Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
02-21-2019, 12:00 PM | #1 | ||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Of the Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
This is the first draft of the work Of the Laws and Customs Among the Eldar.
Our basis text is that of "Of the Laws and Customs Among the Eldar" given in HoME X. Wherever the text is different from HoME X, this is marked by an editing mark. The markings are: LC-xx for tracking any and all changes. Some conventions of my writing: Normal Text is from the basic text that is mentioned above (when I change the basic-Text it will be mentioned) Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {example} = text that should be deleted [example] = normalised text, normally only used for general changes <source example> = additions with source information ...... = This section of the paragraph is unchanged from the source. Quote:
LC-02: I added this heading in order to keep the first two paragraphs as a preamble. CT expressed his confusion at the nature of the preamble, and I think this clears it up. This whole section is about marriage and children, so I think it fits. You may feel that it is unnecessary. LC-03: Added an extra detail from text A that was missing from text B. LC-04: Added in the footnote which was missing from text B. LC-05: This change is per the later writing Osanwe-Kenta. There the word for mind is 'sama' and later indo is glossed as 'will'. LC-06: This pertains to the rejected idea of the elves being reborn into their children, so I removed it. LC-07: I marked this because I am unsure. Feanor is never given the name Finwion elsewhere, but in the Shibboleth he is said to have been called Finwe-minya. However, I don't think we need to remove it, because Finwion just means 'Son of Finwe' so I think it's a neutral enough name to allow. LC-08: This change is based on the Shibboleth, where it says he first named Feanor Finwe-minya. LC-08.5: This change is based on the Shibboleth, where Feanor knew his mother for a few years before she died. This is part of a discussion we must have when reviewing the Darkening of Valinor chapters. LC-09: This is an addition from text A that is not in text B. LC-10: This is a change per the later document the Commentary to the Athrabeth. LC-11: This seems impossible in the setting of this being written in the Fourth Age in the TftE, but if we are rejecting such an in-universe authorship, we may consider leaving it. LC-12: I changed this because in the Osanwe it says that the fea are never able to be commanded by anyone, even when they are houseless. Therefore, I changed the language here to be less strict and more vague. I think it works. LC-13: Removed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-14: Removed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-15: Changed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-16: This we may have to remove depending on our decision about LC-27. LC-17: Removed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-18: Changed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-19: I replaced the section on rebirth into the children with this bit taken from the Glorfindel 1 text, which we did not use in that chapter. It sums up everything we need, so I think it's a good replacement. LC-20: Removed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-21: Removed a reference to Aelfwine. LC-22: This is my attempt to transition from the incomplete text B to the complete text A. I think this works well. LC-23: Removed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-24: This is the section about the Statue, and I figured we might as well include the elvish name for it taken from LQ2. LC-25: This is all word-for word nearly the exact same as what we have in LQ2 and our chapter. Therefore I removed it for redundancy sake. LC-26: Marking where we return to the text with some light editing. LC-27: This section from here to the next marker is up for debate. As it is, if we decide to include it there are no internal edits that need to be made. However, whether or not we can include it at all is what we must discuss. Naturally this is a really interesting text and has a lot of new information about Finwe, Miriel, and the Valar and what happened to them, so I would love to include it. However, we have this line from the Shibboleth account of the story of Finwe and Miriel: Quote:
LC-28: This text is given at the end of this section of HoME X, and because of its relevant subject matter I think it can be given here. LC-29: Changed because of the change from re-birth into the children. LC-30: We may perhaps take some of this removed section and edit it, but I do not know if we need to. It is up for discussion. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 02-21-2019 at 12:35 PM. |
||
02-22-2019, 03:29 PM | #2 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Great editing! Everything I do not comment upon I agree to. I have only a very few remarks and a few typos at the end.
LC-01: It is reight to remover Ælfwine, but why not keep the heading ‘Preamble’? LC-02: Where does this headline come from? LC-07: I am in doubt here. In LC-08 we correctly replaced this name. So as the texts stands now Finwion would be a kind of theoretical example. Would it not be better to take the real example Inglorion ‘son of Inglor’? LC-11: We long since abonded the noten that our work has any in-univers reality. Therefore I would let this stand. LC-12: I do not see a good reason for this change. It is made clear in the following text that fëa could deny the direct instruction and command. What is said here is only that the fëa was easily approachable by the Valar and unable to oferhear. LC-14: I would let this stand as well. In it original context it would count for the Eldar, but as our texts stand the only reborn race are the Dwarves. And we might suppose that this comment was added when the Eldar learned (by Gimli) of that (for them strange) concept. But in the matter of incarnation the differences between all children of Eru, if of his own begetting of adopted, seem to be small. LC-16: We might keep this but change it to ‘as {is hereafter}has been told’, since the telling is in the apropirate chapter of the Quenta Silmarillion. Here might therefore be as well the right place for including the footnote from LC-27. What about this editing: Quote:
LC-19: I agree to this addition, very good find! But I think we should keep more of the text that was skipt. But for LC-20 I think we should edit it a bit differently: Quote:
LC-30: The only incarnates re-born are the Dwarves, and we do not know enough about that matter tu use this passage in connection with the Dwarves, so we have to remove it. There is typo in the 6 §’s of Of the Severance of Marriage: between ‘.. the Dead will not be’ and ‘premitted ever to return ...’ is a superficial line break. Another one 2 §’s before LC-22: between ‘...marriage proceeds from the fëa’ and ‘and resides ultimately in its will. ...’ a space is missing. At the end of the third last § before Namna Finwë Míriello the ‘...the length of them time of Waiting ...’ must be ‘...the length of their time of Waiting ...’. In Yavannas speech was not ‘hron’ italised? If so we should italise ‘erma’. The next 2 footnotes to the text are missing a fullstop and the end. In the pronouncement of Námo Mandos we have in the 2 § a superficial line break between ‘... which disfigureth good and maketh it’ and ‘seem hateful.’ And in the over next § ‘...I will proclaim now to your things both near and far.’ Must be ‘...I will proclaim now to you things both near and far.’ Respectfully Findegil |
||
02-22-2019, 09:43 PM | #3 | |||||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
Great job Arcus! Another great chapter!
LC-01: I agree with Fin in keeping "Preamble" LC-02: I don't think this title is necessary. A line break clearly shows the end of the preamble. LC-07: We might as well use Inglorion since that is a name we are sure of. LC-11: I think we should keep this. I forget the chapter, but I remember we kept in a discussion of airplanes which clearly belonged to an age later than the fourth. This comment could be attributed to a more modern scribe. LC-12: I do not understand the need for this change either. Just because they were "open to" direct instruction doesn't mean they absolutely have to follow it. They are still free to choose. LC-14: It would be weird to suddenly pivot to a point about Dwarven re-birth. This section starts with "Now the Eldar hold that to each elf-child a new fëa is given..." so it seems the following discussion would pertain to elf children. This sentence very clearly is referring to re-birth through children, so I vote we remove it. It also confuses the issue by using "re-birth" to refer to the old conception of re-birth through children while elsewhere the word is used to mean the newer conception of re-birth. LC-16: If the long section from But after a while Niënna came to Manwë ...’ to LC-28 was already used and must be removed, I think this is the right place to add this footnote. LC-17: I agree this needs to be moved. How about: Quote:
LC-19 and LC-20: I think LC-19 is a great find by Arcus, and Fin's change is some pretty clever editing. However, I do not see why we have to remove "twice nourished". In this context, they are first nourished as a baby and then their soul is nourished in Mandos. LC-27: I agree that this can still be used. Manwe's original judgment is that Miriel cannot return, but things change after Finwe dies; also, Nienna's insistence probably helped him change his mind. Manwe's statement that "her present body will simply wither and pass away" seems contradictory; in LC-15 it is stated "...the body, deserted by the spirit, was dissolved. This happened swiftly in Middle-earth. In Aman only was there no decay." It's possible Manwe is just wrong, but that seems unlikely. I haven't gotten to this part in my review of the First Age material yet, I will make a comment about it in my Word document for future discussion. Some more typos in addition to Fin's: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Two footnotes are missing a period at the end, these footnotes end with: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
02-23-2019, 05:54 PM | #4 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
LC-14: Okay, I am not adamant on keeping this passage.
LC-17: I agree to the placement, but we should name the addition at this place LC-03.5. LC-18: After rethinking the issue I belive we should change all occurenc of re-birth to re-housing and of re-born to re-housed. In that way it is much clearer and since that uncertainty is created by our using the earlier text in the later context. LC-20: Was the time of waiting a kind of 'nourishing'? I don't think so. It feels more like purification and correction. Therefore I think we should change it. Respectfully Findegil |
02-23-2019, 06:12 PM | #5 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Thanks for the comments!
LC-01: This works, agreed to keep Preamble. LC-02: Yeah this title is my own invention, so we can disregard it. LC-07: Agreed to "Inglorion 'son of Inglor'" LC-11: Very well we can leave it in. LC-12: I was being overzealous in my editing, we can leave it as it is in the original text. LC-14: I must agree with gandalf, forcing this argument to somehow apply to the dwarves makes no sense. For instance, the preceeding paragraphs are relating to the elvish ideas of death and rebirth, and the entire work is dealing specifically with the Elves, and there are no mentions of the dwarves anywhere. Therefore it cannot be said to be about the Dwarves. We must remove it. LC-16: That the LC-27 section was included in the draft for Darkening of Valinor was not clear to me from any of the posts given in that thread. That chapter is a nightmare of textual soup at this point.... But I digress. I agree to include that there on principle, and therefore agree to its removal here, and if that is so, then this seems a good place for this footnote. Agreed. LC-17: I agree to gandalf's placement of this sentence, but I would call this movement LC-03.5 since that is the place where it was moved. LC-18: Agreed Fin, this is simpler and more thorough. LC-19/20: Agreed to the changes Fin, but I as well agree with gandalf about the 'twice nourished.' LC-27: See my comments on LC-16. Typos: Thanks for catching them guys! |
02-24-2019, 03:21 PM | #6 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
LC-14: Okay, we leave it out.
LC-20: Okay, beside stay in Mandos, which I doubt to be any kind of nourishment we have the blessing by Manwë. And since we removed all re-birth and re-born references the difference might be clear enough. I think we are in agreement in all other points. Respectfully Findegil |
02-24-2019, 09:13 PM | #7 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Awesome! it can be marked Finished on the outline and I'll post the next one as soon as I can.
|
|
|