|
Andsigil
Yes – the author points that the Michael ley line was not even 'discovered' in Tolkien's time. Rather she has focused on the ancient connections of St. Michael to Oxford that Tolkien likely knew about.
My deductive reasoning concludes that the rest of your post is hardly worth the bother of replying to.
Inziladun
I believe the day in question is September 29th. Tolkien seems to have been groping for a plot early on. At what stage the 'quarter days' idea came to him is unknown – but it is not necessarily at outset.
Zigûr, Inziladun, Pitchwife
Our view of how the Archangel Michael physically looks have perhaps been tainted by Renaissance artists. I have a feeling that Tolkien's ideas would not have been in sync.
We all know the angelic beings of TLotR – namely the Wizards – came in the form of old men. Nevertheless Tolkien described them as near enough to incarnate angels.
Gandalf the Grey was portrayed himself as bent and aged – hardly epitomizing our stereo-typical angel. So I would not scoff at the idea of Bombadil being an 'angel' himself. The author of the article does point out at that appearances can be deceptive.
Besides, astute scholars – such as Professor Gene Hargrove have proposed Tom is one of the Valar. Hargrove thinks he's Aule – while others have suggested Tulkas and even Manwe. Again such scholars – see beyond the physical and our own inner vision of what the supposed 'majestic' Valar ought to look like.
Anyway Ms. Seth kicks the can down the road. At this point she is just considering the possibility of an allegorical affiliation of Tom to the Archangel without coming to a verdict.
I think perhaps the point is being missed – in that Tom is from the essay's viewpoint, an ancestral being from which much of the folklore and fairy tales of the British Isles originates. Not that he is actually one of those mythical or biblical beings. If this hasn't registered maybe another more careful read is in order.
|