I. Frodo Baggins & the Sacerdotal

Introduction and Thesis, being the first part of a five part series

In Defense of  Frodo Baggins: A Sacerdotal Character

I am reluctant to draw from the “masculinity” well once again. My intent with “Questions on Masculinity” was to set down some thoughts on this tortured question and leave it aside. However, some months ago in an exchange I made public my discontent with what I take to be the misapprehended and sometimes maligned character of Frodo Baggins in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Perhaps more interesting, I think this problem stems from an underappreciated or mistaken character trait of virtuous men, or one of men’s’ callings: a priestly calling. I argue that Frodo represents a priestly or sacerdotal type, an ultimately celibate and sacrificial kind which is not bound to quite the same course of other mortals, but an element of which all men are bound to exercise.

It is not particularly groundbreaking to observe the applicability of the Biblical types or offices of priest, prophet, and king (offices all exercised by Christ) and the trio of characters of Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn.¹ Aragorn is perhaps the easiest parallel to draw–a king raised in the lands of the once Northern kingdom of a pair founded by a race of exiles swept across the sea by a divine intervention in the face of pharaonic arrogance and claims of divine rulership.² Note also that this king arrives to deliver his people from the slavery and death by their ancient foe even as their urban political and cultural steward collapses into moral rot born of pride and arrogance.³ Note also Aragorn’s ancient lineage, his distance from ordinary men, his healing hands and we have quite the Christus Rex figure. Gandalf is likewise recognizable as a prophetic figure. “Prophet”, after all, means “interpreter” or “expounder” if we trace the etymological roots of the word. This is a major role of the itinerant wizard who constantly sets events in motion– not only by reading the signs of the times but also dispelling the falsehoods and machinations of false or fallen counterparts, most notably Sauruman, but also Sauron and the Balrog in Moria. In each instance, Gandalf is obliged to face down a warped, perverted, and rebellious iteration/incarnation of reality who, one way or another, seeks to obscure the basic truth of the Secret Fire and the Sovereignty of Eru Illúvatar. Tolkien observed that, “In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about ‘freedom’, though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honor.”⁴ As a messenger of the Valar (earthly powers not unlike angelic principalities installed by Eru Illúvatar, the One, Creator God and supreme deity), Gandalf is in some sense first and foremost concerned with preserving the freedom of will and soundness of intellect of those who would resist the various forms of “idolatry” found in Sauruman, Sauron, & Morgoth (represented by the Balrog) who in turn seek to supplant Eru with industry, technology, or a direct spiritual challenge. Furthermore, Gandalf bears an Elven ring (which themselves are a kind of darkley mirrored technologization of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Love). Finally, I might observe that in his dealings with Gríma Wormtongue, Denethor, & the Mouth of Sauron, Gandalf parallels elements of prophetic figures like Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.         

Nevertheless, Frodo Baggins is our present concern. Much is made of Frodo’s sacrifice and willingness to bear a burden he alone seems both just wise enough to grasp and frail enough to long-withstand its temptations of power. But, “Frodo as sacrificial victim” –an angle Peter Jackson’s movies highlight–seriously undervalues and misapprehends his agency as a character. It is only half the picture. I confess that my subsequent case rests firmly on the presumption of Tolkien’s Catholicism as informing his work. A non-Catholic reading of Hebrews may contribute to some readers overlooking this priestly aspect of Frodo’s character. Moreover, in the wider culture, priesthood is rarely understood or most often poorly conceived, which too may obscure the matter. Light might first also shine on the characteristics which I identify as priestly per se. They are 1) a divine call that sets apart, 2) possessing and exercising spiritual authority, 3) a living sacrifice of the self, 4) a particular emphasis on mercy, 5) a final inadequacy or limitation. 

What follows then is a literary analysis. I have selected six scenes from The Lord of the Rings which sufficiently demonstrate my case. My investigation is supplemented with Tolkien’s own comments on the character of Frodo in his letters, and by examining the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a condensed expression of the teaching on priesthood which is applicable to the present work. A few brief notes before I proceed. This analysis operates by analogy, by the parallelism or applicability of a trait or pattern. I nowhere mean to imply a bald one-to-one identification or allegorization among any of the comparisons I have made or am about to make. Tolkien’s view on the question is oft-cited–and misused. As it happens, I share his view and consistent with it I fully acknowledge the tenuousness and frailty of this enterprise. Furthermore, I aim to cleave as closely to the text as possible; for the most part I will engage neither other commentators nor Tolkien scholars. To do so would be presumptuous. I do not take my work to be original in its content; it seems so obvious to me that I am certain someone else must have made these or like points before now. If so, I am unaware of who has or how they have done so. Finally, I should note that Tolkien wrote well-rounded, full characters. Therefore, though I have adopted distinct parallels among three characters and three offices, readers ought to maintain an awareness that the characters all share in the activities and traits of those offices which do not strictly correspond to them– and other traits or offices besides. Frodo governs, interprets, follows, is tutored by many masters. These qualifications in mind, let us begin. 

The initial steps of the analysis will be released in “Part the Second: The End of Council of Elrond & Galadriel and Her Ring”.

1.  “Type” is here used advisedly. I am of course aware of the strict Biblical sense, but I ask the reader to allow me some literary leeway.

2. An entire essay might be written comparing the theological symbolism of Pharaoh's pretense at divinity and Ar-Pharazôn’s war on the divinely ordained powers of the Valar.

3. Compare Denethor and Caiaphas on the question of recognizing authority.

4. Tolkien, J.R.R. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. ed. Humphrey Carpenter & Christopher Tolkien. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000), 243. cf. The Fellowship of the Ring: Being the First Part of The Lord of the Rings, II. Chapter 5 “The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm.” (Boston: Mifflin Harcourt 1965), p.344