Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce on Tolkien
- On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:03 PM, David Bratman wrote:
> That's the point, really: Pearce's comment about the Annunciation is ...I wouldn't say irrelevant, but certainly of secondary significance wrt the Downfall as compared to the Crucifixion. But the Annunciation (both the event itself and the various events traditionally held to have occurred on the same date) is more relevant to the Downfall than is the Nativity.
> let's upgrade it from "wrong" to "questionable" ... and completely
> irrelevant to his core argument about the significance of the Destruction of
> the Ring.
(BTW, did Pearce point out that the Fellowship leave Rivendell on Dec. 25, which Tolkien says was chosen deliberately? I don't recall.)
> Well, if you're relying solely on the current position on that, it's onlyBut again, the status as a Holy Day of Obligation is of liturgical, not theological, significance.
> 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.
> Insofar as there is a difference, Pearce's argumentI don't remember the presentation well enough to know that, will have to review when I get a chance.
> about the Annunciation was a liturgical rather than a theological one.
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.