Morgoth returned.) He then goes on to say,


> The Númenóreans ... were Hebraic and even more puritan ... there is practically no overt ‘religion’, or rather religious acts or places or ceremonies among the ‘good’ or anti-Sauron peoples in _The Lord of the Rings_.


This quotation is just above the lovely sketch of a Númenórean king with an Egyptian-style crown on p 281, where there is a footnote to this citation that reads,


> Almost the only vestige of ‘religion’ is seen on II pp. 284–5 [noparse][[/noparse]in Tolkien’s edition of _LOTR_ at the time[noparse]][/noparse] in the ‘Grace before Meat’. [noparse][[/noparse]Númenórean[noparse]][/noparse] theology is reduced to ‘that which is beyond Elvenhome and ever will be’...


 A draft letter 297 in August 1967 (pp 379–387) is unfortunately edited. The published portion ends with the statement,


> We are in a time when the One God, Eru, is known to exist by the wise, but is not approachable save by or through the _Valar_, though He is still remembered in (unspoken) prayer by those of Númenórean descent.


followed by the editorial comment, 


> The text ends with a brief discussion of Númenórean religion.


which is, of course, what we would like to know.

-0- (Late addition...) 

I believe that, regarding Númenórean religion, the sovereigns (e.g., Elros Tar-Minyatur, Elendil, Aragorn Elessar, and all their descendants) acted as priest-kings, leading what public, congregational worship there was; in Númenor, there were three public worship services atop Meneltarma dedicated to Eru (see_ Unfinished Tales_, “Description of the Island of Númenor”) which were led by the King of Númenor; but there does not seem to be any such service in Middle-earth, and the (sacred) hallow above Minas Tirith on Mindolluin seems to be 

 not atop the summit, as upon Meneltarma;
far too small to accommodate any but a few worshippers at any one time; and
unlike Meneltarma, generally available only to, or at least visited only by, the kings.


Finally, there is a long discussion that touches upon religion, and seems to be a deliberate foreshadowing of a Messiah, that appears in _Morgoth’s Ring_ in Part 4, “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” (translated, “Debate of Finrod and Andreth”), but that is simply outside the scope of this thread, I think; besides, I’m exhausted and out of time altogether.

Hope this information is helpful and noninflammatory.

And now, I really must return to the salt mines of Núrnen…


----------



## Eledhwen (Jul 13, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> Finally, there is a long discussion that touches upon religion, and seems to be a deliberate foreshadowing of a Messiah, that appears in _Morgoth’s Ring_ in Part 4, “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” (translated, “Debate of Finrod and Andreth”), but that is simply outside the scope of this thread, I think; And now, I really must return to the salt mines of Núrnen…


Anyone interested in Finrod and Andreth (which casts interesting light on man's mortality being a 'gift of Illuvatar') can hop across the forum to here for more.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 18, 2008)

_Discussions and activities aimed at understanding the depth of Tolkien's works, and their relationship to other mythologies, *theologies*, history, and other literary works.

_Just copying the description to this section of the forum to prove once and for all that religion is allowed in the context of discussing how it shaped Tolkien's masterpiece. I noticed this for the first time today, and this seemed to be a good place to bring it up as the "Oh no, I can't mention Tolkien was Catholic or suggest that he might've felt this about religion because I'll be hit with the banning stick" thing has already come up in this thread.


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 20, 2008)

HLGStrider said:


> "Oh no, I can't mention Tolkien was Catholic or suggest that he might've felt this about religion because I'll be hit with the banning stick" thing has already come up in this thread.




Banned? Me? No that could never happen! I'm way too lovable!


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jul 20, 2008)

Plus your car is very, very broke

and we should have pity


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 20, 2008)

My car was very broke...now I have a new old car...I do suppose I should change my avatar now...



However, I should still be given pity...'cause...well I can't think of a really good reason right now. I love my life.


----------



## Bucky (Aug 18, 2008)

Just copying the description to this section of the forum to prove once and for all that religion is allowed in the context of discussing how it shaped Tolkien's masterpiece. I noticed this for the first time today, and this seemed to be a good place to bring it up as the "Oh no, I can't mention Tolkien was Catholic or suggest that he might've felt this about religion because I'll be hit with the banning stick" thing has already come up in this thread.

*Well, I've never found that to be the case here - as opposed to some other sites like that famous Tolkien one that's so PC...... 

The Alcuin post is quite good brings most of the good Tolkien quotes about 'religion' to the forefront, except the famous & highly controversial one that those anti-Christians seem to hate & try to twist to deny the author's obvious meaning:

'The Lord of the Rings is basically a Catholic & Christian work.' - JRR Tolkien

Now this in no way contridicts that Tolkien keeps organized religion out of the world of Middle-earth. Within that world, as Alcuin pointed out, the paramiters of God/gods/religion are pretty fairly kept at a minimum.
Yet, what Tolkien is saying in his quote, is that there is an over riding theme of Jesus Christ & Christianity flowing through the characters & plot throughout TLOR.

Since this thread has been dormant so long, I might as well highjack it & point out some of the 'parables Tolkien uses:

Gandalf: Of course, as many point out, Gandalf sacrivices himself in Moria for the other members of the Fellowship versus the Balrog, dies & 'is sent back' from the dead (like Jesus), with a new body, clothed in white light & greater power to defeat the enemy. Note that the Balrog is called a 'demon of might' & this one comes from the depths of the ground, where fire emerges from the cracks (a metaphor for hell?).

The next most obvious and commonly named chacter that Tolkien patterns after Christ is Frodo. Here we see not the image of the Risen Christ as with Gandalf, but the Lamb of God, the sacrifice. Frodo gives himself to be the sacrfice to accomplish the task that will free everyone else from the bondage of evil represented in the Ring. Frodo, like Jesus is not responsable for this sin, yet he freely takes ther burden on himself, through great pain.

Then, I've heard Tolkien say Galadriel is a type of Virgin Mary. As I'm not Catholic & don't agree with their theology on Mary, I don't feel qualified to comment.

Next, there's Sam, the Suffering Servant. He lays down everything to serve another, just as Jesus says: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" & "When was I hungry & you did not feed me?; When was I thirsty & you did not give me drink?; When you did it not to the least of these you did it not to me & when you did it for the least of these, you did it for me."

Sam lays down everything to help Frodo accomplish his task.....
Sam gives Frodo his food & eats none (unlike the movie where he's "the fat Hobbit") 
He even gives Frodo all the water.
Finally, when Frodo can't walk up the mountain, Sam carries Frodo.

Earlier, Sam has a debate in his mind where he says (paraphrase):

"You can't go on giving him (Frodo) all the food & water"
"I can still go on a good ways"
"To what end? To die on the Mountain?"
"Well, if that was what I set out to do, then yes."
'.....As hope died in Sam's heart, it was turned to resolve.....'

That passage made me weep when I read it after I became a Christian. 

Then there's Aragorn....

Aragorn?

Yes. The Return of the King.
How does the King return? Through the Paths of the Dead, just as Jesus dies, goes to hell & takes the keys of hell & death from satan before rising from the dead.

One more thing: Back to Gandalf & the Balrog......

"I am the Servant of the Secret Fire, weilder of the Flame of Arnor."

Now, anyone who's been Catholic knows that the Holy Spirit is represented by a flaming heart. 'The Secret Fire/Flame of Arnor', the secret, powerful fire of good that Gandalf posesses (so does the Maia Arien) & opposes the 'Flame of Udun' (literally Hellfire) undoubtably represents The Holy Spirit.

Then in the overall Myth, there's Morgoth, where Melkor's rebellion is an absolute copy of Satan's fall. Both are involved in music to God, rebell because they want Glory & control for themselves & pull down other spirits like them to help them, coming to Earth to reek havoc. 

And Sauron in Numenor, Sauron plays Satan - He tempts Ar-Pharazon into trying to 'become like the gods' (sounds like the Garden of Eden). Sauron institues (in Tolkien's words) 'Satanic worship' in a false temple, worship to 'Melkor, Lord of Darkness' & Giver of Gifts'. 

Sidenote - Does Sauron really want the Numenoreans to worship Melkor?
I doubt it.
Think about it - Sauron has become a God to the Men in M-e. But as prisoner to Ar-Pharazon, telling the Numenoreans to worship himself won't work, so he tells them to worship his old boss instead. By now, Sauron's all about Sauron, not Melkor/Morgoth anymore. *


----------



## Mimzy (Feb 3, 2011)

I would say it was monotheistic, but not highly religious. More just spiritual.


----------



## adpirtle (Feb 9, 2011)

While there are a few instances of people making offerings to Manwe (the men of Numenor) or Mekor (also the men of Numenor :*) ) I think that what we call religion wasn't as necessary for those in Middle Earth, because you had actual gods (or sub-gods, or what have you) running around. Especially in the first age, where you had a very visible battle between Melkor and the immortal elves who'd seen Manwe and Valinor, you didn't really have to take anything on faith.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 20, 2011)

Tolkien purposely avoids 'religious' practices by his own admission because, again, by his own quote, in one of his letters (too tired to look up the number) 'The Lord of the Rings is essentially a religious & Catholic work'.


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (May 1, 2011)

HLGStrider said:


> I wouldn't exactly call the Vala gods but they serve as holy beings and specific groups revere certain Vala more than others. Eru also is godlike without necessarily being worshipped as godlike, which is interesting.
> 
> I think Tolkien said somewhere that he purposefully avoided religion in his writings because he didn't want to try and replace his existing religion or create an allegory for it, which really are the only two choices if you add a religion to the fantasy world: make up a religion (upon which some person somewhere will start practicing it if you reach any level of fame . . . like Jedi knights) or you can do what Lewis did and take an existing religion and make a spiritual point. This point does not have to necessarily build up an existing religion, either. Pullman's work uses a very thinly veiled Catholic/Christian style church and proceeds to bring out the worst in it to turn people off from organized religion.
> 
> ...


Lewis was a great writer, but how "Well" he did that is lmited to me by my, as a Christian, not agreeing even remotly with his theology. I've been working on a Ficitonal Monotheist Bible Inspired cosmology, but mine is more Greek inspired rather then English like Tolkien and Lewis.


----------



## Firawyn (May 1, 2011)

> Lewis was a great writer, but how "Well" he did that is lmited to me by my, as a Christian, not agreeing even remotly with his theology.



Okay, sorry, I'm confused here. If you're a Christian, who can you NOT "remotely" agree with Lewis' theology? Every Christian, I think, have some points they differ opinions on, but I can't imagine disagreeing with Lewis on EVERY point, and still calling yourself a Christian.


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (May 1, 2011)

Cause my understanding is not compatible with a Calvansit like Lewis.


----------



## Firawyn (May 1, 2011)

Mithrandir-Olor said:


> *Bec*ause my understand*ing* is is not compatible with a *Calvinist* like Lewis.


 

Not even a complete sentence and two grammar and spelling errors...*raises eyebrows*


To the point, I wont touch that comment with a ten foot poll. Last I checked Religious and Political Debates were still banned here on TTF.


----------



## HLGStrider (May 1, 2011)

It's majorly off topic too. Has moderator eyes on you all. . .like kitty eyes, cute, batting kitty eyes that BURN!


----------



## Firawyn (May 1, 2011)

HLGStrider said:


> It's majorly off topic too. Has moderator eyes on you all. . .like kitty eyes, cute, batting kitty eyes that BURN!


 

Which part? The refusal to start a pointless debate, or the grammar and spelling correction? I do remember a certain barkeep getting up my arse about my grammar and spelling some eight years ago...;*)

Ah, when we were young, right Elgee? ;*)


----------



## HLGStrider (May 1, 2011)

Both, I suppose, though correcting grammar is allowed if it is accompanied by a point relating to the conversation at hand.


----------



## Firawyn (May 2, 2011)

HLGStrider said:


> Both, I suppose, though correcting grammar is allowed if it is accompanied by a point relating to the conversation at hand.


 
Ahhhh...that's the loophole. Noted. :*D


----------



## HLGStrider (May 2, 2011)

Support your neighborhood grammar police! Without them people start writing like everything is a text and that just drives me crazy. . .I can 1337 speak when need be, but there is a time and place for everything, people. . .and now the mod is off topic too. Whoops. . .umm. . .using magic cat powers I command this post to appear to be on topic!


----------



## Firawyn (May 2, 2011)

HLGStrider said:


> Support your neighborhood grammar police! Without them people start writing like everything is a text and that just drives me crazy. . .I can 1337 speak when need be, but there is a time and place for everything, people. . .and now the mod is off topic too. Whoops. . .umm. . .using magic cat powers I command this post to appear to be on topic!


 
Very on topic Elgee....now, how about those Angels? ;*)


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (May 2, 2011)

What I mean is. Lewis may say he believed in "God" and "Jesus" what he believes about how they are and why they did what they did is entirely wrong in my view.

Finding out he was a Calvinist explained allot.


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (Apr 16, 2012)

Firawyn said:


> Barley, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were watching my every move (or post, more accurately).
> 
> 
> ON TOPIC NOW -
> ...



God is known in Middle Earth, but ther eis no organized Religion, as what who Hates organized religion that's what I love about Tolkien's mythology.


----------



## Troll (Apr 16, 2012)

Firawyn said:


> Have you ever seen the movie Timechanger?
> 
> In summery - A man from 1890 write a paper about how human beings know good and evil without the God factor at all. Then he is sent into the future where God is no longer that...what's the word...revered. He's shocked by how people act and treat each other with the God factor removed.
> 
> ...



As a faithless person, I'm always amused when people talk about a world without gods as inevitably more brutal and unpleasant than the present one.

I invite anyone to look into ancient China (prior to the Tang, basically) for an example of a society that got along just fine without any commonly-accepted gods or religion to speak of.


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (Apr 16, 2012)

What makes you think China ever lacked Religion?

The Chinese always believed in Shangdi, he's imbedded into their very language.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 16, 2012)

Troll said:


> As a faithless person, I'm always amused when people talk about a world without gods as inevitably more brutal and unpleasant than the present one.
> 
> I invite anyone to look into ancient China (prior to the Tang, basically) for an example of a society that got along just fine without any commonly-accepted gods or religion to speak of.



I'm with Mithrandir on that one.

A society does not necessarily need someone they call "God" to still act as if they do. The Chinese people, back to ancient times, worshiped the Emperor as if he were their god. Who was ruling China at any given time determined whether or not their country was morally corrupt or not. The people followed the lead of the Emperor as to what was acceptable or not.

Egypt was another example of this. The Pharaoh was treated as the peoples' god, even though they had many of 'gods' that they worshiped. It is human nature to look for some sort of moral leadership. I can't think of a single example of a society that lacked in some sort of god, be it in name or not. 

Troll, you call yourself faithless. My question to you is the following: How do you, as a person, decide what is acceptable behavior in you daily life?


----------



## Troll (Apr 16, 2012)

The concept of shangdi, or "Heaven," in Chinese culture is not remotely analogous to that of God in Judaeochristian culture, nor did the Chinese actually worship their Emperor on an individual basis. The Emperor's status as Son of Heaven was institutional, not personal, and his role in Confucian society was to represent the entire Middle Kingdom as the "father" towards whom all subjects could engage in filial conduct. Even the Emperor was bound by Confucian ideals, which were nonreligious despite appealing to the concept of "Heaven" as a representation of harmonious conduct. The idea of Heaven mostly exists for the Emperor to have something to be filial towards, not as an active force that exerts law or justice; the latter is the role of the government.

Chinese folk religion varies widely from place to place in China, and varied even more in the past, while historical philosophies such as Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism differ in their level of mysticism but are united in their lack of moral instruction based on the power of a God or retributive justice in an afterlife or even life. The Mandate of Heaven explains the rise and fall of the fortunes of the ruling dynasty based on the ruler's filiality towards Heaven (i.e. the expectations of a Confucian ruler fulfilling his duties to the society), but the attitude of the commoners isn't governed by Heaven. Rather, filiality is the key to social harmony.

If you want to get more modern, the People's Republic of China of today has a completely functional and economically thriving society despite being explicitly atheistic. People there refrain from murder, stealing, and other crimes because of fear of the state, not fear of God.

I don't know enough about Egypt to address anything about it.

Ethical behavior is not predicated on any religious predilection. As for myself, I define acceptable conduct based on what A) will not result in my arrest and B) will promote the most positive relationships between myself and the others with whom I interact. This overlaps with seven of the Ten Commandments, generally speaking. Editorially, I think this says more about the social origins of religion than about the religious origins of society.

Considering point B, it's a bit ironic that I am making this post at all, considering that my explaining my point of view is guaranteed to elicit a negative response from you all; I apologize for that. However, I felt it would be appropriate to explain myself before withdrawing from the conversation. I understand that the theistic worldview defines its gods as necessarily eternal and their rules as universally applicable to all places, peoples, and times. As such, I doubt that I can contribute anything further to this discussion and apologize for challenging your worldview.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 16, 2012)

Troll,

You don't need to apologize (I wasn't offended, anyhow, can't speak for anyone else). Your answer was concise, diplomatic, and respectful. I only get offended when someone replies in a manner which can be interpreted as nothing more or less than defensive and rude. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I realize we haven't interacted before (I'm an veteran TTFer, though these days I rarely reply to any posts), but you can expect "karmatic" behavior from me, if you get my meaning. If you are respectful, I will be so in return. If you act like total arse, I will defend myself. Simple as that. 

Back on topic...



> As for myself, I define acceptable conduct based on what A) will not result in my arrest and B) will promote the most positive relationships between myself and the others with whom I interact.



So far as point A goes, I will point out that (peeked at your profile) you live in the US. This country was founded on biblical principles, and therefore what laws exist that, if broken, result in being punished judicially, are based on Christian ideas. Unless you can find some hole in that argument, that I would point out that the first part of your definition of acceptable conduct is grounded on Christian principles. 

Point B...not much I can argue on that point. I agree with the guideline, I use it myself. My only counter-point on that note would be that, again, as you are living in the US, many of your friends and associates very likely use the same or similar definition of social conduct, and likewise, are presenting themselves in a "Godly" manner. 

Whether or not you choose to recognize the origin of your behavior choices as a Christian one, the argument stands. Who we are, all of us, is largely influenced by our environment. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge a higher power, you are still unavoidably influenced by it. 

Regards, 
Fir-


----------



## Troll (Apr 17, 2012)

Firawyn said:


> This country was founded on biblical principles, and therefore what laws exist that, if broken, result in being punished judicially, are based on Christian ideas. Unless you can find some hole in that argument, that I would point out that the first part of your definition of acceptable conduct is grounded on Christian principles.



The country was founded on Enlightenment principles and has always been an explicitly secular enterprise, as put forth in the First Amendment. Even the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is adapted from a letter by the humanist John Locke. A great many of the founding fathers were atheistic (Thomas Paine), deistic (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison), or otherwise irreligious or heterodox (Ben Franklin). Hamilton's religiosity varied wildly throughout his life, though he was openly irreligious from 1777-1792. Adams thought there was something to Christianity, but that it had been "misused in the service of superstition, fraud, and unscrupulous power." Of the "key seven" founding fathers, only John Jay was religious in a way that put any stock in the Bible.

Considering the diversity of immigrants that made up its early colonists and the myriad interests represented at the Constitutional Convention, it cannot be claimed in good faith that this country was founded on any common principles at all - other than, perhaps, a general sentiment that Britain could shove it, though even this was only ever professed strongly by about 1/3 of the population. If there are any principles at all on which America could be said to be founded, they are probably capitalism and indecision. 

And, from the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli:






While 78.5% of Americans today may be Christian of some kind or other, and though that proportion may have been yet greater in centuries past, it is in no wise factual to say that this country was founded on the Bible or on Christianity.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 17, 2012)

Well, if we're going to quote people, here's one for you. You might recognize it:



> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...



I will not argue with you on the personal beliefs of the founding fathers. You're right on that point. But, that was not what I pointed out in my last post. I said that this country, the United States, was founded on biblical principals. I said nothing about the Founding Fathers. 

But, if you're going to bring them up...while they themselves may or may not have had Christian beliefs, they did grow up in England (or at least most of them did, I'm not going to spend half hour looking them up to make sure), and England was a strictly Catholic/Christian country. Those men grew up, most likely, with Christian parents. This brings me back to my original point: _who we are, all of us, is largely influenced by our environment. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge a higher power, you are still unavoidably influenced by it._ 

They were most certainly influenced by a Christian/Catholic upbringing. The values their parents instilled in them carried over to their adult lives, and inevitably into their rebellion and political careers. I realize that the Constitution does not have any mentioned of God, Jesus, the Bible, etc, but the laws that those men drew up were unavoidably influenced by what they believed, what they were _taught_ to believe, was morally right and wrong. 

Some more quotes for you:



> "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams





> "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." - Ben Franklin





> "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - Alexander Hamilton





> "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - John Jay





> "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one." - Thomas Jefferson



Notice that the quotes I've put before you does not show any of the five founders as being overly religious, merely that they all recognize that there is an important place for Christianity in America. I don't really give a rat's arse about percentages. I'm not trying to "convert you", or anything of the sort. That would be rather hypocritical of me, as I've been where you are. I do not consider myself a Christian (in case you were thinking that I was some bible thumping nut). I consider myself a Theist. I believe in some higher, singular power. I don't honestly think that whatever or whomever started life on this planet did so with dumb luck. I don't think humanity is the result of an accident of nature. If it was really that simple, there would be life on other planets. People argue that there's no life on Mars, or anywhere else, because the climate is unable to support any such life. I think that's a pretty lame excuse, as there are creatures on _this_ planet that live in environments that would be instantly fatal to anything other than them. Turning back to my point, if one concludes that life on Earth was indeed _not_ a fluke of nature, then that leaves the lingering question of "How did it happen then?". 

I don't have the answer to that question. I am merely certain that there is some higher power, and getting back on topic here, said higher power is often identified as the God of the Christians, and it was on that fact that this country had it's beginnings. Godly influence.


----------



## jallan (Apr 17, 2012)

Firawyn said:


> I said that this country, the United States, was founded on biblical principals.



That a particular country was founded on Biblical principles has nothing whatsoever to do with Tolkien’s fictional works.

In any case the United States was not founded strictly on Biblical principles, not even on the Ten Commandments. Do you find any state or federal law that ever ruled, “Thou shalt not covet” and had penalties for breaking that law? Do you even find any state or federal law the even ruled “Thou shalt not bear false witness” to be legally binding? In common court practice it was (and is) the custom to swear an oath that one was telling the truth, in despite of Jesus’ purported claim that:

But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.​
The United States largely followed British Common Law which was, of course, influenced by the Christian Bible, but not entirely based on it. The rules for its government are not in any way based on any Biblical example of government, but mostly on the government of Britain with the inclusion of matters taken from the early government of Athens and Republican Rome and various other sources.



> But, if you're going to bring them up...while they themselves may or may not have had Christian beliefs, they did grow up in England (or at least most of them did, I'm not going to spend half hour looking them up to make sure), and England was a strictly Catholic/Christian country.



Within five minutes I found it claimed that of the most of the 1,787 delegates to the Continental Congress were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere. Only two of the 1,787 delegates were born in England.

The Catholic Relief Act in Britain was passed in 1778 allowing Catholics to own land again so possibly you might call Britain “strictly a Catholic/Christian country”. But not until, April 13, 1829, was another Roman Catholic Relief Act passed which removed almost every restriction on Roman Catholics and allowed them to run for parliament. Even Jews were allowed to own land in England before the Roman Catholics.

Your own religion is not to any point. That your supposed facts are not facts is what destroys your argument. And nothing of this has any relation to Tolkien.



> ... said higher power is often identified as the God of the Christians, and it was on that fact that this country had it's beginnings. Godly influence.



Yes, of course, some people believed that God favored their cause. Some people always do, whatever the cause. Many of the Tories of 1776 also believed that God supported their side. But there were other influences as well which seem to me more cogent. Hatred of what as seen as excessive taxation and of being governed by men who were appointed by a mad king. Hatred of British attempts to support agreements made with native people which interfered with expansionism. If you mean that you believe that the God actually supported the American revolution and did something to make it succeed, well, that is just your own belief and I think should not really be part of this forum.


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (Apr 17, 2012)

Actually Perjury is just the "False Witness" rule applied more stricklty. The Commandment was only ever about in a Trial.

Profanity laws are solely base don misusing the 4th Commandment.


----------



## jallan (Apr 18, 2012)

There are few or any cultures that consider lying in a court case to be proper behavior. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is just the Hebrew statement of a rule found in every culture in serious matters like court cases.

The 4th commandment actually declares that Saturday is to be the day of rest. Most professed Christians make Sunday, the so-called ‘Lord’s Day’, to be the day of rest instead. This 4th commandment doesn’t even mention profanity. Profanity laws, when they exist, are intended to prohibit foul words in respect to God (or the gods) on any day. They are not connected to the 4th commandment.

Tolkien does not include the story that God created the world in seven days in his legendarium. He claims that the 7-day week was a Númenórian alteration of the Elvish 6-day week, in which the 7th day was assigned to the Valar. Hobbits held a holiday and feast on the afternoon and evening of the 7th day, which Tolkien identifies with our Friday. Friday is also the ‘day of rest’ in the Muslim week.


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 18, 2012)

This is off topic, though, guys, so we kind of have to turn it back to religion as it appears/does not appear in Middle Earth or stop talking. If you want to debate this issue further, I suggest private messages, because I'm sure much remains to be seen on both sides.


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (Apr 18, 2012)

3rd Commandment I meant.


----------



## Ingolmin (Nov 24, 2016)

Well, religion is not so prevalent in Middle Earth. Only a few worshipped anyone. These were elves,the Edain later the Dunedain who worshipped Eru. Some even held in awe the the Gods of the West such as the Men of the First Age. While some prayed to Melkor.
Hobbits, people of Rohan, Dunlendings, Druedain etc. did not have a religion since many of them were unaware of the creator of Arda Illuvitar as some came to know about such things only when Elendil arrived in Middle Earth. In the latter days, it had become only a matter of lore.


----------



## PaigeSinclaire88 (Dec 19, 2016)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Offhand: There is no formalized religion at the level of elves, men or hobbits. There is the sensibility of right and wrong, cruel and kind, good and bad, honest and dishonest, "demonic" (Mordor, etc.) and "angelic" (Lothlorien, etc). The whole thing functions without a "God" concept. Very Buddhist. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought of that...
> 
> Barley
> 
> PS to Fir: glad to see you've "lightened up" in the sig department!


I agree very much with the above statement^

That being said, I do think that each race and region's way of life implies that the each of them have their own religions or things in life they dedicate themselves too. 

For instance Hobbits, seem (to me anyways) seem very Pagan and Celtic in their beliefs, the tea sippin, the smoking of the pipes and honestly living a somewhat simple, peasent life. I think they are a representation of the old way of life in England. 

Lotherian: seems very angelic and very Buddhist as was stated above. 

Rivendell: seem very much like the center of the Elven community and seem to be where not only the royalty live but where meetings also take place. Almost like the Vatican city of the Elven community. 

The dwarfs seem to be a representation of a viking like beings. They enjoy mead, and meat and this goes to Tolkiens love of history I think. I think the hobbits and dwarfs seem the closest to historic peoples in my opinion. 

Now with that, you have to take in consideration Tolkiens religion and love of history. And I think most of the races embody his views of the world.


----------

