Elven Characteristics

[Lissë]

Hello, unfortunately I do not own the HoME. I would like to ask if there is any passage which says that elves are more slender than humans and that they're beardless. I think in the Lost Tales there is a passage where the elves of Gondolin are astonished at Tuors deep voice. Does anyone else know this passage? Did Tolkien imagine elves with higher voices than humans? Thank you!

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Lissë

Hello, unfortunately I do not own the HoME. I would like to ask if there is any passage which says that elves are more slender than humans and that they're beardless. I think in the Lost Tales there is a passage where the elves of Gondolin are astonished at Tuors deep voice. Does anyone else know this passage? Did Tolkien imagine elves with higher voices than humans? Thank you!

Technically, elves are NOT beardless. It's just that elves don't start growing facial hair until they reach the third stage of thier life (what would be analogous to old age) and that takes so long that by that point in thier lives, most elves have long since sailed for the west (or in other words, if you wanted to see a lot of bearded elves, you'd probably have to go looking around in Aman.). Cirdan, the lord of the Grey Havens, is pretty much the only elf still in residence in ME at the time of LOTR who is of such and age and has such a beard. Mention is also made of one elf who started growing a beard early, in his second stage of life, but this is generally regarded as a unique occurance.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Lissë

(...) I think in the Lost Tales there is a passage where the elves of Gondolin are astonished at Tuors deep voice. Does anyone else know this passage? Did Tolkien imagine elves with higher voices than humans? Thank you!

I don't think The Book of Lost Tales is the best reference for how Tolkien ultimately imagined his Elves. JRRT does note that the Gnomes were slender here, but also small...

'Tis written that in those days the fathers of the fathers of Men were of less stature than Men now are, and the children of Elfinesse of greater growth, yet was Tuor taller than any that stood there. Indeed the Gondothlim were not bent of back as some of their unhappy kin became, labouring without rest at delving and hammering for Melko, but small were they and slender and very lithe.'

JRRT, The Book of Lost Tales, The Fall of Gondolin

It's also noted that the Noldoli that came forth to see Tuor marvelled at his stature and gaunt limbs. At the moment I'm not sure about slenderness but I think maybe the Elves of the Lost Tales were notably shorter than they would later become, especially considering some old descriptions, including:

Nuin's words to Tu on the stature of the sleepers in the vale of Murmenalda are curious. In A is added: 'Men were almost of a stature at first with Elves, the fairies being far greater and Men smaller than now. As the power of Men has grown the fairies have dwindled and Men waxed somewhat.' Other early statements indicate that Men and Elves were originally of very similar stature, and that the diminishing in that of the Elves was closely related to the coming of, and the dominance of, Men.

Nuin's words are therefore puzzling, especially since in A they immediately preceded the comment on the original similarity of size; for he can surely only mean that the sleepers in Murmenalda were very large by comparison with the Elves. That the sleepers were in fact children, not merely likened in some way to children, is made clear in D: 'Nuin finds the Slumbrous Dale (Murmenalda) where countless children lie'

Christopher Tolkien, The Book of Lost Tales

Nuin had said...

'(...) nor any the more when Nuin made an end of his tale, telling of all he saw there -- and methought,' said he, 'that all who slumbered there were children, yet was their stature that of the greatest of the Elves.'

The concept of the Elves and Men being of like height -- because Men were smaller 'back then' and Elves taller -- appears in the Lay of Turin, but when we get to the 'early Silmarillions' and Silmarillion-related texts of the 1930s we seem to move to simpler comparisons between Men and Elves -- that is, they are of like height, with Men somewhat taller (especially the Hadorians), but without the comparative reference to the stature of Men in earlier times versus 'now'.

And then again there are even later references to Elven height, compared to Men or Numenoreans.

I think the external chronology [when Tolkien wrote what text] is important here, even if it doesn't necessarily answer all our questions.

[Lissë]

@Alfirin: Thank you!
@Galin: Oh no, now I'm even more confused! I always imagined elves taller than humans. So actually we do not know what Tolkien thought towards the end of his life, and even that would have been transitory. I guess I'll just go with my own imagination. Thank you!

[mhagain]

In the Grey Annals we have this statement for year 422:

The men of Beor were dark or brown of hair, but fair of face, with grey eyes; of shapely form, having courage and endurance, yet they were no greater in stature than the Eldar of that day. For the Noldor indeed were tall as are in the latter days men of great might and majesty. But the people of Hador were of yet greater strength and stature, mighty among the Children of Eru, ready in mind, bold and steadfast.

I believe that the remark about the "people of Hador" is intended to be by comparison to the "men of Beor" and not to the Noldor here, but it really can be read either way.

Quendi and Eldar has the following:

In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe. Indeed they could hardly be told apart except by their eyes

So what applies to the Noldor also applies in general to the Sindar.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by mhagain

In the Grey Annals we have this statement for year 422:



I believe that the remark about the "people of Hador" is intended to be by comparison to the "men of Beor" and not to the Noldor here, but it really can be read either way.

Quendi and Eldar has the following:



So what applies to the Noldor also applies in general to the Sindar.

The Sindar were definitely shorter than the Noldor. A tall Sindarin elf like Celeborn was the same height as Galadriel. Of course there are exceptions.

I would imagine the elves in general were tall and wiry. Closer to the Aragorn build than Boromir.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lissë

@Alfirin: Thank you!
@Galin: Oh no, now I'm even more confused! I always imagined elves taller than humans. So actually we do not know what Tolkien thought towards the end of his life, and even that would have been transitory. I guess I'll just go with my own imagination. Thank you!

No, later Tolkien consistently portrays Elves as being tall. I think the main point Galin was making is that you can't just blend together everything the man wrote in his life and expect it to all add up. "The Book of Lost Tales" is a very early and, if you like, "primitive" version of things.

Anyway- welcome to the Downs!

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Lissë

@Galin: Oh no, now I'm even more confused! I always imagined elves taller than humans. So actually we do not know what Tolkien thought towards the end of his life, and even that would have been transitory. I guess I'll just go with my own imagination. Thank you!

Oh I didn't mean that we don't have much later, general descriptions from JRRT, just that The Book of Lost Tales is rather early stuff.

In '1968 or later', according to a text called Of Dwarves And Men we have:

'They were called 'Halflings'; but this refers to the normal height of Men of Numenorean descent and of the Eldar (especially those of Noldorin descent), which appears to have been about seven of our feet.'

However another description reads:

'The Quendi were in origin a tall people. The Eldar (...) they were in general the stronger and taller members of the Elvish folk at that time. In Eldarin tradition it was said that even their women were seldom less than six feet in height; their full-grown elfmen no less than six and a half feet, while some of the great kings and leaders were taller.'

JRRT, late manuscript, The Lord of the Rings Reader's Companion, Hammond and scull, p. 107, entry 'a tall Elf'

Anyway, both texts are late. Another (seemingly) late note says that Celeborn was held by the Lindar of Valinor to be tall: '... but the Teleri were in general somewhat less in build and stature than the Noldor.' (this note is mentioned in the same section as the following on Galadriel). In yet another late note (Appendix, Numenorean Linear Measures, Unfinished Tales) Galadriel is noted as six foot four. And in The Lord of the Rings it was said concerning Galadriel and Celeborn: 'Very tall they were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord;...'

There is also (now) variant text concerning Elendil the Tall -- well, I consider it variant from Unfinished Tales anyway. 'Aragorn, direct descendant of Elendil and his son Isildur, both of whom had been seven feet tall, must nonetheless have been a very tall man…, probably at least 6 ft. 6; and Boromir, of high Númenorean lineage, not much shorter (say 6 ft. 4).'

longer version...

'the Númenóreans before the Downfall were a people of great stature and strength, the Kings of Men; their full grown men were commonly seven feet tall, especially in the royal and noble houses. In the North where men of other kinds were fewer and their race remained purer this stature remained more frequent, though in both Arnor and Gondor apart from mixture of race the Númenóreans showed a dwindling of height and of longevity in Middle-earth that became more marked as the Third Age passed. Aragorn, direct descendant of Elendil and his son Isildur, both of whom had been seven feet tall, must nonetheless have been a very tall man..., probably at least 6 ft. 6; and Boromir, of high Númenórean lineage, not much shorter, (say 6 ft. 4).'

Tolkien Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford

That's not meant to include every reference, nor am I certain that every reference was written with the same conception in mind.

But there's some relatively late citations; and much later than The Book of Lost Tales anyway

[Galin]

Didn't see your post earlier Nerwen, but yes you are correct about what I meant.

[Lissë]

Thank you so much

[Galin]

By the way, anyone think that the following two descriptions are intended to be consonant with each other:

'They were called 'Halflings'; but this refers to the normal height of Men of Numenorean descent and of the Eldar (especially those of Noldorin descent), which appears to have been about seven of our feet.'

And...

'The Quendi were in origin a tall people. The Eldar (...) they were in general the stronger and taller members of the Elvish folk at that time. In Eldarin tradition it was said that even their women were seldom less than six feet in height; their full-grown elfmen no less than six and a half feet, while some of the great kings and leaders were taller.'

Or to put it another way, how do you [anyone] interpret this second description, if [for sake of argument] it's read on its own, without the influence of other descriptions?

Or to put it another, another way: if Tolkien believed the first description was 'true' when he wrote the second, do you think he would write this second general description this way?

I think the second seems like a slight 'revision' [or the first, considering I don't know which came before the other] but at least one other person disagrees and [seemingly] finds them in easy accord with each other.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

By the way, anyone think that the following two descriptions are intended to be consonant with each other:





And...




Or to put it another way, how do you [anyone] interpret this second description, if [for sake of argument] it's read on its own, without the influence of other descriptions?

Or to put it another, another way: if Tolkien believed the first description was 'true' when he wrote the second, do you think he would write this second general description this way?

I think the second seems like a slight 'revision' [or the first, considering I don't know which came before the other] but at least one other person disagrees and [seemingly] finds them in easy accord with each other.

They are harmonious for me. In the first statement it is more about the average height being close to 7ft. So you would expect quite a few Noldor to be shorter than this and as we know quite a few much taller.

The second statement is more concerned with a minimum height. It seems if in general the shortest of the Noldor were 6'6 then the average height would likely be close to 7ft.

The only trouble with this is the description of Celeborn. Let'say that Celeborn indeed was tall for a Sindarin. Let's even allow for him to be a couple of inches taller than Galadriel at 6'6. It would mean that there was such a big difference in stature between the two that a Celeborn whilst very tall for a Sindar would still be one of the shorter Noldor.

[Galin]

The second statement is more concerned with a minimum height.

I might agree except that the second statement adds that 'some' of the great kings and leaders were taller... taller than what? The only reference number here is 6 foot 6, and as one could reasonably expect some Elves to be taller than 6 foot 6, that leads me to think that Tolkien means 'some' of the great kings and leaders were notably taller than 6 foot 6...

... but to me that doesn't seem to mesh well with the other statement, in which it is generally noted that the Eldar and especially the Noldor were normally about 7 feet tall...

... as that's notably taller than the reference number in the other quote [a half a foot taller], and there it's not 'some' great kings and leaders, it's the normal height of the Eldar in general, a rather sweeping reference, even if we have more Noldor with 'especially'.

That's why I tend to think Tolkien may be working with different ideas in the two, noting also that in a text likewise written in reaction to artwork by Pauline Baynes [which thus can be paired with the 6 foot 6 quote], Elendil appears reduced [if compared to the 'rangar' description in Unfinished Tales anyway] from being nearly 8 feet tall to a 'mere' 7 feet tall.

Tolkien might have 'realized' for Thingol [and possibly other great Elves] to have been taller than Elendil he might have to shorten the conceptions up just a bit.

[Dulgakhôr]

Professor gives a bit about elven appearance in "Laws and Customs among the Eldar" (published in "Morgoth's ring (HoME 10)). In this he states that childrens of Men and Eldar seems alike in spirit (untainted by evil of the world and burden of memories), but...

This same watcher might indeed have wondered at the small limbs and stature of these children, judging their age by their skill in words and grace in motion. For at the end of the third year mortal children began to outstrip the Elves, hastening on to a full stature while the Elves lingered in the first spring of childhood. Children of Men might reach their full height while Eldar of the same age were still in body like to mortals of no more than seven years.

I guess you can fish out few more such pieces in Tolkien notes, but its extremely unlikely he left a more detailed description of physiology- it was simply not very important to him, and some fans found this frustrating:

"It seemed to men that Sauron was great, though they feared the light of his eyes. To many he appeared fair, to others terrible; but to some evil." (The Lost Road p. 67)
Thank you, Professor. And what did you say the color of his hair was?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Dulgakhôr

I guess you can fish out few more such pieces in Tolkien notes, but its extremely unlikely he left a more detailed description of physiology- it was simply not very important to him, and some fans found this frustrating:

In Tolkien's defense though, he did get pretty detailed at times on both persons and places; he just was selective on the things on which he chose to elaborate.

I personally have never been overly concerned with the sometime lack of information on personal appearances. Imagination is a large piece of what makes reading enjoyable to me. I don't want to know everything.

And by the way, welcome to the Downs!

[Galin]

Here's one that not only helps with Elwe, but describes some characteristics of the Noldor and Sindar. I break the text to add a paragraph here.

'Elwe himself had indeed long and beautiful hair of silver hue, but this does not seem to have been a common feature of the Sindar, though it was found among them occasionally, especially in the nearer or remoter kin of Elwe (as in the case of Cirdan).

In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe. Indeed they could hardly be told apart except by their eyes; for the eyes of all the Elves that had dwelt in Aman impressed those of Middle-earth by their piercing brightness. For which reason the Sindar often called them Lachend, pl. Lechind 'flame-eyed'.'

Quendi and Eldar, War of the Jewels

From the same text we know that though the Vanyar were the smallest clan [at least early on], they were 'mostly' golden or yellow-haired. I can't really find any late references to how tall they were in comparison to Men, or to other Elves, although maybe I'm missing something there.


I have found a number of general references to hair colour and tallness, but not for example, to hair style [see the thread 'hairy-pottering' for instance], except a few when in reference to a particular Elf. Tolkien even introduced red, or red-brown [or coppery coloured] hair among Nerdanel's kin, and at least a couple of references to a 'ruddy' complexion. JRRT even altered some of the names of Feanor's sons to match up with this new hair colour detail [which has caused a fair amount of confusion or at least conflation on the web in my opinion]...

... but anyway Tolkien still leaves plenty to the imagination I think.


And there is yet again the matter of external chronology. For another example, the text on Elven children from Morgoth's Ring might have been superseded by later description that appears to indicate Men and Elves grew to adulthood at basically the same rate. Laws And Customs is a relatively late text too, but JRRT could take even a long held idea and 'suddenly' discard it, as he did with the mode of Elven reincarnation for example [in other words he revised the mode in which Elves are reincarnated, not the fact that they were reincarnated].

For some time [which might not be not much longer than the time it took to write the text itself] JRRT even mused on changing the meaning of the term Noldor to refer to hair colour!

But then he went back to having it mean 'Those who know'

For another instance, in one text [see Words, Phrases, and Passages in Parma Eldalamberon] Tolkien writes that no Elf had absolutely black hair, but in a later text he simply uses the word 'black' when describing the hair of certain Elves.

We might keep in mind that JRRT was certainly free enough to change his mind if something had not already been published. Sometimes his changing ideas can be confusing, but he didn't know that so much of his texts and notes would someday be so available to his readership.

What's the interweb? For example

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

I might agree except that the second statement adds that 'some' of the great kings and leaders were taller... taller than what? The only reference number here is 6 foot 6, and as one could reasonably expect some Elves to be taller than 6 foot 6, that leads me to think that Tolkien means 'some' of the great kings and leaders were notably taller than 6 foot 6...

'Some' of the great kings were taller than the average, which is not noted here. In other passages we learn that the average height was 7ft.

The passage in my opinion could be read like this.

'The minimum height for elvish males was 6'6. The minimum height for elvish women was 6'0. Some of the nobility were even taller than the normal height though'

In other passages we learn that the normal height was close to 7ft.

... but to me that doesn't seem to mesh well with the other statement, in which it is generally noted that the Eldar and especially the Noldor were normally about 7 feet tall...

... as that's notably taller than the reference number in the other quote [a half a foot taller], and there it's not 'some' great kings and leaders, it's the normal height of the Eldar in general, a rather sweeping reference, even if we have more Noldor with 'especially'.

That's why I tend to think Tolkien may be working with different ideas in the two, noting also that in a text likewise written in reaction to artwork by Pauline Baynes [which thus can be paired with the 6 foot 6 quote], Elendil appears reduced [if compared to the 'rangar' description in Unfinished Tales anyway] from being nearly 8 feet tall to a 'mere' 7 feet tall.

Tolkien might have 'realized' for Thingol [and possibly other great Elves] to have been taller than Elendil he might have to shorten the conceptions up just a bit.

I think you are making too much of an effort to make the statements contradict each other. As things stand the later works are all in agreement.

Elendil's height is not reduced in anyway. In the Unfinished Tales he gave us an accurate exact height for Elendil being around 7'10. In notes elsewhere he generalised that Isildur and Elendil had been 7ft. The statements once more are not contradictory unless you want them to be.

When I say a rugby team was full of 6 footers, I don't mean that everyone in the team was exactly 6 ft. I mean that everyone was at least 6ft.

Unless the information contradicts itself I see no reason to not accept the harmonious version.

Minimum height for most Noldor 6'6.
Average height for most Noldor under 7ft
Great Lords like Turgon 7ft+.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I think you are making too much of an effort to make the statements contradict each other. As things stand the later works are all in agreement.

Well I could say something similar concerning your opinions For example...

Elendil's height is not reduced in anyway. In the Unfinished Tales he gave us an accurate exact height for Elendil being around 7'10. In notes elsewhere he generalised that Isildur and Elendil had been 7ft. The statements once more are not contradictory unless you want them to be.

... why assume the 7 foot reference is not accurate? I could say the statements are not in accord unless you want Tolkien to be speaking so generally that when he writes 7 feet for both Isildur and Elendil he really imagines Elendil 10 inches taller [!], with the reason to think so being some description he may not have even remembered at the time, or may have been purposely revising.

There is no indication in the passage concerned that Elendil is taller than 7 feet. And I note Hammond and Scull's presentation of the two accounts in their Reader's Companion to The Lord of the Rings [see Numenoreans in the index, the first reference here is to the 'rangar account' published posthumously in Unfinished Tales]:

'Thus Elendil, by this account, was apparently almost eight feet tall. But in another late, unpublished note Tolkien wrote that...'

And then they quote the seven feet tall description. Well, when I note a given idea and then plan to introduce a seeming contradiction, or at least a reasonably arguable one, I use 'but, however' as well.

When I say a rugby team was full of 6 footers, I don't mean that everyone in the team was exactly 6 ft. I mean that everyone was at least 6ft.

And in my interpretation of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes I do not say, of course, that Tolkien meant every Elda was exactly 6 foot 6.

Unless the information contradicts itself I see no reason to not accept the harmonious version.

(...) 'Some' of the great kings were taller than the average, which is not noted here. In other passages we learn that the average height was 7ft.

That's not what Tolkien wrote in any case, in the passage I interpreted above.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well I could say something similar concerning your opinions For example...



... why assume the 7 foot reference is not accurate? I could say the statements are not in accord unless you want Tolkien to be speaking so generally that when he writes 7 feet for both Isildur and Elendil he really imagines Elendil 10 inches taller [!], with the reason to think so being some description he may not have even remembered at the time, or may have been purposely revising.

There is no indication in the passage concerned that Elendil is taller than 7 feet. And I note Hammond and Scull's presentation of the two accounts in their Reader's Companion to The Lord of the Rings [see Numenoreans in the index, the first reference here is to the 'rangar account' published posthumously in Unfinished Tales]:

My first point is that when people use a generic 6ft and in this case 7ft it is rarely to be taken as an accurate reference, especially when talking about two people. In this very case we know Isildur and Elendil were different heights, because Elendil is mentioned as the tallest man to have survived the downfall of Numenor. Secondly we know the Hobbits are called Halflings, because they were roughly half the size of Numenoreans. If the average height of the Nuemnoreans was 7ft then how could Elendil gain the nickname the Elendil the tall if he was 7ft too?

In one place he makes a rough note about a picture on general height. In the other he gives an exact height, supported by other published material.

And then they quote the seven feet tall description. Well, when I note a given idea and then plan to introduce a seeming contradiction, or at least a reasonably arguable one, I use 'but, however' as well.

And in my interpretation of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes I do not say, of course, that Tolkien meant every Elda was exactly 6 foot 6.

I was talking about Elendil and Isildur both being 7ft, when the context and evidence we have from other sources shows this must be a general description.

Tolkien never in that paragraph describes 6'6 as being a standard or even an average height. It's a general minimum height.

That's not what Tolkien wrote in any case, in the passage I interpreted above.

In the paragraph quoted, Tolkien is not talking about an average height for Eldar men and women.

He first gives the general minimum height for women, which is 6'0. No where is it indicated that the average for a male is 6'6.

In more than one account Tolkien goes into detail about the Numenoreans being around 7ft tall on average.

the Hobbits of the Shire were in height between three and four feet, never less and seldom more. They did not of course call themselves Halflings; this was a Numenorean name for them. It evidently referred to their height in comparison with Numenorean men and was approximately accurate when given.-UT


but he (Elendil) was said to be 'more than man-high' by nearly half a ranga; but he was accounted the tallest of all the Numenoreans who escaped the downfall [and indeed was generally known as the tall]

Earlier he tells us that 6'4 was not really an average height for Numenoreans, but a general term and even this was after they had declined in height.

We have a lot of accurate measurements of height given and I don't see why we should dismiss it all for an ambiguous note, which can be read in different ways.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

My first point is that when people use a generic 6ft and in this case 7ft it is rarely to be taken as an accurate reference, especially when talking about two people.

If it's generic in the first place

Your choice of words above, a rugby team 'full of 6 footers', is not exactly the phrasing Tolkien employs for the Eldar in any case [whether or not they played rugby aside]; and not that you said otherwise, but I see no reason why Elendil's own son could not match him in height.

In this very case we know Isildur and Elendil were different heights, because Elendil is mentioned as the tallest man to have survived the downfall of Numenor.

Did Tolkien himself publish this however? If not it's easily altered to reflect a new idea.

Secondly we know the Hobbits are called Halflings, because they were roughly half the size of Numenoreans. If the average height of the Nuemnoreans was 7ft then how could Elendil gain the nickname the Elendil the tall if he was 7ft too?

Tolkien did actually publish this nickname for Elendil, so yes, even he might explain it somewhow with respect to a given idea. Above you made the statement 'supported by other published material' but we must remember very little of any of this was published by JRRT himself, and thus was quite open to change.

In more than one account Tolkien goes into detail about the Numenoreans being around 7ft tall on average.

the Hobbits of the Shire were in height between three and four feet, never less and seldom more. They did not of course call themselves Halflings; this was a Numenorean name for them. It evidently referred to their height in comparison with Numenorean men and was approximately accurate when given.-UT

Thanks again to the scholarship of Hammond and Scull, with respect to the 'halfling' idea as it relates to the Numenoreans, we now have: 'three variant statements, written c. 1969, with some repetition as Tolkien develops the text' (only part of which was printed in Unfinished Tales).

In the third section [the more developed section?] as printed in the Reader's Companion, Tolkien writes:

'But the name 'Halfling' must have originated circa T[third] A[ge] 1150, getting on for 2,000 years (1868) before the War of the Ring, during which the dwindling of the Numenoreans had shown itself in stature as well as in life span. So that it referred to a height of full grown males of an average of, say, 3 ft. 5.'

So that's an average of 6 foot 10 inches at this time for the Numenoreans. This actully seems to agree well enough with the other text, as this is well after the Downfall of Numenor, if still well before Aragorn's time.

But again, is Tolkien being consistent in any case?

Hammond and Scull also point out that in The Hobbit [thus published by JRRT himself of course] it is noted that Hobbits were 'about half our height' and in a letter Tolkien referred to Bilbo as about 3 feet tall or 3 feet 6 inches. Well, which is it? Three feet tall would explain 'halfling' well enough in a world where Men were reaching 6 feet tall [and half 'our' height hardly refers to Numeoreans I would say], but 3 foot 6 would mean we should be talking about a much taller people.

Anyway, Elendil is a notable person here, historically. He need not be the only person to ever reach this height to acquire such a nickname...

... I note Maedhros the Tall wasn't the tallest Elf ever [Thingol was taller], nor even the tallest Elf in Aman if we allow that 'Turgon himself would appear 'tallest of all the Children of the World, save Thingol' (Of Tuor And His Coming to Gondolin). That is, if we forget the later account, or explain it in some way, where Argon is seemingly said to be taller than Turgon in The Shibboleth of Feanor.

That's if all these descriptions were made with each other in mind too, which I tend to doubt with respect to Argon and Turgon actually, although there is a way to explain how these two statements can both be true, since Argon was slain relatively early.

Moreover, if Tolkien wants to retain a given concept about 'Halfling' being a Numenorean term, and thus retain 'taller' Hobbits in the past for instance, but feels that he must explain 'Elendil the Tall' as notably tall among the Numenoreans of his time, or among those with whom he escaped the fall of Numenor at least, he can in turn make Elendil not 'merely' 7 feet tall but, say, 7 feet 2 or 3 inches...

... and doing so I think he could still retain the general idea about the Eldar expressed in reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes. Yes that would mean tinkering with the 'artwork quote' itself, or making it more general than accurate -- I'm not actually against the notion that Tolkien might be speaking a bit generally here when he describes both Isildur and Elendil as 7 feet tall -- what I think is too strained however is that he really imagines a nearly 8 foot Elendil whe he wrote the 'artwork description'.

That's too significant a difference in my opinion, even if Tolkien is not being specifically accurate.

We have a lot of accurate measurements of height given and I don't see why we should dismiss it all for an ambiguous note, which can be read in different ways.

If we take the 'artwork description' as true we don't need to dismiss every other quote in my opinion. But even if we have to then we have to. I dismiss any earlier references to the Eldar being reborn as children because Tolkien changed his mind about this, for example. Of course again, if we have different ideas [one in which both the Eldar and Elendil are arguably shorter than the other notion], we still don't know which idea was later than the other!



And you're not necessarily wrong as far as Tolkien's intent, but I see a difference with respect to interpreting the 'artwork quote' as it stands, alone an unaffected by another idea: again, interpret A without mixing in B to see if you find the two statements in accord.

Maybe I'm crazy but 'some' of the Kings and leaders being taller naturally begs the question 'taller than what'? And to answer that you are seemingly employing another citation [normally 7 feet from Of Dwarves And Men] instead of using the context of the description in which the statement is found.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

If it's generic in the first place

Your choice of words above, a rugby team 'full of 6 footers', is not exactly the phrasing Tolkien employs for the Eldar in any case [whether or not they played rugby aside]; and not that you said otherwise, but I see no reason why Elendil's own son could not match him in height.



Did Tolkien himself publish this however? If not it's easily altered to reflect a new idea.

No, but it is published in the UT and Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is cannon. A right he usually does not choose to use, but anything what he publishes should have a fair amount of weight behind it.

Isildur was undoubtedly very tall himself, but his incredible height was never a distinguishing feature for him as it was his father.

Tolkien did actually publish this nickname for Elendil, so yes, even he might explain it somewhow with respect to a given idea. Above you made the statement 'supported by other published material' but we must remember very little of any of this was published by JRRT himself, and thus was quite open to change.

Tolkien published the prologue of the Hobbits where he listed them as being between 2ft and 4ft. However in a later note he cleared the ambiguity by pointing out he was talking about the present shrunken Hobbits of today. The clarification supports the way I read the text in the prologue.

'Their height is variable ranging between two and four feet of our measure. They seldom now reach three feet; but they have dwindled they say, and in ancient days they were taller.'-Prologue LOTR

The note that clarifies this is found in UT.

'The remarks [on the stature of Hobbits] in the prologue to LOTR are unnecessarily vague and complicated, owing to the inclusions of of references to survivals of the race in later times; but as LOTR is concerned they boil down to this: the Hobbits of the Shire were in height between three and four feet, never less and seldom more.'

Then in the Peoples of Middle Earth further information is given about the height of the Hobbits. I won't quote it, but it has the quote about Numenoreans being about 7ft and then says Hobbits were rarely over 3'6.

Thanks again to the scholarship of Hammond and Scull, with respect to the 'halfling' idea as it relates to the Numenoreans, we now have: 'three variant statements, written c. 1969, with some repetition as Tolkien develops the text' (only part of which was printed in Unfinished Tales).

In the third section [the more developed section?] as printed in the Reader's Companion, Tolkien writes:

I think you are giving too much credit to Hammond and Scull. I don't see three variant statements at all. I see a consistency that Tolkien has stuck with. Things like the question of Turin of Galadriel's true history are problematic.

Through out several different notes Tolkien has maintained or hinted (by the very use of Halflings in LOTR) that the Numenoreans were twice their height. He then in multiple sources writes that Hobbits were between 3ft and 4ft.


Even in the description of Aragorn and Boromir as 6'6 and 6'4 respectively we know that the Numenoreans have decreased in height. Even from that one rough note, the Numenoreans must have been close to 7ft.

So that's an average of 6 foot 10 inches at this time for the Numenoreans. This actully seems to agree well enough with the other text, as this is well after the Downfall of Numenor, if still well before Aragorn's time.

But again, is Tolkien being consistent in any case?

Hammond and Scull also point out that in The Hobbit [thus published by JRRT himself of course] it is noted that Hobbits were 'about half our height' and in a letter Tolkien referred to Bilbo as about 3 feet tall or 3 feet 6 inches. Well, which is it? Three feet tall would explain 'halfling' well enough in a world where Men were reaching 6 feet tall [and half 'our' height hardly refers to Numeoreans I would say], but 3 foot 6 would mean we should be talking about a much taller people.[/QUOTE]
I have addressed this point with Tolkien clarifying that Hobbits at the time of LOTR were between 3ft and 4ft. It is only in this 'present' day that Hobbits have shrunk to under 3ft.

Anyway, Elendil is a notable person here, historically. He need not be the only person to ever reach this height to acquire such a nickname...

... I note Maedhros the Tall wasn't the tallest Elf ever [Thingol was taller], nor even the tallest Elf in Aman if we allow that 'Turgon himself would appear 'tallest of all the Children of the World, save Thingol' (Of Tuor And His Coming to Gondolin). That is, if we forget the later account, or explain it in some way, where Argon is seemingly said to be taller than Turgon in The Shibboleth of Feanor.

That's if all these descriptions were made with each other in mind too, which I tend to doubt with respect to Argon and Turgon actually, although there is a way to explain how these two statements can both be true, since Argon was slain relatively early

Being named as Tall does not mean you are the tallest, but it certainly means you are taller than the average person. We must also take into account that Maedhros, Turgon and Argon are all different ages. There may well have been a time that Maedhros was the tallest of the elves in Aman, before Turgon and Argon surpassed him.

This though is really not that important, because being a couple of inches taller than the average is unlikely to get you a nickname as Tall.

Moreover, if Tolkien wants to retain a given concept about 'Halfling' being a Numenorean term, and thus retain 'taller' Hobbits in the past for instance, but feels that he must explain 'Elendil the Tall' as notably tall among the Numenoreans of his time, or among those with whom he escaped the fall of Numenor at least, he can in turn make Elendil not 'merely' 7 feet tall but, say, 7 feet 2 or 3 inches...

Being a couple of inches taller than average as I said is really not a great distinction. To put it into context the average height for a British Male is about 5'10. Somebody, who is 6'2 is not going to get the nickname Tall.

... and doing so I think he could still retain the general idea about the Eldar expressed in reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes. Yes that would mean tinkering with the 'artwork quote' itself, or making it more general than accurate -- I'm not actually against the notion that Tolkien might be speaking a bit generally here when he describes both Isildur and Elendil as 7 feet tall -- what I think is too strained however is that he really imagines a nearly 8 foot Elendil whe he wrote the 'artwork description'.

That's too significant a difference in my opinion, even if Tolkien is not being specifically accurate.

There is not a significant difference if Isildur was say 7'3 or even 7'4. Their average height would be around 7'6 and so it would be correct to roughly pin them as 7ft.

If we take the 'artwork description' as true we don't need to dismiss every other quote in my opinion. But even if we have to then we have to. I dismiss any earlier references to the Eldar being reborn as children because Tolkien changed his mind about this, for example. Of course again, if we have different ideas [one in which both the Eldar and Elendil are arguably shorter than the other notion], we still don't know which idea was later than the other!



And you're not necessarily wrong as far as Tolkien's intent, but I see a difference with respect to interpreting the 'artwork quote' as it stands, alone an unaffected by another idea: again, interpret A without mixing in B to see if you find the two statements in accord.

Maybe I'm crazy but 'some' of the Kings and leaders being taller naturally begs the question 'taller than what'? And to answer that you are seemingly employing another citation [normally 7 feet from Of Dwarves And Men] instead of using the context of the description in which the statement is found.

Taking the artwork statement as true and literal creates a problem on several things as we have been through. These were some of Tolkiens latest writings on the subject and not brief notes which accompanied the artwork. He wrote entire essays such as Of Dwarves of Men or Numeanorean Linear Measure. Even if you want to insist that there is a contradiction in the sources, which is more likely to be correct: the short brief note about a picture or two separate essays he wrote on the subject?

Lastly about your interpretation 'some of the kings' being taller. If the minimum height was 6'6 for an Elvish male then what would the average height be? It would obviously be greater than the minimum. There is an assumption that the 'kings' are taller than the average which he has given elsewhere.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Being a couple of inches taller than average as I said is really not a great distinction. To put it into context the average height for a British Male is about 5'10. Somebody, who is 6'2 is not going to get the nickname Tall.

But somebody who is 5'10, like the aforementioned average British male, is not going to be described as "five foot tall".

There is not a significant difference if Isildur were 7'3 or even 7'4. Their average height would be around 7'6 and so it would be correct to roughly pin them as 7 ft.

I fear not. Again, think of it in terms of the heights more commonly encountered in the real world.

[cellurdur]

[QUOTE=Nerwen;689023]But somebody who is 5'10, like the aforementioned average British male, is not going to be described as "five foot tall".

[QUOTE]There is not a significant difference if Isildur were 7'3 or even 7'4. Their average height would be around 7'6 and so it would be correct to roughly pin them as 7 ft.

I fear not. Again, think of it in terms of the heights more commonly encountered in the real world.

That's a lot to do with 5ft being considered short. The difference between a man, who is 5'10 and another who is 5'3 is huge. If Elendil walked past you at 7'10 and then later Isildur walked past you at 7'2 the comparative difference is much smaller.

Or even in real life if you saw two men one being 6'6 and the other 6'1 you are likely to refer to both as 6ft.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

No, but it is published in the UT and Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is cannon. A right he usually does not choose to use, but anything what he publishes should have a fair amount of weight behind it.

A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else?

If so I can't agree. It's all posthumously published material, including the material published by the Linguistic Editorial Team for instance [Vinyar Tengwar, Parma Eldalamberon] which contains more than pure linguistic information about Middle-earth.

Isildur was undoubtedly very tall himself, but his incredible height was never a distinguishing feature for him as it was his father. (...) Tolkien published the prologue of the Hobbits (...) Even from that one rough note, the Numenoreans must have been close to 7ft.

I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

This though is really not that important, because being a couple of inches taller than the average is unlikely to get you a nickname as Tall. (...) Being a couple of inches taller than average as I said is really not a great distinction. To put it into context the average height for a British Male is about 5'10. Somebody, who is 6'2 is not going to get the nickname Tall.

Is it unlikely? I'm not so sure, especially when dealing with an already tall folk in general, with the 'tallest' of the already tall being a fairly prominent person in history.

In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

Taking the artwork statement as true and literal creates a problem on several things as we have been through. These were some of Tolkiens latest writings on the subject and not brief notes which accompanied the artwork. He wrote entire essays such as Of Dwarves of Men or Numeanorean Linear Measure. Even if you want to insist that there is a contradiction in the sources, which is more likely to be correct: the short brief note about a picture or two separate essays he wrote on the subject?

Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet.

But for a different example we have a relatively brief marginal note where Tolkien appears to toss away decades of thinking that there were very many Balrogs, in favour of 3 or at most 7 ever existing. Which idea is more likely to be correct in this case?

One can gather up a number of quotes to illustrate hosts of Balrogs existing, or Balrogs 'one thousand' even, and together they might seem quite a strong case by comparison to one marginal note, and one revision to a text which itself [the revision] yet mentions no certain number. Of course the 'older' quotes will be consistent with each other as to number, but JRRT kows that his readership only knows so much about Durin's Bane, and he is thus free to radically alter the conception, making all the earlier descriptions part of a discarded notion.

I'm not saying I know this to be true with respect to the artwork description, but I feel it's a reasonable possibility given the phrasing employed.

And yes Of Dwarves And Men is an 'entire essay' but the remark on Eldarin height compared to Numenoreans [along with the Halfling reference] is one sentence within it if I recall correctly -- or if not one sentence it's brief enough, and obviously the essay is about much more. And Christopher Tolkien characterizes Numenorean Linear Measures [NLM] as: 'A note associated with the passage in 'The Disaster of the Gladden Fields'...'


Incidentally, when writing NLM I wonder if Tolkien had remembered what he had already published about Eomer [and Eowyn] in Appendix A! I won't go into it here but in my opinion this is another [at least] arguable glitch of some measure, even though in the tale proper [The Lord of the Rings] Eomer does seem to be tall, generally speaking.

[Lissë]

I'd like to come back to the hair problem. Galin, what did you find on hairstyles? The thread 'hairy-pottering' does not really exist, does it? Could you tell us the passage where Tolkien describes elven hair as black?

[Galin]

Hi again Lisse. Here it is, but it's not very long (pun intended)

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ight=pottering

And about the matter of black hair, Tolkien wrote in 'Words, Phrases, Passages' (p. 155): 'The Noldor were generally hróva or morna' [these Elvish words are noted] 'morna black of hair: hróva 'dark, dark brown'

In another entry JRRT seemed to think absolute black was not the case (same source): 'The predominant colour of Noldorin hair was very dark brown (no Elf had absolute black hair: morna)' I note here that Tolkien used morna, the word used in the previous citation.

But even if this entry is later than the first, it appears possible that JRRT revised that no Elf was black of hair, as in The Shibboleth of Feanor (dated 1968 or later), for example, Finwe has 'black' hair (note 19). Or concerning Urundil (note 61): 'His hair was not as dark or black as was that of most of the Noldor, but brown, and had glints of coppery red in it.'

Hmm

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

That's a lot to do with 5ft being considered short. The difference between a man, who is 5'10 and another who is 5'3 is huge. If Elendil walked past you at 7'10 and then later Isildur walked past you at 7'2 the comparative difference is much smaller.

Or even in real life if you saw two men one being 6'6 and the other 6'1 you are likely to refer to both as 6ft.

Well, no, I actually wouldn't, as 6'6 is in fact noticeably taller. And for me, I think you can probably substitute most people; I really don't think I've ever heard anyone describe height the way you're doing here. Come on, are you sure you're not just, well, stretching things?

I'm not saying either version is the "right" one, understand, just that they do seem to me to be clearly contradictory. I don't see why this should be a problem- authors always do rewrite things, and play with different ideas, and so on.

Also- I guess I read your post in a hurry, because the first time I missed where you said "Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is canon". As far as I know, this isn't the case, at least not in a way that would apply here. I mean, yes, he could have chosen not to publish, or make available, any of this. Again, I don't think that's relevant.

[Nerwen]

And apologies to Lisse for further hijacking her thread (i.e. my last comment).

Originally Posted by Galin

Hi again Lisse. Here it is, but it's not very long (pun intended)

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ight=pottering

And about the matter of black hair, Tolkien wrote in 'Words, Phrases, Passages' (p. 155): 'The Noldor were generally hróva or morna' [these Elvish words are noted] 'morna black of hair: hróva 'dark, dark brown'

In another entry JRRT seemed to think absolute black was not the case (same source): 'The predominant colour of Noldorin hair was very dark brown (no Elf had absolute black hair: morna)' I note here that Tolkien used morna, the word used in the previous citation.

But even if this entry is later than the first, it appears possible that JRRT revised that no Elf was black of hair, as in The Shibboleth of Feanor (dated 1968 or later), for example, Finwe has 'black' hair (note 19). Or concerning Urundil (note 61): 'His hair was not as dark or black as was that of most of the Noldor, but brown, and had glints of coppery red in it.'

Hmm

My own feeling is that this is a revision. I suppose it need not be, if you take "black" as really meaning "almost black".

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, no, I actually wouldn't, as 6'6 is in fact noticeably taller. And for me, I think you can probably substitute most people; I really don't think I've ever heard anyone describe height the way you're doing here. Come on, are you sure you're not just, well, stretching things?

I'm not saying either version is the "right" one, understand, just that they do seem to me to be clearly contradictory. I don't see why this should be a problem- authors always do rewrite things, and play with different ideas, and so on.

Also- I guess I read your post in a hurry, because the first time I missed where you said "Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is canon". As far as I know, this isn't the case, at least not in a way that would apply here. I mean, yes, he could have chosen not to publish, or make available, any of this. Again, I don't think that's relevant.

This is from Tolkien's will.

’Upon Trust to allow my son Christopher full access to the same* in order that he may act as my Literary Executor with full power to publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto’

*Unpublished works.

Christopher Tolkien may rarely if at all use it, but he still has the power to define what is canon. Thus I think anything he publishes should be given weight over all other materials found.



Back on topic this way of describing height happens fairly often. For instance when talking about the tall players in womens tennis they will say the new generation of 6ft players. Now the tallest may be around 6'3, but the general term of 6ft is used.

I agree that describing someone as 6'6 as a 6 footer may be pushing it, but I don't think it's rare for someone 6'4 to be described as a 6 footer when in a group with other people over 6 foot.

Here is an example of an article using the phrase here about a football team.
And Eagles skipper Jedinak is ready for another battle with Tony Pulis' team of six-footers in tomorrow's replay as they attempt to secure a fourth-round tie with Manchester City.

Now the tallest person in that team is over 6'7 and another is 6'6.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else?

If so I can't agree. It's all posthumously published material, including the material published by the Linguistic Editorial Team for instance [Vinyar Tengwar, Parma Eldalamberon] which contains more than pure linguistic information about Middle-earth.

Yes I am suggesting that anything published by Christopher Tolkien has more weight, because he has full authority to write or delete anything he wants. The quote provided is in the post above.

I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

The essays were written in 1969 and were more detailed than the breif notes.

Is it unlikely? I'm not so sure, especially when dealing with an already tall folk in general, with the 'tallest' of the already tall being a fairly prominent person in history.

In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

The thing is Elendil did not hang out with a relatively small group of friends. He was around the nobility of Numenor and they were actually taller than average. Ar-pharazon himself may have been the tallest man alive at the time.

When we look at English kings like Edward I, Edward II, Edward IV or Henry VIII they had to be over 6 inches taller than the average man for their height to be noted.

Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet.

But for a different example we have a relatively brief marginal note where Tolkien appears to toss away decades of thinking that there were very many Balrogs, in favour of 3 or at most 7 ever existing. Which idea is more likely to be correct in this case?

One can gather up a number of quotes to illustrate hosts of Balrogs existing, or Balrogs 'one thousand' even, and together they might seem quite a strong case by comparison to one marginal note, and one revision to a text which itself [the revision] yet mentions no certain number. Of course the 'older' quotes will be consistent with each other as to number, but JRRT kows that his readership only knows so much about Durin's Bane, and he is thus free to radically alter the conception, making all the earlier descriptions part of a discarded notion.

I'm not saying I know this to be true with respect to the artwork description, but I feel it's a reasonable possibility given the phrasing employed.

This is true, but we can look at the dates when these articles were written. The comments supporting the great height of the Eldar are written in the late 60s. As I pointed out before, Christopher Tolkien was left in charge with sorting and editing what was to be published. I will always take what he has published over any artwork descriptions.

And yes Of Dwarves And Men is an 'entire essay' but the remark on Eldarin height compared to Numenoreans [along with the Halfling reference] is one sentence within it if I recall correctly -- or if not one sentence it's brief enough, and obviously the essay is about much more. And Christopher Tolkien characterizes Numenorean Linear Measures [NLM] as: 'A note associated with the passage in 'The Disaster of the Gladden Fields'...'

We can argue semantics, but Numenorean Linear Measures is at least 500 words long and there are other notes written detailing the decline of Numenoreans and Hobbits at the end.

Incidentally, when writing NLM I wonder if Tolkien had remembered what he had already published about Eomer [and Eowyn] in Appendix A! I won't go into it here but in my opinion this is another [at least] arguable glitch of some measure, even though in the tale proper [The Lord of the Rings] Eomer does seem to be tall, generally speaking.

I am unaware of any contradiction, but if there is once more we should follow the precedent that Christopher Tolkien has set. Unless the matter was of great importance, then J.R.R. Tolkien would usually bow to what was published.

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, it seems you have now shifted your goalposts regarding height descriptions. No doubt not a deliberate tactic, but whatever. You're not actually supporting your original contention anymore, as far as I can see.

Now, about Christopher Tolkien: yes, I know he has the legal right to publish (or not publish) and edit his father's writings. I already said that, remember? Again, I don't see what that has to do with it.

If you were to argue that Christopher Tolkien's familiarity with his father (rather than any legal position) makes him a better judge of what the man really intended than an outsider... okay. But even that is very problematic.

And, of course, it can't make a contradiction not a contradiction. That's the thing: it appears you're trying to argue simultaneously that the two versions agree with each other and that one should be considered wrong. I don't get it.

[Nerwen]

Just as a clarification- by "your original contention", I mean this:

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I think you are making too much of an effort to make the statements contradict each other. As things stand the later works are all in agreement.

Elendil's height is not reduced in anyway. In the Unfinished Tales he gave us an accurate exact height for Elendil being around 7'10. In notes elsewhere he generalised that Isildur and Elendil had been 7ft. The statements once more are not contradictory unless you want them to be.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

cellurdur, it seems you have now shifted your goalposts regarding height descriptions. No doubt not a deliberate tactic, but whatever. You're not actually supporting your original contention anymore, as far as I can see.

Now, about Christopher Tolkien: yes, I know he has the legal right to publish (or not publish) and edit his father's writings. I already said that, remember? Again, I don't see what that has to do with it.

If you were to argue that Christopher Tolkien's familiarity with his father (rather than any legal position) makes him a better judge of what the man really intended than an outsider... okay. But even that is very problematic.

And, of course, it can't make a contradiction not a contradiction. That's the thing: it appears you're trying to argue simultaneously that the two versions agree with each other and that one should be considered wrong. I don't get it.

No I have not shifted my argument, but given two different arguments.

1. That descroption of Elendil being 7ft is not really a problem, because this is often used to describe people, who are 7ft. I then gave a recent article where a team of individulas ranging from 6'1 to 6'7 were described in general terms as being 6ft.
-I also pointed out that if the minimum height for the Eldar was 6'6 then the average height had to be taller
-Aragorn was said to be 6'6 in the article, but we know he was a lot shorter than the Numenoreans of old. If Aragorn and Boromir, at 6'6 and 6'4 respectively, were shorter than the Numenoreans of old then they must have been close to 7ft on average
-Elendil and Isildur were not the same height and therefore we can realise that the description of them being 7ft tall was not an accurate height

The second argument is that if YOU still think there is a contradiction, which I DO NOT, then we should go with what Christopher Tolkien has published, because he has the right to delete or rewrite anything that was published.

[Galin]

Galin wrote: A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else? (...)

Cellurdur responded: Yes I am suggesting that anything published by Christopher Tolkien has more weight, because he has full authority to write or delete anything he wants. The quote provided is in the post above.

I'm aware of the wording of Tolkien's will, but don't see what this necessarily has to do with what Christopher Tolkien actually did. Do you have something from Christopher Tolkien himself, anywhere, where he states or even suggests that something he himself published has 'more weight' than something he authorized, say, the Linguistic Editorial Team to publish, like Ósanwe-kenta for example?

Christopher Tolkien is not 'deleting' any text that I'm aware of because it has less weight than something else. And even if he did, to my mind that doesn't change that JRR Tolkien is the creator of Middle-earth in the end.

I'm sorry I don't follow this argument at all, and I agree with Nerwen here.

Galin wrote: I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

Cellurdur responded: The essays were written in 1969 and were more detailed than the breif notes.

Well the artwork descripton I cited is itself a 'late text' too, and as I say, how brief is all the artwork commentary combined? It hasn't all been published yet. Not that I would necessarily be swayed about relative brevity in any case.


Incidentally I asked Hammond and Scull if the artwork commentary possibly included the note concerning Celeborn on p. 286 in Unfinished Tales. I asked: 'The note on Hobbit stature must be meant, and Celeborn isn't in the artwork of course, but I wonder if the bit about Celeborn could be part of, or connected to, the description noted on p. 107 (a tall Elf) in the Reader's Companion.' They responded:

Galin wrote: Hmm, does this possibly include the note concerning Celeborn on p. 286?

No, that note is from some other source - none that we recall seeing.

Wayne & Christina

Galin wrote: In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

Cellurdur responded: The thing is Elendil did not hang out with a relatively small group of friends. He was around the nobility of Numenor and they were actually taller than average. Ar-pharazon himself may have been the tallest man alive at the time.

My point here was that nicknames can be funny things in general, and thus there are arguably ways for Tolkien to explain 'Elendil the Tall' without making him 7 foot 10.

Galin wrote: Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet. (...)

Cellurdur responded This is true, but we can look at the dates when these articles were written. The comments supporting the great height of the Eldar are written in the late 60s. As I pointed out before, Christopher Tolkien was left in charge with sorting and editing what was to be published. I will always take what he has published over any artwork descriptions.

Christopher Tolkien actually published a bit of the 'artwork descriptions' [see my next post] [ edit note: I edited this section to be more precise, but I did so before realizing that Cellurdur had already quoted the unedited version below. That explains the two versions now]. Now more of these descriptions, but still not all, are in print, thanks to Christopher Tolkien allowing both Hammond and Scull and J. Rateliff to publish them.

We can argue semantics, but Numenorean Linear Measures is at least 500 words long and there are other notes written detailing the decline of Numenoreans and Hobbits at the end.

Well, it was you who called NLM 'an entire essay'. CJRT called it a note. Are we going to count words now, or words that actually deal with height within a given text compared to another?

I'm not. I've only got so many fingers and toes



In any case the 'artwork descriptions' represent Tolkien's thinking at the time. They appear to be considered enough for me, and we don't have 'merely' 5 foot 10 or 11 for the Eldar for instance, nor even 6 feet to 6 feet 3 or 4 for most Eldar, for example, which if we did, we would then have the Numenoreans at their height towering over them by a full foot or nearly so in some cases.

In short [no pun intended] the Eldar are still notably tall here, especially the great kings and leaders; and we read often enough about the Noldorin kings and leaders too.

And yes we don't know the external chronology of a number of 'late texts' dealing with heights, which I acknowledged from the start.

[Galin]

By the way, with respect to the artwork commentary from Tolkien, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull revealed [at another forum, I underline one section here]:

We did, in fact, make extensive use of this manuscript in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion (2005), on pp. 3-4, 107, 229, 244-5, 265, 272, 447, and 493. Christopher Tolkien had earlier published part of it in Unfinished Tales (1980), pp. 286-7. We refer to it variously as a manuscript written c. 1969, a late manuscript, a late unpublished note, etc., with the source given only as the Tolkien Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford. When we wrote the Reader's Companion, the Bodleian Tolkien papers were in process of being reorganized and renumbered; therefore by agreement with the Library and the Tolkien Estate, with whom we worked closely, we gave only a generic citation for Bodleian materials.


We also promised the Estate to follow Christopher's lead in Unfinished Tales, where he quoted from the manuscript in question without explaining the larger context of its criticism of Pauline Baynes's map -- that we would quote only elements of fact concerning The Lord of the Rings, its characters and world. Pauline was then still alive (until August last year), and neither we nor the Estate wished to cause her any distress when she saw our book. Tolkien himself had not sent his criticism to her, and never would have done so. Anyway, identifying the manuscript in broader terms while quoting the portions we did would have been extraneous. When describing the map itself (pp. lxiv-lxvi), we were concerned only with the place-names added by Tolkien, avoiding the issue of the art altogether.



It may be, nonetheless, that Pauline knew of Tolkien's dislike of the top and bottom of her poster-map from other sources, for in her lifetime special copies turned up with strips cut off, and this was described in catalogues once or twice. No doubt we'll mention it in the bibliography of Pauline's work that we're in process of writing.


Wayne & Christina

In a note to The Bladorthin Typescript (ii Bladorthin, note 14, Mr. Baggins), John Rateliff describes an essay written circa 1970 and now in the Bodleian Library (Tolkien Papers A61 a, fol. 1-31).

Mr. Rateliff quotes a description of Gandalf from this essay (which includes 'Which should make him a short man even in modern England, especially with the reduction of a bent back' incidentally), noting also that it was written in response to Pauline Baynes' art for the poster-map of Middle-earth -- which included the Fellowship and Bill, and certain evil types too.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

No I have not shifted my argument, but given two different arguments.

1. That descroption of Elendil being 7ft is not really a problem, because this is often used to describe people, who are 7ft. I then gave a recent article where a team of individulas ranging from 6'1 to 6'7 were described in general terms as being 6ft.
-I also pointed out that if the minimum height for the Eldar was 6'6 then the average height had to be taller
-Aragorn was said to be 6'6 in the article, but we know he was a lot shorter than the Numenoreans of old. If Aragorn and Boromir, at 6'6 and 6'4 respectively, were shorter than the Numenoreans of old then they must have been close to 7ft on average
-Elendil and Isildur were not the same height and therefore we can realise that the description of them being 7ft tall was not an accurate height

The second argument is that if YOU still think there is a contradiction, which I DO NOT, then we should go with what Christopher Tolkien has published, because he has the right to delete or rewrite anything that was published.

I'm sorry, but none of your examples have been to the point. Generalising about the heights of a group, such as the sports teams you favour for this purpose, is not the same as talking about one or two individuals. Once again: you are claiming that the statement that Elendil was "seven feet tall," is in perfect agreement with another statement indicating that he was ten inches taller than that. I... really don't know what more to say.

As for your second argument, I guess you mean it's a sort of backup, should you fail to convince anyone of the validity of the first one. Fair enough. But the argument itself- well, as you've simply stated it again, all I can do is say again that I don't see the point.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

I'm aware of the wording of Tolkien's will, but don't see what this necessarily has to do with what Christopher Tolkien actually did. Do you have something from Christopher Tolkien himself, anywhere, where he states or even suggests that something he himself published has 'more weight' than something he authorized, say, the Linguistic Editorial Team to publish, like Ósanwe-kenta for example?

Christopher Tolkien is not 'deleting' any text that I'm aware of because it has less weight than something else. And even if he did, to my mind that doesn't change that JRR Tolkien is the creator of Middle-earth in the end.

I'm sorry I don't follow this argument at all, and I agree with Nerwen here.

We have the words from JRR Tolkien himself. Christopher Tolkien has sole authority when it comes to not only publishing, but editing the story. We see excess this authority in the case of Sador. Tolkien planned to change him into one of the Pukel men, but in the Children of Hurin he remains a lame man.

Tolkien may be the creator of the Middle-Earth, but he passed on those rights to his son. Virtually everything we know about the extended world comes from the work that Christopher Tolkien has done.

If he thought that the notes on the artwork were a noteworthy contradiction then he could have made a comment about it. He did not. In other cases he does.

Well the artwork descripton I cited is itself a 'late text' too, and as I say, how brief is all the artwork commentary combined? It's hasn't all been published yet. Not that I would necessarily be swayed about relative brevity in any case.

Brevity does give an indication to the amount of time and thought he put into the work. A brief note written about a piece of artwork is far more likely to be less precise than an essay. Secondly it is up to Christopher Tolkien to decide what he wants to be noted.

My point here was that nicknames can be funny things in general, and thus there are arguably ways for Tolkien to explain 'Elendil the Tall' without making him 7 foot 10.

Not generally the case with Tolkien though. People called the 'the Tall' tend to be tall. We even have Tolkien naming Elendil as the tallest of the exiles.

Christopher Tolkien actually published some of these 'artwork descriptions'. They were not noted as such at the time because Pauline Baynes was still alive, and some of Tolkien's commentary was negative, or could be taken as negative.

Now more of these descriptions, but still not all, are in print, thanks to Christopher Tolkien allowing both Hammond and Scull and J. Rateliff to publish them [Pauline Baynes has passed on incidentally]

That's still not the same as Christopher publishing them himself is it? The comments on the artwork are definitely of interest, but they need validation from Christopher Tolkien or at least a comment for me to hold them with equal standing to TCOH for instance.

Well, it was you who called NLM 'an entire essay'. CJRT called it a note. Are we going to count words now, or words that actually deal with height within a given text compared to another?

I'm not. I've only got so many fingers and toes

This is where you are arguing semantics. Whether you call it a note or an essay it is quite a long and detailed account about measurements.

In any case the 'artwork descriptions' represent Tolkien's thinking at the time. They appear to be considered enough for me, and we don't have 'merely' 5 foot 10 or 11 for the Eldar for instance, nor even 6 feet to 6 feet 3 or 4 for most Eldar, for example, which if we did, we would then have the Numenoreans at their height towering over them by a full foot or nearly so in some cases.

In short [no pun intended] the Eldar are still notably tall here, especially the great kings and leaders; and we read often enough about the Noldorin kings and leaders too.

And yes we don't know the external chronology of a number of 'late texts' dealing with heights, which I acknowledged from the start.

Well this is where we will disagree. I still have not seen you address these issues concerning the notes on the artwork.

If Aragorn at 6'6 is much shorter than the average Numenoreans of old then how tall were the Numenoreans of old? In every text no matter how late, the decline in stature is noted.

Nor have you answered that if the minimum height was 6'6 for the Eldar then what would the average height be?

EDIT
Mentioned it briefly, but Tolkien was well aware of the English kings. It was not unusual for one of the Plantagenet descendants to be nearly a foot taller than the average man and virtually a foot taller than the average peasant. Charlemagne himself was a giant at close to 6'3. Edward I and II were both described as the tallest and strongest men in the real (considering their great height this was probably not just flattery). Elendil is simply a reflection of this.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

We have the words from JRR Tolkien himself. Christopher Tolkien has sole authority when it comes to not only publishing, but editing the story. We see excess this authority in the case of Sador. Tolkien planned to change him into one of the Pukel men, but in the Children of Hurin he remains a lame man.

You are talking about the constructed works here, not merely posthumously published statements as written by JRRT himself. And in any case no where does Christopher Tolkien state which version of Sador is 'canon' for instance.

If he thought that the notes on the artwork were a noteworthy contradiction then he could have made a comment about it. He did not. In other cases he does.

Well CJRT didn't publish the quote in question. He gave that authority to Hammond and Scull, and we as readers can see or interpret contradiction even if no one mentions something -- noting that I already mentioned the way Hammond and Scull presented the 'Elendil' variations, for example.

Brevity does give an indication to the amount of time and thought he put into the work. A brief note written about a piece of artwork is far more likely to be less precise than an essay.

Not necessarily. Think long about something, write with brevity and to the point. And you keep saying 'brief note' despite that we haven't yet seen all the commentary.

That's still not the same as Christopher publishing them himself is it? The comments on the artwork are definitely of interest, but they need validation from Christopher Tolkien or at least a comment for me to hold them with equal standing to TCOH for instance.

As I said, CJRT did publish part of one of these in UT -- you actually quoted a part of the 'artwork descriptions' without realizing it.

But no they do not 'need validation' from CJRT to hold equal standing with the rest of the same commentary from the creator of Middle-earth. And The Children of Hurin is arguably 'not canon' as it is clearly the work of Christopher Tolkien not JRRT.

Where does CJRT claim The Children of Hurin is canon?

Is everything in Vinyar Tengwar or Parma Eldalamberon 'lesser' material somehow, if CJRT merely gave certain texts to the Linguistic Team to publish and comment on?

This is where you are arguing semantics. Whether you call it a note or an essay it is quite a long and detailed account about measurements.

Yes that was where I pointed out that you characterized one text as a 'brief note' versus an 'entire essay' -- when Christopher Tolkien characterized your 'entire essay' as a note rather.

Semantics indeed

Well this is where we will disagree. I still have not seen you address these issues concerning the notes on the artwork.

Well let's see if I have spoken to certain issues or not, as...

If Aragorn at 6'6 is much shorter than the average Numenoreans of old then how tall were the Numenoreans of old? In every text no matter how late, the decline in stature is noted.

... the artwok quote says 7 feet and so on, as I quoted. What issue needs addressing there? I don't quibble with what this text says about the Numenoreans of old in general.

Nor have you answered that if the minimum height was 6'6 for the Eldar then what would the average height be?

That's because there is no average height noted in the text under consideration, and I interpret that quote as it stands. That said, my interpretation yet allows for not every Elf being exactly 6 foot 6, as I already described above.

Mentioned it briefly, but Tolkien was well aware of the English kings. It was not unusual for one of the Plantagenet descendants to be nearly a foot taller than the average man and virtually a foot taller than the average peasant. Charlemagne himself was a giant at close to 6'3. Edward I and II were both described as the tallest and strongest men in the real (considering their great height this was probably not just flattery). Elendil is simply a reflection of this.

Elendil might have been a reflection of this. Then again Tolkien might have said, but wait, that makes Thingol even taller? Maybe I need to rethink things a bit.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

You are talking about the constructed works here, not merely posthumously published statements as written by JRRT himself. And in any case no where does Christopher Tolkien state which version of Sador is 'canon' for instance.

Well he puts one version in the story and published it. That's good enough for me.

Well CJRT didn't publish the quote in question. He gave that authority to Hammond and Scull, and we as readers can see or interpret contradiction even if no one mentions something -- noting that I already mentioned the way Hammond and Scull presented the 'Elendil' variations, for example.

Not necessarily. Think long about something, write with brevity and to the point. And you keep saying 'brief note' despite that we haven't yet seen all the commentary.

This just causes more problems. If we don't have the full commentary then we can not garner the context. For instance I remember a discussion about what was meant by Erendis' 'beauty seldom seen in Numenor.' One person argued it meant she was dark haired, but by looking at text elsewhere Christopher judged it to mean she was an incredibly beautiful woman much like Morwen.

Without context we have no indication of things he said prior. I really don't see how this can be viewed as a contradiction with such little evidence.

As I said, CJRT did publish part of one of these in UT -- you actually quoted a part of the 'artwork descriptions' without realizing it.

But no they do not 'need validation' from CJRT to hold equal standing with the rest of the same commentary from the creator of Middle-earth. And The Children of Hurin is arguably 'not canon' as it is clearly the work of Christopher Tolkien not JRRT.

Where does CJRT claim The Children of Hurin is canon?

Is everything in Vinyar Tengwar or Parma Eldalamberon 'lesser' material somehow, if CJRT merely gave certain texts to the Linguistic Team to publish and comment on?

If it is published by Christopher then I do consider it as part of the canon as far as we can know such things. Christopher has the right to edit and publish any work he sees fit. He knows more about Tolkien's intentions than anyone and we can begin to argue about level of canon, but for me it is certainly above anything published anywhere else.

If Christopher published only part of that quote he probably had full access to the other passages he did not publish and was found in the Hammond book.

Yes that was where I pointed out that you characterized one text as a 'brief note' versus an 'entire essay' -- when Christopher Tolkien characterized your 'entire essay' as a note rather.

Semantics indeed

There is a difference between a 'brief note' and the way that Christopher Tolkien used the term. As said previously I believe a short (I now understand it may have been longer) note about art is less likely to be as accurate as a considered passage on elves.

Well let's see if I have spoken to certain issues or not, as...


... the artwok quote says 7 feet and so on, as I quoted. What issue needs addressing there? I don't quibble with what this text says about the Numenoreans of old in general.

The problem is that a generic 7 foot is often used to describe someone much taller. It is very common for tall people to be described as 6ft even if they are taller or short people to be described as 5ft. These statements are not to be taken literally. Even the term a 'six footer' only means that someone is over 6ft.

That's because there is no average height noted in the text under consideration, and I interpret that quote as it stands. That said, my interpretation yet allows for not every Elf being exactly 6 foot 6, as I already described above.

Which is why I said the text is does not contradict anything. If there is no mention of an average height, then why should it contradict the average height being close to 7 foot as mentioned elsewhere?

Elendil might have been a reflection of this. Then again Tolkien might have said, but wait, that makes Thingol even taller? Maybe I need to rethink things a bit.

Maybe, but it's worth noting that Elendil, according to the note where he is 7'11, is not even the tallest man in Numenor during his own lifetime. So Tolkien had no problem with other men being taller than Elendil.

EDIT
I just looked at the full quote from the artwork again. Now I have seen it in full context, there is no way that it means Elendil was just 7ft tall.


'the Númenóreans before the Downfall were a people of great stature and strength, the Kings of Men; their full grown men were commonly seven feet tall, especially in the royal and noble houses. In the North where men of other kinds were fewer and their race remained purer this stature remained more frequent, though in both Arnor and Gondor apart from mixture of race the Númenóreans showed a dwindling of height and of longevity in Middle-earth that became more marked as the Third Age passed. Aragorn, direct descendant of Elendil and his son Isildur, both of whom had been seven feet tall, must nonetheless have been a very tall man..., probably at least 6 ft. 6; and Boromir, of high Númenórean lineage, not much shorter, (say 6 ft. 4).'

We now have more context and we can see Elendil the TALL, must be a lot more than 7ft. Tolkien tells us that it was common for men to be seven fee tall and especially in the royal houses. Now we are supposed to believe that a man nicknamed the TALL was the 'common height.' This is why context is so important. Elendil has to be significantly above 7ft for his nickname to make any sense.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Well he puts one version in the story and published it. That's good enough for me.

You can take the constructed versions as canon if you like. For me these versions are constructed for the 'reader experience' [different from a scholarly approach to an unfinished legendarium with different parts written at different times] not to define for the reader what Tolkien ultimately intended.

This just causes more problems. If we don't have the full commentary then we can not garner the context. For instance I remember a discussion about what was meant by Erendis' 'beauty seldom seen in Numenor.' One person argued it meant she was dark haired, but by looking at text elsewhere Christopher judged it to mean she was an incredibly beautiful woman much like Morwen.

Without context we have no indication of things he said prior. I really don't see how this can be viewed as a contradiction with such little evidence.

If there is more context about Eldarin height in these same papers, description that alters or helps with an interpretation of the text presented, I would expect it to be included as well. H&S are noted Tolkien scholars and you can find their thanks to Christopher Tolkien and other folk in the Preface to their Companion to The Lord of the Rings.


In any case, using what we have, I interpret things differently than you do.



The rest is just going in circles now.