<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 394</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/wight.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Goldberry and tom?
I imagine the prof would be highly amused by threads like this one (and especially this particular one), and the need of so many of his fans to nail down the question of what Tom is and neatly classify him:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it.<hr></blockquote>Gilthalion's idea may have some merit, though in an allegorical rather than a literal sense. Wait! Before a hue and cry is raised at the sight of the word "allegory", consider more of the prof's words from Letters:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture.<hr></blockquote>
</p>
Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000005>Mister Underhill</A> at: 2/5/01 11:58:07 am