Oops, on reading again I see that the issue was whether *Pearce* had mentioned this. My bad. ... From: Diego Seguí Subject: Re:Message 1 of 53 , Apr 9, 2011View Source
Oops, on reading again I see that the issue was whether *Pearce* had mentioned this. My bad.
--- On Sat, 4/9/11, Diego Seguí <tirachinas@...> wrote:
From: Diego Seguí <tirachinas@...>
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce on Tolkien
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2011, 11:24 PM
> > (BTW, did Pearce point out that the Fellowship leave Rivendell on Dec. 25, which Tolkien says was chosen deliberately? I don't recall.)
> I don't believe he did. Since there's nothing Nativity-related about the Rivendell departure, if he had noted it, it would have undercut his certainty that the Destruction of the Ring was an allegory for the Crucifixion because of the date.
Pearce must be referring to this paragraph in the Nomenclature s.v. Lithe (RC:781):
"Midwinter only occurs once during the main narrative. The midwinter festival was not an Elvish custom, and so would not have been celebrated in Rivendell. The Fellowship, however, left on Dec. 25, which [date] had then no significance, since the Yule, or its equivalent, was then the last day of the year and the first of the next year. Though Dec. 25 (setting out) and March 25 (accomplishment of quest) were intentionally chosen by me."
Jason: I think your objection to Pearce, in that he did not mention Tolkien s disavowal of something he (Pearce) stated as a fact, is on target. My own focusMessage 53 of 53 , Apr 12, 2011View SourceJason:
I think your objection to Pearce, in that he did not mention Tolkien's
disavowal of something he (Pearce) stated as a fact, is on target. My
own focus -- which is why I early on changed the Subject line to remove
Pearce -- was on whether or not Tolkien's disavowal was definitive.