XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: theswain@operamail.com
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > Odysseus wrote:
>
I have to agree with Chris on this one. I find it extremely
unlikely that Tolkien, an Edwardian Englishman and don at Oxford
with an extremely strong Catholic faith was in the 20s and 30s
aware of, much less familiar with the Zohar.
Rather, I think there are things that Tolkien would have been
intimately familiar with that combined to give Tolkien the
idea. Christianity at about the same time as the Zohar is being
developed also developed the idea of a "tree" illuminating the
whole world--the cross, and there are indeed Anglo-Saxon and
Latin poems and hymns that express this idea in just those
terms. It is a small leap to go from this tree giving spiritual
"light" to physical light. Second, in Genesis already before
the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, there is a distinction
between night and day. A little speculation on how that is
distinguished in Genesis WITHOUT the presence of the sun etc
might lead someone who loved trees and plants to make an
association with plant life and light. Finally, it is not
uncommon to believe and note that plants give off their own kind
of light. Put these items into the cauldron of story, anf
voila, I think out pops the 2 Trees.
On another note, the statement about Lucifer/Earendil is
misleading. Lucifer the name literally does mean "light bearer"
so in that sense is apt for Earendil, but the name is also given
to two other figures which does not fit Earendil at all: Satan
and Jesus. So I'd be wary of using the name as a description of
Earendil. CHris is quite right that Tolkien borrowed it from
Cynewulf.
ljs
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
