Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
08-29-2017, 03:39 PM | #1 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
3 Concerning Naugrim, Ents and Eagles
This is the first draft of the chapter 3 Concerning Naugrim, Ents and Eagles.
Our basis text is that of QS77 given on page 16-17. Were ever the text is different from that this is marked by an editing mark. The markings are: DE-SC-xx for Dwarves and Ents, Script, to document the backward development of the basic text, to the source text as given in HoME 11. I normally will not comment on this. The reasons for these changes should be easily found in HoME 11; part 2; chapter 13 and part 3; chapter IV DE-EX-xx for Dwarves and Ents, Expansions 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 example = text inserted for grammatical or metrical reason /example/ = outline expansion Normally if an inserted text includes the beginning of a new § these is indicated by a missing > at the end of the § and a missing < at the beginning of the next. The title of the chapter might be explained best here: It is combination as is the chapter itself. The first part is documented as title of the replacement for the first part of the LQ 1 chapter 10, the second part is taken from the title given by Christhoper Tolkien to a appropriate chapter in HoME 11 documenting the text of Anaxartaron Onyalie. Quote:
DE-EX-02: This was an expansion for grammatical reason done by Christopher Tolkien, which we should follow. DE-EX-03: The draft for the Letter was contemporary to the text, but it adds some information missing from the text. In this case the possibility to distribute once being, which corresponds nicely to the dispersion of Melkor. DE-EX-04: I toke this up because it exemplifies that speaking does not mean that being has a soul. DE-EX-05: Where if not here are we ever to hear the laughter of Eru? DE-EX-06: This passage goes with the laughter I think. DE-EX-07: Both the information about Durin being alone and of the elvish guess when the Dwarves awoke are want, from my point of view. DE-EX-08: The info about the beards should not be lost. DE-EX-09: I think that is a good way to introduce the false believe of the Elves and the Dwarvish believe of Mahal taking care of them. DE-EX-10: Here I replaced a part of the text with a more sophisticated and probably later text. DE-EX-11: To put this younger much short version into this footnote seems to be the best way to include the info it contains. DE-EX-12: Both the info that the reanimated Kings did posses memories of their former lives and that all this info a marvel to the Elves and only was gained by the friendship of Legolas with Gimli I desire to give in our version. Respectfully Findegil P.S.: I had to do the chapter all over again, since when I tried to find the sources of my original draft, I found other passages to be added. What as well came up was the fact that for the chapter 20 Of the Naugrim and the Edain not enough about the Naugrim is left. Some passages might be used, but I think we will place them rather in chapter 17 Of BEleriand and it's Realms. P.P.S.: Please do not expact that I follow up with the next drafts in the same frequency. I put up chapter 1, 2 and 3 get the bridge to the already posted draft of chapter 4. |
|
08-29-2017, 07:25 PM | #2 | ||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Thoughts
I loved all your additions, and the Legolas thing adds a very nice Bilbo-ish dimension to everything. I had only a few comments.
DE-EX-10: I had a question. Quote:
DE-EX-11: There is a minor grammatical issue that arises out of combining different sources. Quote:
That was it! |
||
08-29-2017, 11:20 PM | #3 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I actually noticed one more issue. If much of this lore is said to come from Legolas, then how can these be "the words of Pengolodh." I would say the Pengolodh subheading should be removed, since the Legolas bit is later, but that is a matter of debate.
|
08-30-2017, 02:56 PM | #4 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
DE-EX-10 and DE-EX-11: I had some doubts about the naming of Durin here, but I am open to retake the mentionings of Durin. I would only remove the last:
Quote:
DE-EX-11: gramatical issue: Agreed. The Legolas/Pengolod issue: Our text is an amalgament of diffrent texts, so I wouldn't say it is a problem. Respecfully Findegil |
|
08-30-2017, 03:01 PM | #5 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
awesome, looks good!
|
09-04-2017, 11:12 PM | #6 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
I have forgotten to add one important bit from Of Dwarves and Men:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
09-05-2017, 11:17 AM | #7 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I would hesitate to chop up Of Dwarves and Men, as I have said before. I feel that by removing all the references to the Third Age, we are gutting an essentially complete work for no reason, especially when we can easily include it in its entirety in Volume II.
|
09-06-2017, 03:49 PM | #8 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
I don't think that Of Dwarves and Men is useable complete in volume 2. If at all the essay would fit in volume 3. Of Dwarves and Men is in over all a linguistic essay. But its story content ranges from the awakening of Dwarves to the end of the Third Age.
But I anyhow think that the content is needed in many parts. Pushed in part 3 it is fully out of sequence. I agree that the forward references that are included are valuable. But the question have we to remove them all? In The Silmarillion we as well such forward references. Not over much but a few are there. Respectfully Findegil |
09-13-2017, 02:43 PM | #9 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Okay at long last I have made up my mind about the footnote concerning the additional dwarves add by Ilśvatar. I think they are needed. Therefore I propose the following:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
10-09-2017, 06:59 PM | #10 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
For this chapter, I produced two texts, separating "Of Aule and the Dwarves" from "Of the Ents and the Eagles".
The basic text is the QS77, with only a few alterations and additions. I used "AD" for the text "Of Aule and the Dwarves". As usual: 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 example = text inserted for grammatical or metrical reason /example/ = outline expansion Quote:
AD-01: This opening paragraph of AD was omitted from QS77. AD-02: Christopher Tolkien says in XI that his father eventually settled on using the formal, "you", throughout AD, whereas QS77 uses "thou". I have reverted all instances of "thou" to "you". AD-03: As AD-02 AD-04: As AD-02 AD-05: As AD-02 AD-06: Changed per Tolkien’s emendation to LQ1. AD-07: Taking the later version of the statement about the Dwarf-fathers returning to life. AD-08: The "Longbeards" were later the Dwarves of Khazad-dum, not of Belegost. AD-09: Removal of Aelfwine. For my text of "Anaxartaron Onyaliė", with QS77 as the basis, I will only indicate the beginning, end, and changes, as the rest follows QS77. Quote:
EE-01: Per XI; ‘betray’ in QS77 was an editorial alteration of ‘bewray’. EE-02: Per XI, as EE-01; ‘Iluvatar’ in QS77 for original ‘Eru’. EE-03: As EE-02. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-09-2017 at 07:04 PM. |
||
10-10-2017, 11:43 AM | #11 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
This comparision is a difficult task. I will try to order the differences by occurrence and give some editing mark or some such as reference, so that the discussion might be at least easier to follow.
Happyly we both have chosen in this case the same basic text found in Sil77 page 16-17. DE-SC-01 / AD-01: we added both these opening back in, but you toke up a bit too much. In your Version It is told that in their beginning the Dwarves were made by Aule in the darkness of Middle-earth; for so greatly did Aule desire the coming of the Children, to have learners to whom he could teach his lore and his crafts, that he was unwilling to await the fulfilment of the designs of Iluvatar. is redundant. AD-02 to AD-05: I was not so clear about this changes. Was it really all instances that Tolkien changed? If you think so, we can take these changes up into our common version. DE-EX-01 to DE-EX-07: All these expansions of my draft Aiwendil did decised against or did not consider. AD-06: The change reporte here is done in Sil77. Therefore I did not mention it. AD-07: In my version I created a much fuller account of the rebirth of the fathers with DE-EX-10 to DE-EX-12. But I positioned it differently. In the darkness of Arda already the Naugrim wrought great works, : This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of Concerning the Dwarves to use it later in its proper place. DE-EX-07 / The Naugrim were ever, as they still remain, ...: This paragraph from AD both have taken up into the draft. The father-tongue of the Dwarves Aulė himself devised for them, ...: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of Concerning the Dwarves to use it later in its proper place. In their own tongue the Dwarves name themselves Khazād; ...: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of Concerning the Dwarves to use it later in its proper place. AD-08: I did a change in this passage of course, but quite differently. See the thread about The Siege of Angband. AD-09: I did not take up this reference to Pengolod, but we might consider it. BY the way was {Pengolod}[Thingódhel] a decision taken by the project? I cant remember. DE-EX-09 to DE-EX-12: All these expansions of my draft Aiwendil did decised against or did not consider. Sub-title: Aiwendil used the English title first and the Elvish second, while I did it the other way around. Since both were written of difrent amanuensis typescripts, we are completly free to chose, or was an other idea beyond your choice, Aiwendil? DE-SC-04 / EE-01: These change was done in both versions. So I assume we agree on it. DE-SC-05: this footnote found in HoMe 11 explaining kelvar was not taken up by Aiwendil into his draft. EE-02: This change from Iluvatar to Eru I missed in my Version, so I agree that it should be made. DE-SC-06: This halfsentence was omitted from Sil778 because Christopher Tolkien thought it might imply that the sun was already in existence when Manwė thought about the Ents. This might have been Aiwendils reason not to include it as well. But since that vision is anyway a look into the future, I dont think the omission is necessary. By the way I wrongly dedicated the source here as HoMe 12, as a matter of fact it is HoMe 11. DE-SC-07 / EE-03: These change was done in both versions. So I assume we agree on it. DE-SC-08: This passage was marked by Tolkien for exclusion, but Christopher Tolkien toke it nonetheless up into Sil77. In my draft I skipt it, Aiwendil kept it. I am open to both. In the event it is staing the fact of Middle-earth history that the Ents were doomed to die out in the Fourth Age and the dominion of Men. Respectfully Findegil |
10-10-2017, 08:49 PM | #12 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
A few quick comments for now.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The other points require me to look at things a bit more carefully, so I'll do that when I get the chance. Last edited by Aiwendil; 11-08-2017 at 10:27 AM. |
||||||
10-11-2017, 11:53 AM | #13 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
AD-02 to AD-05: Okay, we take up these changes, but number them all. Also in DE-EX-04 we have:
Quote:
AD-06: I will include the edditng marker in the text, so that we can trak it. AD-09: I think that we deciseded against using any diacritical signs in the normal text like š. Therefore I assume it is Pengolodh. But in the case of Maedhros we have a late text of Tolkien naming him Maedros which was what we adopted. Looking up many of the references we have already included, I think I agree on taken this one up into our version as well, but I think it should go with the passages left of Concerning the Dwarves to the end of Of the Coming of the Noldor Titel: If your choise was arbitrary, I agrue that the Elvish should be first, since the English seems to be a kind of translation, or not? Respectfully Findegil |
|
10-11-2017, 12:08 PM | #14 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
AD-09: OK. Personally, I don't trouble myself too much about things like š vs. dh, as this is purely a matter of English orthography. We should, however, go with Tolkien's latest convention. Quote:
|
||
11-10-2017, 01:25 PM | #15 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
I've finally looked at the rest of the items.
DE-EX-01: I’m uncertain about this. I think there are three issues. First, the fact that Tolkien rejected this passage (and omitted any statement on Dwarf-women in the final version of this text), and second, the fact that some of the five passages here contradict each other, and it is difficult to tell which story has precedence. It is true, however, that of these versions, b, d, and e all seem to be more or less in agreement. Third, in ‘Dwarves and Men’, we have the note that ‘Durin slept alone’, in reference to the other six dwarf-fathers being placed in pairs. This seems to offer a different meaning for Durin’s ‘aloneness’ than that in the passages from LQ/‘Concerning the Dwarves’. Of course, it doesn’t directly contradict LQ/‘Concerning the Dwarves’ - Durin could have been ‘alone’ in both senses. But we might consider whether it implicitly suggests that the story of the six brides for seven brothers had been abandoned. DE-EX-03, -04, -05, -06: Here Findegil combines the dialogue between Aulė and Iluvatar from LQ with that between them from Letter 212. I find myself uncertain about this, and I’m tempted to suggest that we should take one or the other. On the other hand, the additions are not very disruptive and it reads fairly well. So perhaps this combination is OK. I think a word got dropped in DE-EX-04; it should be: Quote:
DE-EX-07: This goes hand in hand with DE-EX-01, of course, and depends on whether we are going to retain the story of the six dwarf-women. It feels slightly odd to mention the departure of the Elves across the sea here, since that has of course not happened yet. When this text was written, it was obviously intended to come much later in the Quenta Silmarillion. But I suppose it’s not the only case of forward-looking references, so it may be fine. DE-EX-07.1: I can’t agree with this one. The source is Christopher Tolkien’s statement: Quote:
DE-EX-07.2: In this long addition from ‘Dwarves and Men’, I worry more about the anachronisms. The whole passage comes very much from a later point of view. It does contain good information that I think we would definitely like to include somewhere, though. I wonder if it would work better later, when Dwarves first enter Beleriand and meet the Sindar. Of course, the ‘Third Age’ reference would still be an anachronism, but that could be either tolerated or removed. Actually, this brings up a fundamental point that I don’t think we’ve discussed. We have so far assumed that we are following QS77 in moving the creation-story of the Dwarves to just after the building of Valinor and combining it with ‘The Ents and the Eagles’. But is there not something to be said for the option of following Tolkien’s placement of it in LQ? That is, not telling about the creation of the Dwarves until after the flight of the Noldor, when it is then told retrospectively? Of course, that would leave ‘Ents and Eagles’ somewhat homeless. I’m not necessarily arguing that we should do that, but we should at least think about it and be able to enunciate why we are following QS77 in this regard. DE-EX-08: This is a debatable one - on the one hand, Tolkien left this information out of the revised version of this text, which normally I would say means we should consider it rejected. But on the other hand, in LotR appendix A we have closely matching information on dwarf-women, so it seems the ideas here were not rejected. DE-EX-09: I don’t see much value in this addition. It doesn’t really add anything beyond what is immediately after stated about Dwarvish and Elvish beliefs. DE-EX-10: I think this is good. But the footnotes (particularly the second one) strike me as very much informal commentary/speculation by Tolkien, and I think we may want to reconsider including them. DE-EX-11: This addition seems completely redundant with what was said before, and I would remove it. DE-EX-12: This looks good, and in this case I think the footnote is fine. DE-SC-05: I missed this footnote, but I agree it should be included. DE-SC-06: I think I’m still inclined to omit this half sentence. Yes, it’s true that it is explicitly looking forward in time, but Yavanna’s reference to the sun makes it sound as if the sun is something already known and familiar to both her and Manwė, which I don’t think can be the case. DE-SC-08: On reflection, I think I agree we should omit this, as in Findegil’s draft, since Tolkien rejected it. Last edited by Aiwendil; 11-10-2017 at 01:48 PM. |
||
11-10-2017, 02:04 PM | #16 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
DE-EX-01: I would say that simply logically, the Dwarf women would need to be there. If there were no dwarf-women that were laid to rest with the fathers, then the Dwarves could not have begun their race. It seems to me like a logical fallacy from Tolkien's part to suggest that they did not have spouses, and if he omitted it I cannot think that he was suggesting they did not exist, but rather simply chose not to mention them. Therefore, I think we can assume that the dwarf-women story was not rejected, simply because it cannot be rejected, on a simply logical basis.
DE-EX-03,04,05,06: I think it is a good combination, since as you said it reads well, and I would personally consider an actual text by Tolkien as a better primary document than the Letter. Fin's inclusion of the pieces of dialogue that are not in the other version seem like simply filling in the gaps, and I think it flows well. De-EX-07: As I said above, I think we cannot reject the dwarf-women. In terms of forward references, this was a main point of contention between Fin and I in the inclusion of the D&M material. But overall I think he has convinced me that it is better to include it in its natural place, and a few forward references are not bad. DE-EX-07.1: I think this argument makes sense, so I agree with you. DE-EX-07.2: This addition contains a wealth of information that is definitely needed for inclusion. As it is, this whole chapter is a treatise on the Dwarves as a people, and I think it does belong here. If it does not belong here, then it belongs in the Third or Second Age material, but I think that is too late a placement certainly. I think losing the Third Age references as Fin has done is simple enough, and does not lose too much information that would be good to include. If we really decide the two minor points are worth including later we can do so as well, but I think we wont need to. As for the placement of the chapter, I believe the reason for its inclusion here is to a) allow for a part 1 of the Ents and Eagles text, which assumes knowledge of the creation of the Dwarves and b) because the creation of the dwarves happens chronologically at this time, and therefore makes most sense to include here. If we include it later, it would be as a flashback, and then as you said, the problem of where to include the Ents and Eagles chapter becomes quite thorny. As it assumes the creation of dwarves is known, we cannot place it before that tale is told, which would mean it must be told sometime after the Coming of the Noldor. This is an issue, as it helps also to set up the Eagles of Manwe which come into play when Fingon rescues Maedros on Thangorodrim, and needs to be before it. Thus, I think we must stick with this placement of the chapter. It will make this chapter unusual due to its nature, but it will be unusual no matter where it is placed. DE-EX-08: I am in favor of retaining the addition, since, as you said, the ideas were not actually rejected. DE-EX-09: If you think it is redundant then I am not opposed to removing it. DE-EX-10: While the footnote is somewhat off in style, I do think it contains information not found elsewhere which would be a bad thing to lose. DE-EX-11: How is this redundant? De-EX-12: agreed. DE-SC-05: agreed. DE-SC-06: I think yoou are right, as it makes the Sun look expected at the least, when in SM they struggle to think of what to do when the trees die. DE-SC-08: agreed. |
11-11-2017, 06:39 PM | #17 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
DE-EX-01: What is more important then the fact that b, d and e agree to each other is that these agrees to Letter no.212. Since Rhona Beare who recieved that letter was a leader of a group of Tolkien fans. It was clear to Tolkien that his answeres would be pronounced in that group. This is of course far from publication, but nonetheless giving the letter an extra portion of priority.
DE-EX-04: The missing "you" was a good chatch. I changed the source info and shortedn it by CD for Concerning the Dwarves and D&M for Dwarves and Men. DE-EX-07.1: Okay, I can see your concerns. In stating that Eru added the other dwarves we would generate a fact in Middle-earth that has no source in Tolkien. And as much as I think this changed story makes a lot of sense, I agree not to use it. DE-EX-07.2: I agree to the argument of ArcusCalion that the placement here of the chapter and this passaged from D&M fit best here. The conetent of the chapter must be shifted anyhow, since in its original place the first mentioning of the Dwarves in the narrative (in chapter 13 Of the Sindar) would come before the story of their making. We could of course shift this passage from D&M to the end of chapter 16 where the first encounter of Noldor and Dwarves is reported. But I doubt very much that its incooperation would be smother there. DE-EX-08: If we would discard this passage because Tolkien did not take it up into his final version, we would need to form some text from LotR, Appendix to contain the information about the female dwarves. In other cases like that we prefered to restore the rejected passages, and I think that is here the better way as well. DE-EX-09: I don't see that this is redundant with what follows. What I includes from that Letter is: 1. That what was told so far is the Elvish version of the story. 2. That Elves and Men know nothing of the fate of the fėa of the Dwarves after death. Only the second could be said to be redundant to the false belief that Dwarves return to earth and stone. But is that a statment about the dwarvish fėa at all? DE-EX-10, second footnote: If, as Aiwendil thinks, this is Tolkien think with the pen, then taking the footnote as it is would change Tolkien's uncertainty to one of the author of our text. To avoid that we could edit out the uncertainty. DE-EX-11: As ArcusCalion I think this is not redundant but complimentary. DE-SC-06: In the later conception of the Valar it is unthinkable that they would not know about the sun before its making. They might not have precived the importance or greatness of that source of light, but even so the Vision of Eä cased before the dominion of Men began, I don't belive it cased before Men awoke. And anyhow the Ainulindalė was over all. All the Valar therefore must have been a rough idea about the history of Eä to come and must have include some idea about the sun. In addition Yavanna is speaking about Middle-earth and here words are reported by an unknown author in retrospec. So what ever she actually said in reffering to the light to come over that part of the world would in retrospec of the author be interpretable as the Sun. And about not knowing what to do when the Trees are dead: It is one thing to know roughly what is the final result and quiet another to archive that result when the time for your action comes along, especially if (as we are told they were not) the Valar did not have a clear vision of the time scale of the Music and the Vision. It seems that none of the events in the history could be fortold by the Valar with precise timing. DE-SC-08: Okay, we will restore that passaged. Respectfully Findegil |
11-12-2017, 06:28 AM | #18 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
DE-EX-07: I found a contradiction that we must adress: In Quendi and Eldar, dated 1959-60, it is said that, the Dwarves 'claimed to have known Beleriand before even the Eldar first came there'. This is contradict, in a way, by the Passage (e) from Concerning the Dwraves, dated 1969-70, that we toke up into our text: "But it is not known when Durin or his brethren first awoke, though some think that it was at the time of the departure of the Eldar over sea." Even so we could argue that 'some think' as a qualifier is enough to make the contradiction bearable, but I would here rather use principle 2b and skip the second half of the sentence.
Beside that I will again break a lance for DE-EX-07.1. How do we think that with the 6 couples and one additional male and the reported unprolific behaevier of the Dwarves with in such a short time as given between the awakening of the Elves and the Eldar reaching Beleriand such a variation like the Petty-Dwarves would be reached? I think that their is no question that these additional Dwarves are needed. The question then is hwo we could take that info up into our text without stating unkown facts like who made these additional Dwarves. Respectfully Findegil |
11-13-2017, 01:56 PM | #19 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
DE-EX-07, 07.1: For the first one, I think simply removing the second part of the sentence is the safest bet, like Fin suggests. As for the issue with the Dwarves propagating, by the old relation of YT to YS, there is a period of around 700 years from the awakening of the Elves to the time when the Vanyar and Noldor first entered Beleriand. I know we are not necessarily abiding by this timeline due to the uncertainty of the relations, but this is the timeframe imagined (any revisions only make this time period longer, so this is the shortest time frame possible.) I would say that 700 years is plenty of time for the Firebeards and Broadbeams to have exiled the smaller and more deformed of their race (i.e. the Petty Dwarves) and for them to have grown enough. Obviously having an entire race formed from a single pair of people presents a bunch of genetic issues, but as this is a fantasy world that may be overlooked. I would say 700 years is enough time for the pairs story to make sense.
|
11-14-2017, 12:17 AM | #20 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
700 years is for Dwarves not so much. Let assume the Fathers started at once to beget children, since each generation takes 100 sun years get children of their own, generation no 8 would be just born when the Elves entered Beleriand. If we calculate that 3 generations are alive at the same time and each generation would 1.5 times greater as the one before (which is a very high rate considering what we are told about the dwarves):
Generation 6 (the grandparants): 4 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 30.375 Generation 7 (the parants): 4 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 45.5625 Generation 8 (the children): 4 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x1.5 = 68.34375 And this is calculated for both Nogrod and Belegost together. How could they already push out a portion of this? And how could these develop to a smaller varity? If at all this would function with the 144 S.Y = 1 V.Y. calculation, where generation 106 is just born when the Elves enter Beleriand. Respectfully Findegil |
11-14-2017, 10:37 AM | #21 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
As for the smaller variety, random mutations occur in any generation, especially since the Dwarves are a very small gene pool. That there would be a portion of them born even in the third or fourth generation with mutations is not unreasonable, and that they would be ostracized is canon.
|
11-14-2017, 02:20 PM | #22 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Okay, lets have a bit more of these calculations:
Form AAm we learn that, the earliest time for the awakening of the father of the Dwarves is Valian Year 1050 (that is when the elves awoke). The Eldar enter Beleriand in Valian Year 1125. So the maximum time we have is 75 Valian Years (VY). In LotR, Appendix A we are told that the Dwarves get their first children about the 100th year of the Sun (SY) of their life. That would mean that the average time between one generation and the next is a bit longer, but for the easier calculation let us stick with 100 SY. In addition we learn: The number of dwarf-men that marry is actually less than one-third. In the Line of the Dwarves of Erebor the greatest number of sons recorded for one Dwarf is 3. If that would be a general fact the race would not grow but dwindle. So we have to assume that earlier the Dwarves that married got more children, let us assume 4 sons of which 1.3 in average would marry and beget children on their part. (This is already a stretch, since it would mean 5.3 children in average for each couple including the daughters.) For easy reference I will now call the 7 Fathers generation 0 (G0), their sons and daughters G1 and so on. Now we are told that Durin had no wife and that his people were gathered from other houses. That means that Durin did take part in the propagation of his race only starting from generation 1 (G1) and that we have to split the total number of Dwarves starting from generation 1 by 7 to get the number of Dwarves in each House. The split between the Petty-Dwarves and the Dwarves of the Ered Luin will not be taken into account by the calculation. It must have occurred early in the time period described above, but probably later then generation 2 and the gathering Durins people. The mathematic: A) The Second Generation: We do not want the total number of Dwarves in that generation, we are only interested in the couples for producing the further generations: The prolific of spring of the 6 fathers plus Durin and his wife: 6 x 1.3 + 1 = 8.8 We will round that to 9 and start from that number after a time of 100 SY. B) Assuming 1 VY = 9.582 SY: 75 VY x 9.582 SY/VY = 718.65 SY. That means we have G7 as children, G6 as parents and G5 as grandparents. To calculate the total number of Dwarves in G5 we need the number of prolific couples in G4: 9 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 = 9 x 1.3**3 = 19.773 Total number of Dwarves in G5 is: 19.773 x 5.3 = 105 Number of prolific couple in G5: 9 x 1.3**4 = 25.7049 Total number of Dwarves in G6 is: 25.7049 x 5.3 = 136 Number of prolific couple in G6: 9 x 1.3**5 = 33.41637 Total number of Dwarves in G7: 33.41637 x 5.3 = 177 Total number of Dwarves alive: 105 +136 + 177 = 405 Total number of Dwarves in Beleriand and Ered Lindon: 405 x 2 / 7 = 116 I dont think that is enough. C) Assuming 1 VY = 144 SY: 75 VY x 144 SY/VY = 10800 SY. That means we have G108 as children, G107 as parents and G106 as grandparents. Doing the same mathematic as above would yield 38.5 x 10^12 Dwarves in Beleriand and Ered Lindon, which is far too much. That means in this case we could go with fare more realistic procreation rates and would none the less come to realistic numbers of Dwarves. Conclusion: If we assume 1 VY = 9.582 SY we need the additional Dwarves laid to sleep near the fathers. If we assume 1VY = 144 SY we do not need them. Respectfully Findegil |
11-14-2017, 02:42 PM | #23 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Fin that was amazing kudos!!!
It appears that the issue of the Years of the Trees to Years of the Sun ratio is far more important than we thought. Hopefully it only becomes material in this instance, but perhaps we really do need to tackle the issue after all and come to a definitive answer on which is correct? As for me, with the LotR appendix and the "Aman" essay, along with Tolkien's notes that the time before the Sun needed to be expanded, I think we have clear indications that the YT -> YS was 144 rather than ~10. The lengthening of time was proposed by him to give adequate time for the expansion of Men, but as we have decided to reject the Sun from the beginning or the Men awakening before the Sun versions of the story, this cannot apply. The Awakening of the Elves and their march would suddenly become much much longer than they were before, but only if we used the dates from AAm, which were based off of an older system, which certainly would no longer apply under the new conception. Thus, to me, it seems the biggest obstacles to the 1YT = 144YS is the time of the Sindar in Beleriand. If they existed (and the Noldor in Valinor) for hundreds upon hundreds of years, their society as the Noldor found it would appear to be far too scanty and unestablished for the time period allotted. On the other hand, we are told that Elves have few children, and do not necessarily marry young, so they increase their numbers very very slowly, which might account for it. Along with that, the Second and Third Ages make very little sense from a population distribution point of view, and they are indisputable canon, so there are clearly population-based flaws inherent in the Tolkien mythos. Should we simply agree that 1YT = 144YS without ever explicitly saying so? This would allow us to leave out the (risky) other Dwarves near the Fathers, as well as justifying a longer period before the stars (as was Tolkien's wish). Thoughts? |
11-14-2017, 08:51 PM | #24 | ||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
I've been a bit under the weather for the past few days, and thus moving more slowly with this. But I may as well post what I have at the moment. A few more thoughts should follow soon.
DE-EX-01: You both make good points, and I agree the story of the dwarf-women was not rejected. The part that chiefly concerned me was that the possible re-interpretation of 'Durin slept alone' in 'Dwarves and Men' might mean that the detail of six dwarf-women, and Durin without a mate, might have been rejected. However, that detail was well-established, and I think much less ambiguous evidence would be needed to conclude that it was rejected. So I agree to use this passage. DE-EX-07: Quote:
In any case, I think that there is sufficient doubt expressed in both passages that they neednt be considered to contradict each other. The Dwarves claim to have been in Beleriand before the Elves; others say that the Dwarves did not awaken until the Eldar departed over the sea. DE-EX-07.1: Quote:
I cant quibble with the calculations Findegil has provided, though I would question whether it is necessarily a valid assumption that the information about Dwarvish marriage and reproduction found in Appendix A applies equally well to the first Dwarves as it does to the Dwarves of the late Third Age. I could easily imagine that early in their history, Dwarves were more likely to marry, married at a younger age, and had more children. As for 9.582 vs. 144 - as I explained in the other thread, I am now convinced that the 144 figure for the Elvish yén and the 9.582 figure for the Valian Year coexisted simultaneously, and that the idea of a 144 year Valian Year entered later and was part and parcel of the proposed revised chronology, with Men awakening much earlier. But I think it would be best if we can retain ambiguity on this. All in all, then, I think that we cannot add these additional Dwarves, but must either: a) reject the statement that Dwarves were in Beleriand before the Elves b) accept the statement about the Dwarvish claim but deem in non-contradictory (either because it is only a claim or because we can imagine the early dwarves being more prolific than their descendants) or c) somehow leave the text ambiguous so that even though additional Dwarves are not explicitly mentioned, nothing contradicts the possibility that either Aule or Eru added additional Dwarves DE-EX-07.2: Yes, as I look more carefully at other possible placements for this material, I think I agree that this is the best place for it. I still find it a little awkward that it jumps forward to talk about the awakening of the fathers and the dispositions of the Dwarvish clans, but that is not a problem per se. DE-EX-08: Quote:
DE-EX-09: Quote:
|
||||
11-15-2017, 04:35 PM | #25 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
DE-EX-07: For the sake of safety I am still inclined to skip the speculation about the Dwarves awakening at the time when the Eldar left Middle-earth.
DE-EX-07.1: Since we did not specify in our text what ratio we assume between VY and SY, we could simple leave the issue with the Dwarvish procreation necessary for the story of the Petty-Dwarves unaddressed. a) Does sound simple, but would mean some changes in the farther chapters where the story of the Petty-Dwarves is retold. Even in the Narn and RoD so it is not made explicit the story is in the background. Therefore this option does not work for me. b) This option would work for me as descript above, so I would, as said in DE-EX-07, at least skip the impossible speculation of the late awakening. c) I can see a way to be ambiguous about who made these additional Dwarves, but how we could edit a text that implicitly suggest the additional Dwarves without mentioning them within our rules, is beyond me imagination in the moment. DE-EX-08: Good, we will keep the passage. DE-EX-09: I agree that the circumstances of the statement suggest that it applies to the dwarvish fėa. But what fate would that be? Imprisoned in the stone/tomb forever? Annihilation of the fėa? Good that we do not have to solve that riddle! I agree to your suggestion to remove the statement about Elves and Men knowing nothing of the fate of Dwarvish fear after death and to keep that about this being an Elvish myth. Respectfully Findegil |
11-16-2017, 06:51 PM | #26 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
DE-EX-07: I agree with Fin
DE-EX-07.1: I agree that leaving it ambiguous is best, so I would also go with b) DE-EX-09: Agreed. If there's nothing else, is that the end of Chapter 3? |
11-17-2017, 12:49 PM | #27 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
|
|
11-19-2017, 08:07 AM | #28 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Aiwendil get well soon!
And take all the time you need for this. Respectfully Findegil |
11-19-2017, 09:38 AM | #29 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
|
Aiwendil. I hope you“re well soon.
Greetings |
11-19-2017, 09:00 PM | #30 | ||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Thanks for the well-wishes! It was nothing really serious, but I was in bed with a fever for a week and simply not able to muster much brain-power for anything. But as I'm well on the road to recovery, here are the few remaining comments:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not necessarily redundant, I suppose, is the second sentence: Quote:
Quote:
DE-SC-06: Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
11-19-2017, 10:32 PM | #31 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
DE-EX-10: agreed
DE-EX-11: This is true, it does seem to only repeat the same thought in different terms. I am leaning towards Aiwendil's point of view on this. DE-SC-06: The Sun reference should definitely be omitted. DE-SC-08: This was indeed agreed to be removed, I am not sure what Fin is saying here. |
11-20-2017, 05:05 PM | #32 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
DE-EX-10: Agreed.
DE-EX-11: Okay, we skipt this. DE-SC-06: Okay, if both of you think we should removed it, we will do it. DE-SC-08: Opps, sorry it seems I wrote it wrong way around. We will removed the sentence. Respectfully Findegil |
11-20-2017, 09:02 PM | #33 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Great - I think with that, we have resolved everything for this chapter.
|
11-20-2017, 09:30 PM | #34 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
This is going great guys! Can I just take a moment to say how awesome it is to be a part of this project? Thank you guys for starting this all those years ago, and for continuing on with it. It's really amazing!
|
08-18-2023, 09:51 PM | #35 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 43
|
A couple of things I noticed:
In DE-EX-07b, DE-EX-07.3, DE-EX-07.6, DE-EX-09, and DE-EX-10, there are instances of "Aule" instead of "Aulė". DE-EX-04: "Yet the making of thing..." should be "Yet the making of things..." DE-EX-05: An instance of "Iluvatar" instead of "Ilśvatar". If these sorts of minor corrections are inappropriate for this stage of the project, please don't hesitate to say so. |
08-24-2023, 08:10 AM | #36 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Thank you for pointing out these typos. I correted them in my woking copy, which is the basis for all new posts done by me in the privat forum. So when ever the chapter will be updated there they will be corrected.
Respectfully Findegil |
09-05-2023, 06:56 AM | #37 | |||
Shade of Carn Dūm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 358
|
I have problems with the deletion of the mention of Durin in this line:
Quote:
Remember, the Dwarvish genealogy in the 'Appendix A' was provided by Gimli, and as such it might not reflect the actual state of the matter. Gimli might simply be wrong in his interpretation of the prophecy of Durin the Last, or, alternatively he simply was not allowed to share such 'sacred' information, even to his friends. The passage in question reads like this: Quote:
P.S. It makes zero sense that the forum kept the above passage while removing Durin, given that he serves as the prime example of the latest idea about the Dwarves. I mean, why would the other fathers of the Dwarves have their bodies preserved, with their spirits coming back to their bodies at intervals - but not Durin: the father of the fathers of Dwarves and the most revered of them all?!
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Arvegil145; 09-05-2023 at 07:01 AM. |
|||
09-05-2023, 07:08 AM | #38 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Arvegil145, ArcusCalion already remaked on that back very early in the thread and since than the '- e-g- especially Durin -' is back in our text. We only left out the next ' ... of former King {Durin (say) }to which ...'.
I hope that is okay for you. Respectfully Findegil |
09-05-2023, 07:20 AM | #39 | ||
Shade of Carn Dūm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 358
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
09-07-2023, 07:05 AM | #40 | ||
Shade of Carn Dūm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 358
|
I think this footnote by Tolkien from NoME could be incorporated here, or otherwise in the Valaquenta:
Quote:
Though I have no idea what the 'story of Maelor' (assuming it means 'Maglor') means. Perhaps Tolkien just conflated him with Maedros.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
|
|