Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

[Tyranno223]

Many thanks to Ultima for helping me with this project! This is a cosmology expansion for Tolkien's Legendarium that proposes Eru as tier 0 and the Ainur in their "Prior to entering Eä" key as High 1-A+

Tolkien High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal Draft

vsbattles.fandom.com

---

The draft itself will contain the meat of the arguments and relevant references, and I insist that people read it. But for a basic summary:

The current justification for Low 1-C Ainur and Eru is that Eru is threefold. Essentially the conflict between the Ainur shakes the Timeless Halls and potentially beyond, aka the Low 1-C "primary" level of existence that Eru and the Ainur all reside. The Halls being Low 1-C due to R>F for 3 separate reasons which are summarised in short below:

1. Tolkien uses the same language to differentiate Eru's and the Ainur's level of existence to Eä (the universe) as he does to differentiate between reality and mythology
2. Eru holds all of Eä as mere thought, being able to maintain it in his mind. To Him, it is on the same level as fiction is, as an entire space-time is but merely thought in His mind (indeed, the language is used describes Eä as but one finite fictional sub-creation under Eru/God's infinite creative potential. Meanwhile Tolkien states both space and time in Eä being limitlessly extensive, aka infinite. In essence a 4-D Space-Time is finite and fractional compared to Eru)
3. Eru is described as an author, with his interventions being that of an Author, as is his role, level of existence, etc.

This would, if maintained, result in a 1-A cosmology as a baseline due to R>F Qualitative Superiority. However, since the initial revision, my understanding of Tolkien's cosmology has expanded upon this. In short, there are three key existences that matter to this revision:

1. God/Eru
2. Sub-creators/Authors
3. The Ainur/Angels/gods

Tolkien, in short, equates his conception of God in all things as the same. God in fiction is coeval with God in reality within his conception. Naturally, this will not be taken to its extreme limits (and the blog details this point and its justifications in detail) but what this does mean is that God in Tolkien's writings refers to the same entity. God is given many titles by Tolkien, the Creator, the One, and Eru. This is a result of Tolkien's Catholic viewpoint in that there is only one Creator, one single indivisible God that all creative potential stems from.

From the Creator comes forth Sub-creators. At the basest form, anything can be a sub-creator, for the act of sub-creation is simply the act of creation through the channels provided by God. However, the title of Sub-creator is given by Tolkien in reference to those who create stories. For example, Tolkien himself is a Sub-creator and subordinate to God. This does not mean that Tolkien is a true character within the Legendarium in a way that matters, but what this revision does consider is that the position of Sub-creators is very real within the Legendarium.

Indeed, the Ainur are addressed as such by Tolkien, being the angelic and highest creations of Eru/God that possess "special" sub-creative power.

---

Now for the argument.

Eru/God is given many, many reasons as to why He can be considered Tier 0.

• Point 1: Eru/God is boundless and the source of possibilities
• Point 2: Eru/God is unique
• Point 3: Eru/God holds infinite power in comparison to even the Ainur
• Point 4: Eru/God is the source of all free-wills, life, the universe, etc
• Point 5: Eru/God is ineffable and unreachable, He is beyond even thought

In brief, Eru is singular, ineffable, distinct, unreachable, beyond knowledge, source of all things, etc. He essentially matches the description of a Tier 0 entity.

Sub-creators meanwhile are capable of realising all logical possible worlds under God/Eru's Creation. As Tolkien himself writes, there are no "'bounds to a writer's job' except those imposed by his own finiteness..." and "the laws of contradiction".

• Sub-creators (encore)
  • Of course, Sub-creators are finite despite as only God is considered infinite. Compared to God, Sub-creators are considered as "refracted light" from a "single white"

The Ainur in turn occupy a similar seat to the Sub-creators, albeit higher. Both occupy the Primary Reality, the level of "Reality"/"Creation" and both stand above all possible worlds of sub-creation as a result. The Ainur/angels however are considered to be God's "highest created beings" to whom "special 'sub creative'" power was given. Ainur are thus in excess of the Sub-creators as a baseline.

• The Ainur

---

Again, the blog is where the meat of the proposal is, this is a basic summarisation. The potential concerns of religion are also addressed there, but in short, Tolkien's is very respectful of his own faith.

God being the same across all things is just that. There is no direct quotation of biblical verses in any noticeable fashion within the Lord of the Rings or Hobbit, indeed it is sometimes easy to forget Eru and the Ainur are there as they are only really hinted, and even the Silmarillion reads quite differently as a Creation story despite having the same beats. The Legendarium is a fundamentally Christian work, but not in an overly overt way that results in a 1 to 1 translation of the Christian God into power scaling, rather this is the indexing of Tolkien's description of his views of God through fiction.

Agree:
Ultima_Reality
DarkDragonMedeus
Antvasima
BestMGQScalerEver
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn
Duragoji123
Grand_Astartes
Wankbreaker
Bernkastelll
Lordhesperus
Robo432343
VeryGoofyToddler2
Infinitinet
OrangeFR

Disagree:
PrinceofPein

Currently in Grace.

 

[Tyranno223]

Well uh, the queue is gone now. Guess I'll bump this too.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

this is blatant

 

[the_doctor]

Yooo calm down bruh we finally get tier 0 for Tolkien before the GTA 6

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

High 1-A+ / 0 Stuffs for Ainur, Sub-creators, and Eru

Yeah um. I agree with MGO. This is as blatant as blatant can get. The only way this would've gotten more blatant for Eru is if he had some form of "The answer to 'Can Eru do X ?' is always Yes" .

 

[Tyranno223]

The only way this would've gotten more blatant for Eru is if he had some form of "The answer to 'Can Eru do X ?' is always Yes" .

Well...

"God cannot be limited (even by his own Foundations)... and may use any channel for His grace. " - Letter 250

Basically covers the same ground.

 

[ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn]

As I said in the discussion thread, I agree with this. Eru is basically Tolkein's equivalent of the Abrahamic God, and is written and portrayed as such. I also agree with the rest of the thread.

 

[Duragoji123]

Mucho agreed. Probably the most blatant (or at least one of the most blatant) example of characters reaching this high

 

[Grand_Astartes]

Finally it is here... Pretty easy agree. Well done with the draft.

 

[Wankbreaker]

huge yap

Read the whole thing, seems good

 

[Bernkastelll]

I guess I will make tier 0 profiles for all verses i've read with immense catholic theology

It's pretty blatant, I agree

 

[Tyranno223]

huge yap

Did you expect anything less from a Tolkien revision?

 

[Bernkastelll]

bump

 

[Lordhesperus]

Bump. it's safe to say that Ainur are flexing their High 1-A+ muscles and Eru sits comfortably at Tier 0, drink his cosmic Coffee.

 

[Mephistus]

wow

 

[Hasty12345]

Agree fra

 

[ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn]

huge yap

If a Tolkein revision wasn't stupidly long, there's a problem.

 

[Tyranno223]

Bump.

 

[Lordhesperus]

as I understand in point 5, Eru is ineffable which means he is also beyond any terms/names right?

 

[Tyranno223]

as I understand in point 5, Eru is ineffable which means he is also beyond any terms/names right?

Any name or term can be ascribed to Eru, but on a relative scale, none of them would have any more truth to them than the other. Eru is beyond defining or understanding by anything/anyone, He's beyond even thought.

It's the classic Catholic theology of God being unknowable due to Him being "infinite" relative to everyone. Anything but God is finite, even the Angels/Ainur.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This whole thing is just out of place.
So what i am seeing here is that since Tolkien has the christian God in mind when writing Eru, that means Eru = Christian God and should be tiered as such?
First, this is against the rule.
Secondly, we do not use IRL tiering for fictional characters of the same name or structures.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Well...

"God cannot be limited (even by his own Foundations)... and may use any channel for His grace. " - Letter 250

Basically covers the same ground.

I'm uncertain if this is equivalent to 'Can God do X' so could you explain your reasoning ?

This whole thing is just out of place.
So what i am seeing here is that since Tolkien has the christian God in mind when writing Eru, that means Eru = Christian God and should be tiered as such?
First, this is against the rule.
Secondly, we do not use IRL tiering for fictional characters of the same name or structures.

The Sub-Creators are High 1-A+ because the only limits to their creative power is the law of non-contradiction
Eru upscales because the Sub-Creators [and the Ainur who upscale from the Sub-Creators] are merely the faintest echo of what Eru is capable , and are finite compared to his infinite.

 

[Grand_Astartes]

This whole thing is just out of place.
So what i am seeing here is that since Tolkien has the christian God in mind when writing Eru, that means Eru = Christian God and should be tiered as such?
First, this is against the rule.
Secondly, we do not use IRL tiering for fictional characters of the same name or structures.

Every single thing is all explained in the draft. No, Eru is not intended to literally be the God of the Abrahamic faiths, that isn't even the reasoning for Eru being tier 0 in the CRT. That is pure heresy and Tolkien blatantly acknowledges that. (It is in the draft) I am not even sure what you mean by "IRL tiering" as a critique for this proposal. Elaborate?

 

[Tyranno223]

This whole thing is just out of place.
So what i am seeing here is that since Tolkien has the christian God in mind when writing Eru, that means Eru = Christian God and should be tiered as such?
First, this is against the rule.
Secondly, we do not use IRL tiering for fictional characters of the same name or structures.

That is a serious reductionism of what changes are being proposed. All suggested changes are taken from Tolkien's account not literal Bible verses or Catholic theology (unless mentioned or relevant)

I have already discussed whether or not it violates the rules with Ultima, and have addressed the concerns of religion within the draft.

It is my opinion you have not read the draft, so I shall point you to it.

 

[Tyranno223]

I'm uncertain if this is equivalent to 'Can God do X' so could you explain your reasoning ?

It basically says God has no limits, not even Himself. He can do anything as any channel of action of change can be used by Himself.

 

[Tyranno223]

Eru is not intended to literally be the God of the Abrahamic faiths, that isn't even the reasoning for Eru being tier 0 in the CRT. That is pure heresy and Tolkien blatantly acknowledges that. (It is in the draft)

To be 100% clear, Eru is essentially meant to be the Abrahamic God to an extent. Rather, Eru is meant to be Tolkien's interpretation of God within fiction (his theology seeming lacking a strong seperation of God in fiction from reality).

That being said, as I said in the draft, I have used nothing beyond what Tolkien states about God within his Letters and writing to talk about Eru. Tolkien himself is cautious about the matter and avoids things such as the Resurrection in his writing.

PrinceofPein is making an inaccurate critique.

 

[Bernkastelll]

To be 100% clear, Eru is essentially meant to be the Abrahamic God to an extent. Rather, Eru is meant to be Tolkien's interpretation of God within fiction (his theology seeming lacking a strong seperation of God in fiction from reality).

That being said, as I said in the draft, I have used nothing beyond what Tolkien states about God within his Letters and writing to talk about Eru. Tolkien himself is cautious about the matter and avoids things such as the Resurrection in bis wriitng.

PrinceofPein is making an inaccurate critique.

It's not like Tolkien is doing a copypasta of the Summa Theologiae, he just created a character with certain characteristics

 

[Tyranno223]

It's not like Tolkien is doing a copypasta of the Summa Theologiae, he just created a character with certain characteristics

Basically, yeah. Eru is God, but not Dante's Divine Comedy levels of 1 to 1. Heck, how many profiles do we have which are literally X divine figure but in an author's interpretation again?

By Pein's argument, they must all be removed and are against the rules.

 

[Robo432343]

disagree with Pein FRA

 

[PrinceofPein]

That is a serious reductionism of what changes are being proposed. All suggested changes are taken from Tolkien's account not literal Bible verses or Catholic theology (unless mentioned or relevant)

I have already discussed whether or not it violates the rules with Ultima, and have addressed the concerns of religion within the draft.

It is my opinion you have not read the draft, so I shall point you to it.

You literally said these things in the OP, Tolkien's description of IRL God is the same as thing that is being used too justify Eru, so I do not see how I am wrong

Tolkien, in short, equates his conception of God in all things as the same. God in fiction is coeval with God in reality within his conception. Naturally, this will not be taken to its extreme limits (and the blog details this point and its justifications in detail) but what this does mean is that God in Tolkien's writings refers to the same entity.

The Legendarium is a fundamentally Christian work, but not in an overly overt way that results in a 1 to 1 translation of the Christian God into power scaling, rather this is the indexing of Tolkien's description of his views of God through fiction.

Anyway, yes I have not read the blog, but I will read through it when I am free and see if you resolved the numerous anti-feats to High 1A and tier 0

 

[Tyranno223]

You literally said these things in the OP, Tolkien's description of IRL God is the same as thing that is being used too justify Eru, so I do not see how I am wrong

Pein, the only part I highlighted in my entire post was I insist people read the blog. You can't make a snap judgement like that, come on!

I quite literally also addressed the religious concerns!

 

[PrinceofPein]

Pein, the only part I highlighted in my entire post was I insist people read the blog. You can't make a snap judgement like that, come on!

I am not making a snap judgement I simply quoted the words you said in your summary of the supposed blog, unless you do not mean them.
Anyway, like I said, I will go through the blog and see how the Anti-feats were resolved

 

[Tyranno223]

I am not making a snap judgement I simply quoted the words you said in your summary of the supposed blog, unless you do not mean them.
Anyway, like I said, I will go through the blog and see how the Anti-feats were resolved

"God in fiction is coeval with God in reality within his conception. Naturally, this will not be taken to its extreme limits (and the blog details this point and its justifications in detail) but what this does mean is that God in Tolkien's writings refers to the same entity. " is in the OP.

Again, you can't make a judgement from a short summary, the blog is the actual revision. Regardless, I'll wait.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hmh.

Yeah, I'll say I'm rather on the fence about this revision, as it stands. Obviously, the issue isn't whether the statements suffice for the proposed tiers; they do, and "This is drawing from IRL religion" isn't an objection worth entertaining.

Fact of the matter here is that Tolkien had his own personal metaphysics that grounded his work. The worldbuilding in it is modelled with those metaphysics in mind, and so he directly uses concepts and terminology plucked straight from them while explaining the Legendarium's setting (e.g. The Ainur being writers/sub-creators, while Eru is God, from which their works and stories are drawn). The question here is whether we apply statements that Tolkien made with regards to his system itself to the system as it relates to the Legendarium. Frankly I can see it going either way, so, count me as neutral for now. I'll think it further and see if I can form an opinion on it later.

 

[DOOMSLAYER127]

Hmh.

Yeah, I'll say I'm rather on the fence about this revision, as it stands. Obviously, the issue isn't whether the statements suffice for the proposed tiers; they do, and "This is drawing from IRL religion" isn't an objection worth entertaining.

Fact of the matter here is that Tolkien had his own personal metaphysics that grounded his work. The worldbuilding in it is modelled with those metaphysics in mind, and so he directly uses concepts and terminology plucked straight from them while explaining the Legendarium's setting (e.g. The Ainur being writers/sub-creators, while Eru is God, from which their works and stories are drawn). The question here is whether we apply statements that Tolkien made with regards to his system itself to the system as it relates to the Legendarium. Frankly I can see it going either way, so, count me as neutral for now. I'll think it further and see if I can form an opinion on it later.

If all members(mods)agree with the CRT, would this get accepted even if you're neutral?

 

[Tyranno223]

Fact of the matter here is that Tolkien had his own personal metaphysics that grounded his work. The worldbuilding in it is modelled with those metaphysics in mind, and so he directly uses concepts and terminology plucked straight from them while explaining the Legendarium's setting (e.g. The Ainur being writers/sub-creators, while Eru is God, from which their works and stories are drawn). The question here is whether we apply statements that Tolkien made with regards to his system itself to the system as it relates to the Legendarium. Frankly I can see it going either way, so, count me as neutral for now. I'll think it further and see if I can form an opinion on it later.

In regards to the System of Tolkien, I would say that is mostly an issue that applies to the Ainur.

Even without being "God", Eru is still a

• Transcendent unique Creator (Point 2)
  • Sauron had been attached to the greatest, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendent unique Creator. Olórin (Vol II p. 279) had been attached to Manwë - Letter 200
• Possessing of infinite creative power inside and outside His design compared to even the Ainur. (Point 3)
  • Therefore since the creative power of Eru was infinite (both outside and within the confines of His great Design in which we have part) - The Nature of Middle-Earth: Part Two, XV ELVISH REINCARNATION
• The source of all life, being that from which Free-will derives (Point 4).
  • Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.- Letter 153
  • …the Children of God, Men and Elves (the firstborn) respectively, and could not be altered by anyone (even a Power or god), and would not be altered by the One, except perhaps by one of those strange exceptions to all rules and ordinances which seem to crop up in the history of the Universe, and show the Finger of God, as the one wholly free Will and Agent. - Letter 156
  • He [Eru] is outside Eä but holds the whole of Eä in thought (by which it coheres) - Letter 156
  • The Valar had power to endue things that they designed with corporeal life; but they could not make things with independent minds or spirits: sc. they could not make things of equal order, but only ones of lower order. In ultimate truth they did not in fact “make” even corporeal life, which proceeded from Eru - The Nature of Middle-Earth: Part Three, III POWERS OF THE VALAR
  • Truly,' said Andreth. 'So may Eru in that mode be present in Eä that proceeded from Him- Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth
    
    Indeed, Eru is considered to be one with all things and the source for all things in Eä and presumably higher Creation as the Author.
    
    Finrod, however, sees now that, as things were, no created thing or being in Arda, or in all Ea, was powerful enough to counteract or heal Evil: that is to subdue Melkor (in his present person, reduced though that was) and the Evil that he had dissipated and sent out from himself into the very structure of the world. Only Eru himself could do this. Therefore, since it was unthinkable that Eru would abandon the world to the ultimate triumph and domination of Melkor (which could mean its ruin and reduction to chaos), Eru Himself must at some time come to oppose Melkor. But Eru could not enter wholly into the worldand its history, which is, however great, only a finite Drama. He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment. Finrod therefore thinks that He will, when He comes, have to be both 'outside' and inside; and so he glimpses the possibility of complexity or of distinctions in the nature of Eru, which nonetheless leaves Him 'The One'.- Morgoth's Ring: ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH The Debate of Finrod and Andreth
    • • Note, not "complexity" or "distinction" in a truly divisible sense. Moreso in the sense of Eru's complexity as a singular "One" existence.
• Ineffable and beyond thought (Point 5).
  • Is then Eru only the greatest of the Valar, a great god among gods, as most Men will say, even among the Atani: a king who dwells far from his kingdom and leaves lesser princes to do here much as they will? Again you say: nay', Eru is One, alone without peer, and He made Eä, and is beyond it; and the Valar are greater than we, but yet no nearer to His majesty. Is this not so?- Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth
  • 'The Music of the Amur', defining the relation of The One, the transcendental Creator, to the Valar, the 'Powers', the angelical First-created, and their pan in ordering and carrying out the Primeval Design.- Letter 257
    • Indeed, it is briefly noted by Gandalf that the Timeless Halls are beyond "thought" and "time" themselves when Eru intervened to restore his physical life.
  • I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin. Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell. ‘Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done. - The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Book Three, V The White Rider
    
    He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'. - Letter 156

---

Regarding the metaphysics as a whole. I do not believe Tolkien "planned" a system that pertains to the Legendarium, rather the Legendarium pertains to his system. Eru/God is repeatedly used in contexts that conjoins our reality (within the context of Tolkien's metaphysics) as are the Ainur. For instance.

• “So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation..." in reference to the Ainur, being that they are indeed Angels, with Tolkien "feigning" as he is not 100% certain whether or not the special sub-creative power he gives them is 100% true.
• "The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write" is one of many examples, wherein Tolkien again acknowledges Eru as God in writing.
• "I note your remarks about Sauron. He was always de-bodied when vanquished. The theory, if one can dignify the modes of the story with such a term, is that he was a spirit, a minor one but still an 'angelic' spirit. According to the mythology of these things that means that, though of course a creature, he belonged to the race of intelligent beings that were made before the physical world, and were permitted to assist in their measure in the making of it. Those who became most involved in this work of An, as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves) they desired to enter into it, from the beginning of its 'realization'." is a major example, wherein Tolkien equates the reality of the Ainur/angels with our own. While of course, he "feigns" knowledge on them, he considers the Ainur as equally potent to the Primary reality of Sub-creators.
• They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence– even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.)
  
  But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. - Letter 153 is another major example, wherein we see the relating of God directly to Eru. The Legendarium and Tolkien's world views are again directly connected in an overt way.

The relevant characters of this revision thread are therefore very much interconnected with Tolkien's "wider system" of fiction, with them being directly related.

 

[Tyranno223]

To put it simply the Legendarium is one portion of a grander system, albeit the most detailed portion of it. The same system includes "The Real World/Primary Reality" ad the Sub-creators of it. Eru is transcendent to it all and the Ainur occupy a similar seat to what we call "Sub-creators" by being residents of the "Primary Reality" as well.

I do not believe the Legendarium needs separating from the wider system Tolkien's fiction operates under considering it is such a large part of it and as various characters of the Legendarium (as in characters of the narrative) are major parts of it. Eru is unequivocally equated to Tolkien's views on God (and even without that, Eru has arguments for Tier 0) and the Ainur to the angels of the "Real World".

Therefore, regarding how the system relates to the Legendarium, I think it's simple to say that the Legendarium itself is just part of the system, with the Ainur and Eru/God being major players within it. The two are too interconnected to separate cleanly.

Edit: Best to leave the Tom Bombadil stuff out of this for now.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Edit: Best to leave the Tom Bombadil stuff out of this for now.

No, it is probably of interest. If Tom Bombabil is considered an "outsider" to the Legendarium and yet he is part of the overall verse, then this seems to give some insight on how exactly the verse's scope works. Can you elaborate a bit further on that?

 

[Tyranno223]

No, it is probably of interest. If Tom Bombabil is considered an "outsider" to the Legendarium and yet he is part of the overall verse, then this seems to give some insight on how exactly the verse's scope works. Can you elaborate a bit further on that?

It's a bit of a mixed bag really. I edited it out because I don't think his role as an outsider is relevant persay?

• "You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name – can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not 'what is Tom Bombadil' but 'Who is he'. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of 'I am that am' – which is quite different from he is.* She adds as a concession a statement of pan of the 'what'. He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.
  
  I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine)3 and wanted an 'adventure' on the way." - Letter 157
• "You may note that I have written a new Bombadil poem, which I hope is adequate to go with the older one, though for its understanding it requires some knowledge of the L.R. At any rate it performs the service of further 'integrating' Tom with the world of the L.R. into which he was inserted." - Letter 237

He is a literal outsider to the Legendarium that has been inserted into it because Tolkien could. His appearance in the Legendarium is more of a sort of cameo? Conjoining? Of older (and later newer) poetry and writings from Tolkien with the Legendarium.

• Tom predating the Legendarium, both literally and retroactively.

For the record, Tolkien often tried to connect his works to the Legendarium. Of course, not everything (not Gawain for instance), but this included stuff such as a certain story about a Anglo-Saxon viking who time travels to Numenor (granted, this too is retroactive as well, but he does make a second attempt with a 20th C protagonist).

Regardless, I do not believe the Legendarium should be considered independent of what Tolkien conceives of in regards to fantasy as a whole. It is simply a part of his wider system/verse.

• Tolkien does consider his theology to apply to the Legendarium after all. ""'Reincarnation' may be bad theology (that surely, rather than metaphysics) as applied to Humanity; and my legendarium, especially the 'Downfall of Númenor' which lies immediately behind The Lord of the Rings, is based on my view: that Men are essentially mortal and must not try to become 'immortal' in the flesh." - Letter 153

 

[Tyranno223]

"D. Gueroult: There's an autumnal quality throughout the whole of The Lord of the Rings, in one case a character says the story continues but I seem to have dropped out of it … however, everything is declining, fading, at least towards the end of the Third Age. Every choice tends to the upsetting of some tradition. Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson's "the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways". Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

J.R.R. Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.

D. Gueroult: Is he the One?

J.R.R. Tolkien: The One… yes."

- 1964 BBC Interview

There is this stuff to consider as well. I somehow missed all this till just now.

---

"Tolkien: I couldn't possibly construct a mythology which had Olympus or Asgard in it on the terms in which the people who’d worshiped those gods believed. God is the supreme, the creator, outside, transcendent. The place of the gods is taken, so well taken that I think it really makes no difference to the ordinary reader, is taken by the angelic spirits created by God, created before the particular time sequence which we call the world, which is called in their language ‘Eä’, ‘that which is’, ‘that which now exists’. Those are the Valar, the Powers. It’s a construction, you see, a mythology in which a large part of the demiurgic of the thing has been handed over to powers which are created therein under The One. It's a bit like, but much more elaborate and more thought out than, C. S. Lewis’s business with his Out of the Silent Planet where we have a demiurgus who is actually in command of the planet Mars. And the idea that Lucifer was originally the one in command of the world, but he fell, and so it was a silent planet [unintelligible] that was the idea; well this is not the same with me.

Gueroult: Yes, yes…so, then you have…in your theocracy, you have an ultimate One, whom you call…

Tolkien: He’s called The One only.

Gueroult: The One only. And then the Valar, who are considered as living in Valinor."

- 1965 BBC Interview

---

"Gueroult: Almost the last question: do you in fact believe, yourself, not in the context of this book, believe in the sense of straightforward strict belief, in the Eldar or in some form of governing spirits?

Tolkien: Well the Eldar must be distinguished from the Valar. The Eldar are only…

Gueroult: The Valar, I mean. I'm sorry.

Tolkien: Yes…umm… [pause]

Gueroult: Are you in fact a theist?

Tolkien: [emphatically] Oh, I’m a Roman Catholic…devout Roman Catholic, yes, but I don’t know about angelology. Yes, I should’ve thought almost certainly…yes. Certainly.

Gueroult: Well they seem to me to be the saints or the equivalent of the saints.

Tolkien: For theology, in some way, yes; [lights match] they take the place, in this book of the things in which the medieval and old religions you have the gods in the invocation of the saints which are lesser angels, you see; yes, they do. Well, so obviously many people have noticed that praying to the Lady or the Queen of the Stars is most like Roman Catholics in the invocations of Our Lady."

- 1965 BBC Interview