Why two months delay between the Council and departing Rivendell?

[JJ48]

Good research JJ48,

My impression of Christopher's comments is that perhaps JRRT doth protest too much. I now go back to the supposition that he could not resist the quest starting out from Rivendell on Christmas, and finishing on the Annunciation. This serendipitous opportunity may have occurred to him late, but, once it did, I suspect he found it so irresistible that he was willing to accept less than his usual brilliance in in-frame explanations.

And what's your reasoning for this suspicion? Nowhere is any mention made of Christmas or the Annunciation, nor is there any indication that scouting is a sub-par in-world explanation, unless we choose to assume that it would be preferable for the party to foolishly set off without proper intel.

 

[Flammifer]

In a previous post, I outlined why over extensive scouting seems sub-optimal.

No, there is no mention made of Christmas until we get to Appendix B, and find out that the date of departure from Rivendell was Christmas Day. However, we do get an unusual number of timing references in the chapter. JRRT is usually pretty good at indicating dates and timings, but, in this case he dwells on it considerably more than usual.

It starts with Gandalf saying, “So cheer up, Frodo! You will probably make quite a long stay here.” “Ah!” said Sam gloomily. “We’ll wait just long enough for winter to come.”

Bilbo chips in with a poem:

When winter first begins to bite
and stones crack in the frosty night
when pools are black and trees are bare
‘tis evil in the Wild to fare.

Later we get, “So the days slipped away, as each morning dawned bright and fair, and each evening followed cool and clear. But autumn was waning fast:”

“The hobbits had been nearly two months in the House of Elrond, and November had gone by with the last shreds of autumn, and December was passing…”

Finally, the day they leave, we have, “It was a cold grey day near the end of December”.

So, the timing of departure has been mentioned enough that it might be important. It must be sometime around Christmas. Indeed (if we ever get there) we will find, in Appendix B, that they leave Rivendell on the evening of Christmas Day.

I doubt, that all this commentary around the timing of the departure from Rivendell, followed by confirmation that departure was on Christmas, is accidental.

So, the many references to the timing make me think that JRRT had perhaps the sudden thought of Christmas when he made his timing revisions. Does Tolkien expect first time readers to guess that the departure is actually on Christmas? Or, does he expect many people to finally get the connection when they read the appendices after finishing TLOTR?

Leaving Rivendell on Christmas Day suggests themes such as:

Hope is born. A King is born. A Star will guide. The Wise will give gifts. Angels will be present. Shepherds (if shepherds there be) will rejoice and wonder. Estel, estel, estel!

However, none of these themes are explicit as the Fellowship leaves Rivendell quietly on the evening of what would later become Christmas Day and, “with one glance at the Last Homely House twinkling below them they strode away far into the night”.

So, how does Tolkien expect readers to figure this out, or interpret it?

Is JRRT's desire to have the Company leave Rivendell on the quest on Christmas Day to complement the completion of the quest with the destruction of the Ring on the Feast of the Annunciation (the whole quest takes place between the date of Christ's birth, and the date of his incarnation - significant book-ends, I would guess)?

Do we think it a mere coincidence that the quest of the Company begins and ends on these very significant Christian and Catholic dates?

What does Tolkien intend, by making the departure from Rivendell on Christmas Day?

Is JRRTs sudden thought that he wanted to start the quest on Christmas Day, the real reason for the two months spent in Rivendell? Is the rather weak in-frame explanation for the delay a consequence of the real reason being out of frame?

 

[JJ48]

Is JRRTs sudden thought that he wanted to start the quest on Christmas Day, the real reason for the two months spent in Rivendell? Is the rather weak in-frame explanation for the delay a consequence of the real reason being out of frame?

Repeatedly stating that that the in-frame explanation is weak does not make it so. We have Tolkien's statement as to what his reasoning was, and anything beyond that is pure speculation. I think you are grossly underestimating how long thorough scouting would take as well as how important it was to determine what happened to the last Ringwraith.

Furthermore, if Tolkien did choose these dates specifically for their Christian importance, then as far as I can see, he did a pretty poor job. As you yourself point out, Christmas-related themes don't really go along with the leaving of Rivendell, and what the Annunciation has to do with chucking the Ring into the fire is anyone's guess.

Do we think it a mere coincidence that the quest of the Company begins and ends on these very significant Christian and Catholic dates?

That would be my conclusion, barring evidence to the contrary.

 

[Flammifer]

We don't have JRRT's statement as to what his reasoning was. We have C. T.'s statement as to what his father told him his reasoning was. That is somewhat different.

These dates are highly unlikely to be coincidence. JRRT is far more aware and skilled than that! He chose those dates for a reason. The reason is highly likely to be out of frame from TLOTR.

As JRRT said, TLOTR is 'a fundamentally Christian and Catholic work'. It is hard to believe that these significant dates are not that sentiment manifested?

I simply don't understand your comment that 'as you yourself point out, Christmas related themes don't really go along with the leaving of Rivendell'. The themes I mentioned were: Hope is born. A King is born. A Star will guide. The Wise will give gifts. Angels will be present. Shepherds (if shepherds there be) will rejoice and wonder. Estel, estel, estel! Hope is born, as the counsels taken will work. A King is born, as Aragorn will reclaim his throne. A star will guide, as Earendil's star guides Sam in Mordor. The Wise will give gifts, as Galadriel gives the phial with the light of the Silmaril to Frodo. Angels will be present, and there is Gandalf. Shepherds will rejoice and wonder, and the Elves (if Shepherds they be, contrary to the thoughts of Lindir) do rejoice and wonder. The whole LOTR from this point on is replete with Christmas themes.

As far as what chucking the Ring in the Fire has to do with the Annunciation? Everything! When the Ring goes into the Fire, Sauron is destroyed. When God incarnates himself as Christ in the womb of Mary, Satan is destroyed (or at least weakened - Men are redeemed). Sure, to JRRT, the Ring into the Fire is a lesser and just a foreshadowing event to the Annunciation, but it is similar!


I find it frankly impossible to believe that bookending the quest with Christmas and the Annunciation is a coincidence!

 

[JJ48]

We don't have JRRT's statement as to what his reasoning was. We have C. T.'s statement as to what his father told him his reasoning was. That is somewhat different.

No, we have Christopher reporting what his father put in his own notes, to himself.

These dates are highly unlikely to be coincidence. JRRT is far more aware and skilled than that! He chose those dates for a reason. The reason is highly likely to be out of frame from TLOTR.

But the Catholic significance of those dates has nothing to do with the text. Simply putting in dates without further connection isn't subtle and skilled; it's coincidence or minor Easter egg at best, and downright clumsy shoehorning at worst.

As JRRT said, TLOTR is 'a fundamentally Christian and Catholic work'. It is hard to believe that these significant dates are not that sentiment manifested?

I believe this is wildly misinterpreting the quote from Tolkien. Granted, I am not myself Catholic (much less an early-20th century one), and so perhaps I could be mistaken, but I feel that Tolkien would have understood and respected the difference between a date commemorating something and the act that it commemorates. It is not the date of Christmas which is Christian, but the birth of Christ that is celebrated on that date. Divorced from that context, December 25th (or whatever date any other church chooses) has no inherently Christian meaning.

I do not believe that Tolkien means by that quote that The Lord of the Rings is full of codes and hidden references. Rather, I think that what he is saying is that the themes and messages are Christian in nature, and that the fictional world and its structure are consistent with and founded upon a Catholic understanding of the universe. Particular dates need not figure into it at all.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Feel free to stick to your guns Flammifer: you usually do.

From what I can find in the History of Middle-earth, the initial drafts of scouts being sent off makes no mention of Aragorn or the sons of Elrond. Indeed, Elrond's sons aren't mentioned for the first time until they accompany the Rangers down from the north, well into the writing. By this time, Lorien had already been established and visited, so I have to assume that when Tolkien went back and added them into the scouting, that he would have known what was in that area.

Concerning the chronology, I found this in The Treason of Isengard:

The chronology in FR, according to which the Company stayed more than two months in Rivendell and left on 25 December, had not yet entered. In the second version of The Council of Elrond’, which continued for some distance into the narrative of The Ring Goes South’, ‘the hobbits had been some three weeks in the house of Elrond, and November was passing’ when the scouts began to return; and at the Choosing of the Company the date of departure was settled for ‘the following Thursday, November the seventeenth’ (pp. 113, 115).7 In the new text the same was said (‘some three weeks … November was passing’), but this was changed, probably at once, to ‘The hobbits had been nearly a month in the house of Elrond, and November was half over, when the scouts began to return’; and subsequently (as in FR p. 290) Elrond says: ‘In seven days the Company must depart.’ No actual date for the leaving of Rivendell is now mentioned, but it had been postponed to nearer the end of the month (actually to 24 November, see p. 169).

Though, even then, a snowstorm turned them back on December 9th, so I don't think an earlier departure would have helped them much. I do find, however, that Tolkien himself addressed the change. His reasoning appears to have been to push back the departure so that more of the later journey could take place in spring rather than winter, with the 25th rather than the 24th being chosen so that he would only have to change the months for dates, rather than the numerical date values.


The next note on this page records my father’s decision to move the whole chronology of the Quest forward by a month:

Time Scheme. Too much takes place in winter. They should remain longer at Rivendell. This would have additional advantage of allowing Elrond’s scouts and messengers far longer time. He should discover Black Riders have gone back. Frodo should not start until say Dec. 24th.

It seems likely that 24 December was chosen as being ‘numerically’ one month later than the existing date, 24 November (p. 169); and that it was changed to 25 December to make the new dates agree ‘numerically’ with the existing time-structure (since November has 30 days but December 31): see p. 368. I do not understand the statement here that ‘the [Elrond] should discover Black Riders have gone back’, since the final text of ‘The Ring Goes South’ had been reached in Gandalf’s words ‘It is rash to be too sure, yet I think that we may hope now that the Ringwraiths were scattered, and have been obliged to return as best they could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless.’

This also suggests that allowing the scouts time for a more thorough search was the primary in-world justification for the delay, at least in Tolkien's mind.

(Italics are quotes from the book. Bold Italics are where Christopher is himself quoting long portions of Tolkien's drafts.)

We don't have JRRT's statement as to what his reasoning was. We have C. T.'s statement as to what his father told him his reasoning was. That is somewhat different.

Regarding the text that @JJ48 has quoted, it is important to note that C.T. was not reporting his recollection of a conversation (spoken or written), but transcribing JRRT's notes to himself, that he had no expectation of being read by others at the time of writing. If his out of frame motivation was the confluence of dates I would expect him to write that.

These dates are highly unlikely to be coincidence. JRRT is far more aware and skilled than that! He chose those dates for a reason. The reason is highly likely to be out of frame from TLOTR.

As JRRT said, TLOTR is 'a fundamentally Christian and Catholic work'. It is hard to believe that these significant dates are not that sentiment manifested?

I simply don't understand your comment that 'as you yourself point out, Christmas related themes don't really go along with the leaving of Rivendell'. The themes I mentioned were: Hope is born. A King is born. A Star will guide. The Wise will give gifts. Angels will be present. Shepherds (if shepherds there be) will rejoice and wonder. Estel, estel, estel! Hope is born, as the counsels taken will work. A King is born, as Aragorn will reclaim his throne. A star will guide, as Earendil's star guides Sam in Mordor. The Wise will give gifts, as Galadriel gives the phial with the light of the Silmaril to Frodo. Angels will be present, and there is Gandalf. Shepherds will rejoice and wonder, and the Elves (if Shepherds they be, contrary to the thoughts of Lindir) do rejoice and wonder. The whole LOTR from this point on is replete with Christmas themes.

As far as what chucking the Ring in the Fire has to do with the Annunciation? Everything! When the Ring goes into the Fire, Sauron is destroyed. When God incarnates himself as Christ in the womb of Mary, Satan is destroyed (or at least weakened - Men are redeemed). Sure, to JRRT, the Ring into the Fire is a lesser and just a foreshadowing event to the Annunciation, but it is similar!


I find it frankly impossible to believe that bookending the quest with Christmas and the Annunciation is a coincidence!

I see the thematic links you've made, but I would argue that they were intentionally present in the work in some form long before the departure and conclusion dates were finalised.

I think you have it a little backwards: I think his reasons are as documented in his drafts, but I think the confluence of dates would have been a confirming factor for him that this was the right decision, in much the same way that characters in the text will see the unfolding of unplanned (and unpredictable) events as confirmation of their decisions being correct.

 

[JJ48]

I simply don't understand your comment that 'as you yourself point out, Christmas related themes don't really go along with the leaving of Rivendell'.

You yourself pointed out that the text doesn't really make this connection when you wrote, "However, none of these themes are explicit as the Fellowship leaves Rivendell quietly on the evening of what would later become Christmas Day and, 'with one glance at the Last Homely House twinkling below them they strode away far into the night'. "

The themes I mentioned were: Hope is born. ... Hope is born, as the counsels taken will work.

The impression I get from the departure is not so much hope as it is desperation and determination. Even the line as they leave of, "There was no laughter, and no song or music. At last they turned away and faded silently into the dusk," seems pretty far removed from the Christmas account.

A King is born. ...A King is born, as Aragorn will reclaim his throne.

This is probably the strongest connection, but it still seems rather tenuous to me, as very little attention is given at this point to the King heading out to claim his kingdom. In fact, I don't think I find any reference to Aragorn's kingship since Boromir's reference at the Council (to the sinews of the Kings of Men) until he obtains the Elfstone and the others mark how tall and kingly he stands.

A Star will guide. ...A star will guide, as Earendil's star guides Sam in Mordor.

What does this have to do with setting out from Rivendell?

The Wise will give gifts. ...The Wise will give gifts, as Galadriel gives the phial with the light of the Silmaril to Frodo.

Again, what does this have to do with setting out from Rivendell?

Angels will be present. ... Angels will be present, and there is Gandalf.

Angels are present throughout the Scriptures, and it's more their actions that are associated specifically with Christmas; not their mere presence. We don't see Gandalf doing anything particularly Christmas Angel-y, so this connection too seems rather weak.

Actually, since Gandalf has a sword, and Bill the pony can "nearly talk" as Sam puts it, we may as well say that Tolkien was meaning to refer to Balak's summoning of Balaam in Numbers 22 rather than to Christmas.

Shepherds (if shepherds there be) will rejoice and wonder.... Shepherds will rejoice and wonder, and the Elves (if Shepherds they be, contrary to the thoughts of Lindir) do rejoice and wonder.

Do they? The lack of laughter, song, and music during the departure doesn't sound very much like Elvish rejoicing and wondering to me.

Estel, estel, estel! The whole LOTR from this point on is replete with Christmas themes.

If by "Christmas themes" we mean, "very common themes that could vaguely refer to Christmas, or to many other stories," then sure.

As far as what chucking the Ring in the Fire has to do with the Annunciation? Everything! When the Ring goes into the Fire, Sauron is destroyed. When God incarnates himself as Christ in the womb of Mary, Satan is destroyed (or at least weakened - Men are redeemed). Sure, to JRRT, the Ring into the Fire is a lesser and just a foreshadowing event to the Annunciation, but it is similar!

Not really. If Tolkien were meaning to parallel the destruction of Sauron with the defeat of Satan or the redemption of Men, surely he would have chosen Good Friday or Easter rather than the Annunciation. Yes, the Incarnation of Christ was an important and awesome event, but it was the Resurrection that was the culmination of the redemption plan.

Furthermore, these particular dates would be an odd pairing, as the Annunciation occurred before the birth of Christ. Having a journey leading from Christmas to the Annunciation makes no sense as a Christian message.

I find it frankly impossible to believe that bookending the quest with Christmas and the Annunciation is a coincidence!

And without evidence suggesting such, I find it impossible to believe that the dates are anything but coincidence.

 

[SwallowedUpInVictory]

The dates of Annunciacion and the destruction of the Ring are certainly not a coincidence. The 25th of March is going to be celebrated in middle-earth for centuries. It is the day of new year and also the first day of the fourth age in Gondor and Sam's first daughter is born that day. So Tolkien quite stresses that day. Nowadays Annunciation got quite into the background (due to protestant and modern influences) compared to Christmas and Easter and Pentecost. But in the middle ages (and certainly in the Birmingham oratory in 1900s) that day was as important as the others. It is not only the day that announces the birth of the Messiah but it is 9 months before his birth so it is the day of Incarnation. As a practicing and proud Catholic Tolkien had that day 100% in mind when he set it as the day of the Ring's destruction. Both are a cosmic and worldchanging incidence, no coincidence. That day Eru showed all his might. The destruction of the Ring is the Eucatastrophe of Middle-Earth. In On Fairy Stories Tolkien says "The Birth of Christ is the Eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the Eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation." Furthermore (if you followed Mythgard Academy on Inferno you would know that), 25th of March was also the traditional day of the crucifition. I hope we can all agree now that the dates are no coincidence.

The remaining question is if the dates of Christmas Day and the start of the Fellowship is mere coincidence. We have less evidence that this was important to Tolkien and I agree that the parallels are difficult to draw. 99% of readers will not even know the day of departure and notice the relation as it is only in the Appendix.
Still, I believe that Tolkien put in this little easter-egg on purpose (he spent so much livetime in making the dates right) but more for his self amusement. He definitely did not want the user to notice it straight away. Kind of like a code. He certainly did not want to preach and hated it when other Inklings did. He knew his place, as he never studied theology. Still he put in small glimpses of his believe into his so beloved work. "Fundamentally Catholic" means that its foundations are catholic. The morals, no more and no less. It's all in Boethius. All the rest is interpretation and application and trying to decode, but a certain answer we will never get, until we come to Niggle's Parish and ask him personally.
My best guess for a parallel though is that Christ's live journey from Bethlehem to Golgotha is a figure for the journey of the Fellowship from cosy Rivendell to Mount Doom. A journey of self-abandonment and self-sacrifice, especially for Frodo but all the others as well. So I wouldnt go as far as Flammifer comparing the departure from Rivendell to the exact events described in Luke's Gospel but I compare it to the more general theological significance of Christmas (especially freed from the modern way of celebration) and its significance in context of the Eu-angelion and live of Jesus. Therefore I believe too that December 25 is no coincidence, but you also dont miss out much if you dont get it.

 

[Odola]

Furthermore, if Tolkien did choose these dates specifically for their Christian importance, then as far as I can see, he did a pretty poor job. As you yourself point out, Christmas-related themes don't really go along with the leaving of Rivendell, and what the Annunciation has to do with chucking the Ring into the fire is anyone's guess.

The date the of Incarnantion of the Redeemer which was thought by the ancient Christian writers to coincide also with the date of His death exactly 33 years later? The date of the ultimate Victory over the ancient Evil? Yes, what could this have to have in common with date of the Fall of Sauron? No connection whatsoever! (- Really!)

 

[JJ48]

I hope we can all agree now that the dates are no coincidence.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[JJ48]

The date the of Incarnantion of the Redeemer which was thought by the ancient Christian writers to coincide also with the date of His death exactly 33 years later? The date of the ultimate Victory over the ancient Evil? Yes, what could this have to have in common with date of the Fall of Sauron? No connection whatsoever! (- Really!)

You speak sarcastically, and yet if you actually look closely, there's really not much similarity at all.

 

[Flammifer]

You yourself pointed out that the text doesn't really make this connection when you wrote, "However, none of these themes are explicit as the Fellowship leaves Rivendell quietly on the evening of what would later become Christmas Day and, 'with one glance at the Last Homely House twinkling below them they strode away far into the night'. "

The impression I get from the departure is not so much hope as it is desperation and determination. Even the line as they leave of, "There was no laughter, and no song or music. At last they turned away and faded silently into the dusk," seems pretty far removed from the Christmas account.

This is probably the strongest connection, but it still seems rather tenuous to me, as very little attention is given at this point to the King heading out to claim his kingdom. In fact, I don't think I find any reference to Aragorn's kingship since Boromir's reference at the Council (to the sinews of the Kings of Men) until he obtains the Elfstone and the others mark how tall and kingly he stands.

What does this have to do with setting out from Rivendell?

Again, what does this have to do with setting out from Rivendell?

Angels are present throughout the Scriptures, and it's more their actions that are associated specifically with Christmas; not their mere presence. We don't see Gandalf doing anything particularly Christmas Angel-y, so this connection too seems rather weak.

Actually, since Gandalf has a sword, and Bill the pony can "nearly talk" as Sam puts it, we may as well say that Tolkien was meaning to refer to Balak's summoning of Balaam in Numbers 22 rather than to Christmas.

Do they? The lack of laughter, song, and music during the departure doesn't sound very much like Elvish rejoicing and wondering to me.

If by "Christmas themes" we mean, "very common themes that could vaguely refer to Christmas, or to many other stories," then sure.

Not really. If Tolkien were meaning to parallel the destruction of Sauron with the defeat of Satan or the redemption of Men, surely he would have chosen Good Friday or Easter rather than the Annunciation. Yes, the Incarnation of Christ was an important and awesome event, but it was the Resurrection that was the culmination of the redemption plan.

Furthermore, these particular dates would be an odd pairing, as the Annunciation occurred before the birth of Christ. Having a journey leading from Christmas to the Annunciation makes no sense as a Christian message.

And without evidence suggesting such, I find it impossible to believe that the dates are anything but coincidence.

I suspect that JRRT's notes, which CT referenced, were JRRT's non-Ring induced rationalizations, and attempts to justify an in-frame logic, after he had already decided that departure on Christmas Day was perfect.

I particularly like JRRT's hemming and hawing between December 24 and 25. "What would be better, departure on Christmas Eve - anticipation, pre-figuring of the quest made more explicit, or departure on Christmas Day - altogether more significant date"?

Of course, none of the Christmas themes are obvious to the reader at the moment the Company leaves Rivendell. It is only later, after the reader ponders Appendix B, that it should become clear that the simple act of departure on Christmas foreshadows the entire course of the quest. All the Christmas themes will happen. It is not obvious that they will as the Company sets out.

As far as Gandalf (as Angel) is concerned: He tells Frodo that he is the chosen one in Bag End, much like the angel tells Mary that she is the chosen one in the Annunciation. At the Council of Elrond, it is Gandalf who tells the 'shepherds' (I am going with the somewhat dubious analogy of Elves as shepherds here, despite Lindor) that a monumental change has come to the world right now - "Here we all are, and here is the Ring.... What shall we do with it?"

As JRRT famously said, he is not writing Allegory. None of the characters or actions in TLOTR are directly transpositions of Bible or Christian stories, but the themes are all woven in throughout.

Good thought that the beginning and close of the bookend dates are reversed chronologically, with Christmas being the beginning of the quest, and the Annunciation being the close. I am sure that JRRT thought this reversal meaningful and significant, but I have yet to figure out why. Anyone have any suppositions?

None of this is obvious to the first-time reader in 'The Ring goes South', but it should begin to dawn on the perceptive when they reach Appendix B.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

As this thread has strayed from critical analysis of the text and supporting notes, into the realm of religious crit-fic I’m not going to continue in the discussion.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

Sorry you don't like the religious direction. However, I don't think the thread has strayed from critical analysis of the text. This whole line of speculation is driven by critical analysis of the text. First, the unusual number of passages in the text discussing the timing of the stay in Rivendell, the 'weak' (at least in my opinion) reasons given for the length of the stay, then the curious 'Easter-egg' in appendix B confirming that the departure was on Christmas Day.

That is the text. What does it mean? Why? These are all valid questions based on critical analysis of the text.

Of course, if you don't like a Catholic connection with TLOTR, you can pass off the date in Appendix B as 'coincidence'. However, I suggest that that would be to 'stray from a critical reading of the text'.

 

[JJ48]

As this thread has strayed from critical analysis of the text and supporting notes, into the realm of religious crit-fic I’m not going to continue in the discussion.

At least some good has come from this discussion. We have firmly established 100% that Tolkien was intentionally paralleling Sam Gamgee with Balaam. Now, I suppose we'll need a thread driven by critical analysis of the text speculating why Tolkien obviously felt it so important to portray Sam as a wicked prophet.

 

[Odola]

At least some good has come from this discussion. We have firmly established 100% that Tolkien was intentionally paralleling Sam Gamgee with Balaam. Now, I suppose we'll need a thread driven by critical analysis of the text speculating why Tolkien obviously felt it so important to portray Sam as a wicked prophet.

? Have you any Tolkien's statement in support of the Baalam thesis? Because that the 25th of March was a "holy day" for him is a given.

 

[SwallowedUpInVictory]

If Elrond and Gandalf are afraid of what being near the Ring will do to Bilbo, I can't imagine they would consider Gollum being part of the Company a viable option - or even conceive the idea except in nightmares, though Gandalf later says his heart foretold that Frodo and Gollum would meet before the quest was over.

I mean I could imagine Gollum being part of the company but not of the Fellowship, if you know what I mean. Gandalf and Elrond certainly did not plan Gollum to be part of the Fellowship. But still they could have use of him as a prisoner. In chains or elven rope and Boromir as his guard there would not be so much risk. Though his mad cries would have made the trip unbearable in the end

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Hi Anthony,

Sorry you don't like the religious direction. However, I don't think the thread has strayed from critical analysis of the text. This whole line of speculation is driven by critical analysis of the text. First, the unusual number of passages in the text discussing the timing of the stay in Rivendell, the 'weak' (at least in my opinion) reasons given for the length of the stay, then the curious 'Easter-egg' in appendix B confirming that the departure was on Christmas Day.

That is the text. What does it mean? Why? These are all valid questions based on critical analysis of the text.

Of course, if you don't like a Catholic connection with TLOTR, you can pass off the date in Appendix B as 'coincidence'. However, I suggest that that would be to 'stray from a critical reading of the text'.

You misunderstand me completely. I have no problem at all with the religious analysis, or drawing conclusions about how Catholicism affected JRRTs life or thinking. (I also find it distressing that the automatic assumption is that the objection is due to the mention of religion) My problem is with the continued, determined statements that this must have driven his decisions on the dates, when the scholarly records refute this.

The marked irony I see in all of this is the refutation of the possibility of this being coincidence, when that is the most frequent means of intervention by Eru in Arda. If Art is imitating life here, then this sort of serendipitous coincidence is exactly the way God works, and to deny the possibility of it being so is to take away from the glory of God.

 

[JJ48]

? Have you any Tolkien's statement in support of the Baalam thesis? Because that the 25th of March was a "holy day" for him is a given.

Has anyone disputed this? I don't think anyone has claimed that Tolkien was ignorant of the Catholic importance of the dates, and that's not the question being discussed. Rather, the question is whether Tolkien deliberately chose these dates because of their Catholic importance. For that question, we do not see evidence either in the text or in Tolkien's notes to himself. So far, the arguments appear to be as follows:

1. The in-text justification for the timeline is "weak". - However, reading the text and the notes indicates pretty strongly that this is Tolkien's intended justification. Furthermore, the idea that it is weak is purely personal opinion, and not one universally shared; nor supported by the evidence.

2. These dates are important in the real world, and important stuff happens in the fictional world on these dates. - This is undoubtedly true, but the same could be said of literally any date selected for any important thing to happen in Middle-earth. Even if we take only Catholicism, are there any dates on the calendar that aren't associated with some feast or other? Looking up the General Roman Calendar, there appear to be some dates free of memorial, but not many.

Furthermore, the the events on those dates don't really parallel well. Christmas doesn't fit well, nor does the Annunciation; but even if we go with the traditional date of the Crucifixion, the most that's been said is, "Good struck a heavy blow against Evil." Is this really a solid connection? There have been many such events in the history of Middle-earth; are we to assume that all of them took place (or were intended to have taken place) on March 25? We need something more than just, "It was an important day," in order to establish so strong a connection.

It's certain that Tolkien knew of the real-world significance of these dates, and it's quite possible that he chuckled to himself when he realized his adjusted timeline would result in events falling on these dates. But to claim that he was so obsessed with making the dates work out that he would introduce and leave in poor writing just to make them fit? We have no evidence of such; and I, for one, have too much respect for Tolkien as a writer to believe it of him.

 

[Odola]

You misunderstand me completely. I have no problem at all with the religious analysis, or drawing conclusions about how Catholicism affected JRRTs life or thinking. (I also find it distressing that the automatic assumption is that the objection is due to the mention of religion) My problem is with the continued, determined statements that this must have driven his decisions on the dates, when the scholarly records refute this.

The marked irony I see in all of this is the refutation of the possibility of this being coincidence, when that is the most frequent means of intervention by Eru in Arda. If Art is imitating life here, then this sort of serendipitous coincidence is exactly the way God works, and to deny the possibility of it being so is to take away from the glory of God.

There are coincidences and there are those that simply cannot be one. The 25th of March becomes the Gondorian New Year, and historically this was also Englands's New Year too:

Happy New Year?

Until 1752, England and its British dominions, including those in America, celebrated March 25th as the first day of the calendar year. Since ancient times, England had used the “Julian calendar”, instituted by Julius Caesar in 45 BCE.

blog.mass.gov

Until 1752, England and its British dominions, including those in America, celebrated March 25th as the first day of the calendar year.
(...)
Originally, January 1 was the date of the new year in the Julian calendar, but after the fall of the Roman Empire, the date gradually changed in various parts of Europe to March 25, to conform with Christian festival of the Annunciation. England adopted March 25thas New Year's day in the twelfth century

New Year's Day - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

At various times and in various places throughout mediaeval Christian Europe, the new year was celebrated on 25 December in honour of the birth of Jesus; 1 March in the old Roman style; 25 March in honour of Lady Day (the Feast of the Annunciation, the date of the conception of Jesus); and on the movable feast of Easter.[2][3]
(...)
Until 1752, the Kingdom of Great Britain and its Empire at the time (except in Scotland, January 1 since 1600) had retained March 25 as the official start of the year (though informal use of 1 January had become common.[a])

For a scholar both familiar with English history and Catholic teaching the 25th of March can never simply be a random date. And if he chooses to use this specific date then using its theological depandant,- the 25th of December - is also not at random.