Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce on Tolkien

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... That s the point, really: Pearce s comment about the Annunciation is ... let s upgrade it from wrong to questionable ... and completely irrelevant to
    Message 1 of 53 , Apr 9, 2011
      "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
      >> And it'd be perfectly possible for Pearce to make any points he wants
      >> about
      >> the importance of March 25th as a date without throwing in this stuff
      >> about
      >> the Annunciation being more important than Christmas.
      >
      > Again, that depends on what is meant by "important". (I didn't enter into
      > the
      > matter of allegorization, about which I mostly agree with you anyways, and
      > I
      > won't do so now, since it has nothing to do with the importance of March
      > 25
      > vis a vis Dec. 25.)

      That's the point, really: Pearce's comment about the Annunciation is ...
      let's upgrade it from "wrong" to "questionable" ... and completely
      irrelevant to his core argument about the significance of the Destruction of
      the Ring.


      >> There is indeed no need to do so, given as you
      >> point out that the date of ensoulment has been a matter of question.
      >
      > But is no longer so.

      Well, if you're relying solely on the current position on that, it's only
      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 of
      >> theology,
      >
      > Again, how so? Liturgical importance is not a matter of theology, but of
      > liturgy.

      Then maybe that's what I meant, "liturgically" rather than "theologically".
      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 of
      > 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.

      Fair enough, but what would it have been to Tolkien?


      >>And it'd be perfectly possible for Pearce to make any points he
      >> 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
      >> the
      >> Crucifixion. (Which has to be approached in this roundabout way
      >> since,
      >> while the date to celebrate the Annunciation is fixed, the
      >> Crucifixion is of
      >> course commemorated as a movable feast and not on a specific
      >> date.)
      >
      > 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.


      I'm not at all sure what you think you're correcting here with your
      "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.
    • Darrell A. Martin
      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 focus
      Message 53 of 53 , Apr 12, 2011
        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 focus -- which is why I early on changed the Subject line to remove
        Pearce -- was on whether or not Tolkien's disavowal was definitive.

        Darrell
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.