|
Huinesoron
"Specifically, when editing the poem, Tolkien clearly decided to put an internal rhyme into the third line of each verse, to match the one in the first. 'John' doesn't rhyme with any good body parts; 'Tim' does."
Would be more sympathetic except:
(i) Shin & Tim don't rhyme. Sorry no cigar! Tim/Shin looks like a forced fit – and not a great one at that. Tolkien would have been well aware that the rhyming isn't as well done as the rest. Then why make a change?
(ii) Tolkien doesn't strictly follow rhyming pattern through-out (e.g. Stone Troll: Line 6 endings don't always rhyme with Line 1 & 2 endings). Thus, though you make a good point about rhyming – one can't come to a definitive conclusion.
"Secondly, the identity of the troll with Shakespeare depends on assuming that it's the same troll as Bill Huggins in*The Hobbit. 'The Root of the Boot' gives the troll no name; why assume he's the same one as William, rather than Bert - or indeed, perhaps this troll is also called Tom!"
Please read the essay again carefully. Tolkien is on record for voicing disdain over Shakespeare – not other Elizabethan/Jacobean playwrights. That in itself is a good enough reason for lampooning him. Tom and Bert are identified as Thomas Nashe and Robert Greene per Ms. Seth's previous analysis. Though Ms. Seth has lumped them in with Shakespeare they are part of a famous piece of Elizabethan history (according to her claim) – and Tolkien is not on record for poking fun at them.
"And the content of the poem? Well, the first verse claims that the troll has 'seen no man nor mortal' - hardly evocative of Shakespeare's fame. Ms. Seth's 'birchyard' (verse 2) is an obvious rhyme for 'churchyard'."
Poetic license! 'seen no man or mortal' – meaning Shakespeare's way above the rest – in a class of his own perhaps! More likely that he'd not chewed on the bones of other playwrights in the same way before latching on to those of John Heywood.
Birches meant a lot to Tolkien at Leeds – this is the philological side. As such I find it hard to believe that birchyard was simply inserted to rhyme with churchyard.
"There is nothing that ties it directly to the Shakespeare story, and the Shakespeare theory doesn't explain the religious angle."
Except the Elizabethan era words and the philological nature of the publication. What did you expect – Tolkien to outright call the troll - Shakespeare, or Tom – Mr. Heywood?
As to the religious angle – perhaps you're unaware of the trouble John Heywood got himself over his particular Christian beliefs. Take a look at Wikipedia for starters. There is ample talk about his faith – how he was almost hanged – and how he had to flee England. The religious element in the poem is thus quite appropriate.
"Also: would Tolkien really write*this*in a cunning analogy for a historical drama involving Shakespeare?"
Only Tolkien can answer that. But I'm inclined to believe Tolkien was capable of writing anything he wanted. Perhaps you aren't convinced – but this is her second assertion of a parody theme involving Elizabethan playwrights. Maybe you'll change your mind after Part II of this series where a third parody is presented!
"... simply silly little nonsense rhymes, pulled from Tolkien's files or written to fill the space. All of them were modelled on folk songs, to allow them to be sung by the philologists in question; none of them seem to be any deeper than that."
Hmm ... folk songs ... for philologists? Seems odd. Just because Tolkien left no record of what was behind them - doesn't mean there wasn't anything. We all know the depth of Tolkien's prose works. It's brave of you to dismiss that his verse in Songs for the Philologists could not possibly have been formulated in the same mode. To me some extracted philological meaning that fits the poetry is far better a solution than no meaning.
Nerwen
"... it could just as well be, say, a controversy at Leeds itself as anything to do with Shakespeare."
Did you have anything particular in mind you would like to share?
|