Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce on Tolkien
- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
>> And it'd be perfectly possible for Pearce to make any points he wantsThat's the point, really: Pearce's comment about the Annunciation is ...
>> the importance of March 25th as a date without throwing in this stuff
>> the Annunciation being more important than Christmas.
> Again, that depends on what is meant by "important". (I didn't enter into
> matter of allegorization, about which I mostly agree with you anyways, and
> won't do so now, since it has nothing to do with the importance of March
> vis a vis Dec. 25.)
let's upgrade it from "wrong" to "questionable" ... and completely
irrelevant to his core argument about the significance of the Destruction of
>> There is indeed no need to do so, given as youWell, if you're relying solely on the current position on that, it's only
>> point out that the date of ensoulment has been a matter of question.
> But is no longer so.
fair to note that the current position has been to downgrade the
Annunciation, given that it's ceased to be a Holy Day of Obligation and it's
ceased to be New Year's.
>> It is Pearce's pushing of the Annunciation that is his rewriting ofThen maybe that's what I meant, "liturgically" rather than "theologically".
> Again, how so? Liturgical importance is not a matter of theology, but of
I vaguely thought that liturgical significance is part of theology; if not,
I apologize for being uncertain about the borderline between them, or just
picking the wrong word. Insofar as there is a difference, Pearce's argument
about the Annunciation was a liturgical rather than a theological one.
"Larry Swain" <theswain@...> wrote:
> The festival in Latin, btw, is called Festum Incarnationis, Festival ofFair enough, but what would it have been to Tolkien?
> the Incarnation. Historically, the date is quite important indeed, and
> in comparison to Christmas as to importance, that would greatly depend
> on the period one is speaking of since that has changed and shifted over
> the centuries.
>>And it'd be perfectly possible for Pearce to make any points heI'm not at all sure what you think you're correcting here with your
>> wants about
>> the importance of March 25th as a date without throwing in this
>> stuff about
>> the Annunciation being more important than Christmas. In an
>> allegory of
>> Frodo's trek as the Via Dolorosa, the only relevance of the
>> Annunciation is
>> its tie to the traditional belief that it was _also_ the date of
>> Crucifixion. (Which has to be approached in this roundabout way
>> while the date to celebrate the Annunciation is fixed, the
>> Crucifixion is of
>> course commemorated as a movable feast and not on a specific
> Nonetheless, at least since the third century, March 25 was the accepted
> date of the crucifixion. The reason that Good Friday as commemoration
> of the crucifixion is moveable is because of Passover and the lunar
> calendar, calculating the date of Easter in reference to Passover,
> predates the commemoration of March 25 by a couple of centuries.
"Nonetheless," as I did specifically cite "the traditional belief that
[March 25] was also the date of the Crucifixion," which is exactly what
you've gone to the trouble of pointing out. I specified that it's the
_commemoration_ of the Crucifixion which moves, and I did say "of course"
about that, in an apparently futile attempt to assure readers that yes, I
know about Easter and the lunar calendar.
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.