[mark12_30]

In hisletters (here I go again) Tolkien says that after the Ring is destroyed, Frodo is tempted by two things: one, the desire to have been a hero after all, instead of simply an instrument of providence; and two, he is tempted to still desire the Ring. THe latter statement indicates that Frodo's temptation is simply the desire to possess it. Hence his simple statement: "The Ring is mine." Not, I am now ruler of Sam's- Garden- of- Mordor; not "all shall love me and despair"; not Boromir's "I shall become a great leader, all men will rally to me, and I will become a king, benevolent and wise"; none of that.

Just-- simply-- it's Mine. Finally, finally, it's Mine.

Kocher's theory is that the Ring intensifies two desires: one, the desire to dominate the will of others; two, the desire to posess the Ring. Kocher points out that hobbits aren't by nature domineering folk, so (unlike men and elves) the domineering temptation has little power. Bilbo didn't take over the Shire. Gollum didn't take over the Anduin. And Sam, while tempted to make a garden out of Mordor, quickly saw his own inadequacy to do it. Neither does Frodo plan to rule anything.

Bilbo's biggest struggle is to give up the Ring instead of posessing it, and he couldn't do it without Gandalf's help.
Gollum can't give it up at all, and losing it drove him mad.
Sam's desire to possess was mercifully kept in check by his love for Frodo at least.
Frodo's desire to possess it niggled at him, or hammered at him, all along the whole quest, I think. He fought it and fought it.

But at the Sammath Naur, he couldn't fight it any more. Sin? Yes, I think so; willful sin? I don't think so; Tolkien didn't think so; hence his attitude that Frodo deserved all honor, but did need healing, and was tempted to still desire it. Tolkien said something to the effect that nobody could have resisted the Ring at that point (as Sharon quoted) and Frodo's "fall" certainly should not lessen him in our eyes, since no elf, man, dwarf, or hobbit, or Maia or Vala, could have done better.

Edit: Theology... The difference between an 'allegory' and a 'type' is important when discussing "Christ figures." Old Testament individuals who imperfectly foreshadow characteristics of the Messiah are called "Types." There are lots of them. David, Isaac, Joshua... Daniel... on and on, and on. Too many to count.

In THAT sense, LOTR has three: Frodo (the suffering servant), Aragorn (the coming King and healer) and Gandalf (powerful, supernatural, wise, and back from the dead.)

It's interesting to note that each of these had some sort of deathlike experience. Aragorn travelled for Three Days on the Paths of the dead. Frodo when stung by Shelob was rendered into a deathlike state, and was left for dead by Sam (albeit mistakenly), and imprisoned in a guarded place made of stone. And Gandalf, of course, is just plain resurrected.

In a similar vein, Earendil in the Sil is a Christ-"type"; **Not** an allegory; an imperfect foreshadowing. Very important theological distinction. However, I mention Earendil because although Sam calls on Elbereth, Frodo calls on Earendil. Maybe I'm reaching here; but to me that implies that Sam feels the need for light, courage, and comfort; but Frodo feels the need for intercession, deliverance, salvation. Huge difference.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:02 AM January 15, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]