View Single Post
Old 04-22-2018, 10:22 PM   #3
Balfrog
Haunting Spirit
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 87
Balfrog has just left Hobbiton.
Huinesoron

In reply to your question is my set of questions to you!

The thing is if someone came up to you and said there's a piece of literature that has:

(a) A male character called 'Bilbo'.
(b) Who talks of a fire-breathing dragon,
(c) And an object that causes invisibility.

What would you think this piece of literature was?
If on top you were told that:

(d) Bilbo is strongly associated with 'thievery'.
(e) That he is involved in a quest to recover a 'treasure'.
(f) That has been in the clutches of a 'fire-drake',

would you still be scratching your head?
Maybe there would still be doubt. So if subequently you were told:

(g) Bilbo seeks a 'gem' in the dark.
(h) That the 'dragon' loses a treasure.
(i) That the 'fire-drake' in rage chases after 'Bilbo'.
(j) Bilbo has a conversation with the 'dragon'.
(k) Who seeks calculating revenge.

would you still wonder?
If furthermore you were told:

(l) Bilbo has a kindly 'master' in the initial quest for the 'treasure'.
(m) They part ways and he has a new leader in the next phase of the quest.
(n) That Bilbo takes guardianship over a 'gem',
(o) While under the roof of the rightful 'owner'.
(p) But the 'treasure' is also the object of desire of a King.
(q) Bilbo allows the 'jewel' to depart to almost end up in the hands of the King.
(r) The loss of the 'jewel' involves theft - having been stolen by an Englishman,
(s) Yet the tale ends with the King relinquishing it,

would you still be undecided?
If then on top it was relayed that:

(t) The rightful 'owner' ends up with his 'treasure' at the very end of the 'tale'.
(u) There is a happy ending to the 'tale'.
(v) It is was one which contained both tragedy and comedy,

would you still ask for more clues?
If after that you were told there were details in the tale whereby:

(w) Bilbo talks of opening a fateful door.
(x) There is a mention of feet that are woolly.
(y) We have empty barrels in rough waters,
(z) And there is mention of a single fateful arrow.
(a1) Bilbo is blessed with good fortune,

could you conclude anything else, but that this must be JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit? Could any Tolkienite in their right mind assess anything different?

Yet isn't it absolutely incredible that all the (a) to more than (z) above are an integral part of Thomas Dekker's dramatic play: Match me in London.

Sometimes the fingerprints on the murder weapon are enough for conviction. Sometimes the DNA match is sufficient to nail the culprit. Sometimes the evidence is utterly overwhelming. This, in my opinion, is one of those occasions.

Thomas Dekker is a fairly well known playwright to any decent scholar of Elizabethan drama. I don't believe that one should label his work as obscure. Tolkien was extremely well read. We only have knowledge of a small percentage of books that were in his personal library (reputedly of the order of 400) – let alone what he read from other libraries and sources.

At Leeds – there was only a very small department of English Literature. I have little doubt that he had to cover for E.V. Gordon on occasions (and perhaps others). This is hinted at in Hammond & Scull's Chronology. So I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien knew Elizabethan/Jacobean dramas pretty well. On this matter – we should be able to grant Tolkien some lateral space.

Ms. Seth very diplomatically dealt with the issue of Tolkien's veracity. She also dealt with 'bilboe' – the sword issue. You are of course entirely at liberty to compare Shakespeare's plays as a source for 'Bilbo'. But let's face it – 'Bilbo' originating as a 'sword' doesn't carry as much weight as sourced from a human character. Besides the sheer number of tangencies in Match me in London dwarf those that can be extracted in comparison from any Shakespeare play.

Indeed to that point – of all the tens of thousands – if not hundreds of thousands of literary creations before Tolkien's The Hobbit was issued – if you could find me even one that has points (a) and (b) included I'd be hyper-surprised. If you could find one that possesses (a), (b) and (c) – I'll eat my hat!

Once again kudos to Ms. Seth – because just matching three items is an almost impossible task. How then can one reasonably say matching 27 is just coincidence?

By the way – upon my advice – Ms. Seth has added and rearranged some material to this essay. It's still not quite to my satisfaction – but I think the update adds further credence.
Balfrog is offline   Reply With Quote