Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.
There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)
This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all. . . .
|
No, you can't blame
Oblo for your pertinacity,
davem, for your number of posts on the issue has long out-run his.
Of course if you wish to insist upon your own exclusive 'true meaning' of Legendarium-canon, that is of course your wont and right.
And even if you wish to include a second author--Christopher--as legitimately co-determinant with the first--and exclude works of the first author as a result of that, that, too, is your wont and right.
Yet others are free also to demur that this form of argument prioritises some texts over others on the basis of what they perceive as a faulty argument.
Quote:
|
This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.
|
My point is relevant. TH belongs there because,it was TH which made LoTR possible. The Hebrew Bible --or Old Testament--made the New Testament possible. There are some books contemporary with the NT which some Christians jettison as apochryphal, but Christians still include the Old Testament with their Bible.