** Revising The Voyage of Earendil

[Findegil]

VE-13.045 As you have already guested this change was based on our working assumption that there existed only 3 to 7 Balrogs (see the famous thread Bye Bye Balrogs). After the Fall of Gondolin were Gothmog and the Balrog of Glorfindel were killed, we have to assume that in the War of Wrath only 1 to 5 Balrogs fought. We know for sure that 1 fled and hid himself under the mountains of Moria. Leaving none to 4 Barlogs to utterly destroyed or as well to hid themselves. We tried to keep the possibilities open by saying that they were destroyed if they did not hid themself. But as at seems we did not make it correctly. Please advise if how we can better this passage, without specifying any numbers of Balrog slain or hid away.

Eredlindon: You are right that we have to introduce a change. But the hyphen is not correct. I think we should add to the general changes:
{Eredlindon}[Ered Lindon] per Sil77. It also corosponds to the spelling in LotR (see e.g. Ered Nimrais).

Introducing this I found also:
{Eredwethion}[Ered Wethrin] per Sil77.

Posted by ArcusCalion:

In the later myths this geographical place was called Lindon, ...

Can you give us a source for that?

Posted by ArcusCalion:

I seemed to remember that in MT there's a footnote about the seeming inaccuracy of this statement in terms of even the flat earth cosmology. Tolkien remarks that it undoubtedly arises from the recording discrepancies of the Mannish scholars. I cannot at present find the quote, but would it be a good idea to include that as a footnote?

I don't think a foot note is the right way here, but an inclusion could be possible. Please provide the quote.

Respecfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

Maybe

VE-13.04 <AB2 The waters of Sirion lay between the hosts; and long and bitterly they contested the passage. But at last [Eönwë] crossed Sirion and the hosts of Morgoth were driven as leaves, and the Balrogs were utterly destroyed> <BT, save VE-13.045 {some few} [any] that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth> , <AB1 and Morgoth[‘s army] fled to Angband pursued by the hosts of [Eönwë].>

My source is simply the fact that in the original conception, Leithian was meant to be a name for England, as it tells in the Tale of Eriol in the Book of Lost Tales Part II. Unless we assume the term refers to the entire north, it must be assumed that it refers to the place where Gil-Galad made his kingdom in Lindon, where the largest portion of the Elves were said to live. Christopher himself replaced it with "Middle-earth" to avoid the use of the word. However, I might simply be reading too much into it.

This is the quote:

When that body was destroyed he was weak and utterly "houseless," and for that time at a loss and "unanchored" as it were. We read that he was then thrust out into the Void. That should mean that he was put outside Time and Space, outside Ea altogether; but if that were so this would imply a direct intervention of Eru (with or without supplication of the Valar). It may refer inaccurately to the extrusion or flight of his spirit from Arda.

{Note} Since the minds of Men (and even of the Elves) were inclined to confuse the "Void," as a conception of the state of Not-being, outside of Ea, with the conception of vast spaces within Ea, especially those conceived to lie all about the encircled "Kingdom of Arda" (which we should probably call the Solar System).

This is from section 3 of the "Notes on Motives in the Silmarillion. The fact that he says "we read that.." means that we cannot add a correction into the text, hence my desire to include a footnote. Perhaps an edited version of the Myths Transformed essays could be included in Volume 3: The Lore of the Wise, so that this appearance of contradiction may be addressed?

[Findegil]

VE-13.045: Okay, your 'any' seems good.

VE-19: I agree to the chnage {Leithien}[Lindon].

About Morogth thrust through the Door of Night: I think we agree that we can not change the text. As you suggest I am very symphatic with a edited version of MT in Part 3.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Well, I was going to read through all the new discussions before jumping in again, but I've changed my mind.

I think ArcusCalion's suggestions are almost all good; thanks for catching these things!

The only one I would look at again is VE-13.045, where I think the "any" sounds too legalistic and out of place. I actually do think the "they" is grammatically all right - "save they fled" meaning "unless they fled".

Is the version of this chapter in the private forum up to date? I have a file of notes on further changes and things I'd caught (from 2009!), which I don't think I ever posted for discussion, but I want to make sure they apply to the latest version of the text before I do so.

[Findegil]

The version in the members only forum is not up to date. Since the discussion here was not ended I did not update it so far. See your mail.

Repscetfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

All right, below are my notes on the Earendil chapter. I think that a few of these points are things that ArcusCalion also noted, and have been addressed (Gwareth/Gwared, Leithien).

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

VE-01: At line 5 in the Lay fragment there is a missing {Gwareth}[Gwared] change.

Also, I now have doubts about moving these lines to the end:

It doesn’t really work if we simply put a period at the end of it; ‘say I further’ feels like it needs to have an object. Since we are using the fragment as the beginning of the Earendil chapter, rather than at the end of the Gondolin chapter, I think perhaps we can leave those lines where they originally were:

The opening paragraph reads rather well considering that it was fashioned out of so many diverse sources. One point, thought:

As Voronwe has not yet been named in this chapter, this really comes out of the blue. Moreover, I doubt whether it’s true. In the Lost Tales Voronwe was an escaped thrall of Angband; in the later story he was the captain of the last ship sent west at Turgon’s bidding. I know that the Noldor were not renowned for their skill as ship-builders or mariners, but surely Turgon would at least have been able to find a captain who could swim! I suggest we delete the parenthetical comment:

In VE-07:

I would not use the article with the name of the ship. Also, there’s a typo in ‘farwell’:

In VE-10:

I think that, following our general policy (see the general name changes thread) we should emend to ‘Elf’ rather than ‘Noldo’:

VE-11:

Immediately before this comes an inserted passage wherein the survivors tell of the capture of Elrond and Elros and Elwing’s casting herself in the sea. I think that the transition to this paragraph, giving now new information (in the narrator’s voice, not the survivors’) is a little unclear. Perhaps emending ‘her’ to ‘Elwing’ would improve it a little:

VE-11.025: I think the word ‘like’ was accidentally left out of the deletion brackets. It should be:

Another small thing:

I don’t think we really need the editorial addition here. It seems clear from the preceding clause that it was by reason of the power of the Silmaril that they escaped the enchantments. Moreover, unless some editorial marks are missing, doesn’t this sentence all come from the same source? I think some mark must be missing, because the base text for this chapter should be QS37, but unless I’m much mistaken, that’s not where the beginning of this sentence comes from. (I admit it’s a little bewildering to try to follow what text comes from what source in this chapter.)

VE-11.02: After the insertion concerning the sleeper in the Tower of Pearl we have:

This is a bit of a non sequitur since we have just told of the sleeper’s warning to them. At least we should change the ‘and’ to ‘but’:

VE-11.04: Another [Finarfin] misspelling.

VE-13.02: ‘Galion’ should be changed to ‘Galdor’.

VE-15: A typo here; the period after ‘even’ should be removed:

VE-19: I think we should probably remove the reference to the ‘land of Leithien’ here. It seems to be a remnant of the Lost Tales idea that Great Britain (Leithien) was a remnant of Beleriand.

VE-21: The text has:

I think the word ‘that’ is missing:

One point that I've just noticed in looking over this again is in VE-01, where I've realized I don't think the last line works. "Drenched their feet" is all well and good for the "dew enchanted", but the predicate must equally apply to the "sweet breezes", "whispering winds", and "wells of slumber". I'm not quite sure how to solve this yet, but I will think on it and see if I can come up with a suitable half-line.

[ArcusCalion]

Aiwendil It's funny, I find myself pointing out less of these errors than I catch, because I usually just correct them in my own personal "clean" "readable version" of the texts. Your changes are all great though, especially the removal of the "thus they" from "thus they escaped their enchantments." That has never sat well with me, but I didnt question it, thinking it was already finalized.

[Aiwendil]

Glad you agree with my suggestions!

VE-01: A possibility to fix the end of the alliterative fragment here:

There sun was softer, [there] the sweet breezes
and whispering winds, there wells of slumber
and the dew enchanted, [their dolour eased.]

[Findegil]

VE-01: Agreed to all your changes.

Don't you know that the best mariners can not swim? A good swimmer would probably leave a ship in danger to early. So I don't think Voronwë would necessarily be a swimmer.

VE-07: Corrected.

VE-10: Agreed.

VE-11: Agreed.

VE-11.025: Agreed.

'Maybe it was due ...': I agree to remove 'thus they'. I will research the sources. but that might take some time.

VE-11.02: Agreed.

VE-11.04: Corrected.

VE-13.02: Corrected.

VE-15: Corrected.

VE-19: Following ArcusCalion's idea we changed {Leitian}[Lindon].

VE-21: Agreed.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Two important things:

1) It's not Amrod that dies in the Third Kinslaying - it's Amros (previously called Amras)! Tolkien switched the birth order of the two when he came up with the 'Feanor burning his youngest son' story.

2) Maglor is supposed to die by throwing himself into the sea in the later conceptions. Examples:

The last two sons of Fëanor, compelled by their oath, steal them, and are destroyed by them, casting themselves into the sea, and the pits of the earth.

- The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 'Letter 131' (from c. 1951)

also

No other player has there been, no other lips or fingers seen so skilled, 'tis said in elven-lore, save Maelor son of Fëanor, forgotten harper, singer doomed, who young when Laurelin yet bloomed to endless lamentation passed and in the tombless sea was cast.

- The Lays of Beleriand, 'The Lay of Leithian Recommenced', p. 353 (c. 1950)

and lastly

But the last surviving sons of Fëanor (Maedros and Maglor), in a despairing attempt to carry out the Oath, stole them again. But they were tormented by them, and at last they perished each with a jewel: one in a fiery cleft in the earth, and one in the sea.

- Concerning...the 'Hoard' (c. 1964)

[Aiwendil]

1) I really don't think this is true. The point of the story is that Amrod, or Ambarato, is indeed Umbarato, the fated one. In his notes on the "Shibboleth", CT notes:

Originally Posted by Christopher Tolkien

The material concerning the names of the twin brothers is confused and confusing, clearly because it was only as my father worked on them that the strange and sinister story emerged. It seems to me very probable that when he gave the mother-names (6) Ambarto and (7) Ambarussa it had not yet arisen, nor yet when he began the note that follows the list of the mother-names, saying that 'the first and last of Nerdanel's children had the reddish hair of her kin' - that is Maedros with his nickname Russandol and the younger of the twins Ambarussa (Amras).

The story first emerged, I think, with the words The most authentic seems to be thus: The two twins were both red-haired. Nerdanel gave them both the name Ambarussa ...' It was then, no doubt, that my father changed the name Ambarto to Umbarto in the list and reversed the names of the twin brothers (see note 62), so that Ambarussa becomes the elder of the two and Ambarto/Umbarto the youngest of Fëanor's children, as he is in the legend told here.

So when the story of the burning of the youngest son emerged, Ambarto/Umbarto became the youngest son.

2) I'm really hesitant about this, because it's very easy to see these as merely instances of careless phrasing. In the post-LotR revision to the Tale of Years, written around the same time as the Grey Annals (i.e. c. 1951), it is still only Maidros who perishes, implying the story of Maglor casting the Silmaril into the sea was still present. That at least means that the Lay of Leithien must be taking poetic license, and maybe indicates that Tolkien was phrasing things carelessly in the letter. And "Concerning 'The Hoard'" is of course not primarily concerned with this; I'm inclined to take these little asides in Tolkien's explanations of things to fans with a grain of salt.

Those are my doubts, anyway. It must be said, however, that three such statements do begin to look like a pattern. I may also be letting my personal feeling get in the way here. The image of Maglor casting the Silmaril into the sea is one of the best and most striking moments in the Legendarium, and if Tolkien decided to eliminate it, I think he made his story far worse thereby. But of course that shouldn't have any bearing on this.

I don't know. Perhaps conflicting stories are told about what happened to Maglor. After all, no one is likely to have been there to witness his and Maedhros's fates. I would be satisfied with being cagey about it, inserting a "Some have said" that Maglor perished in the sea, "but others tell that" he cast the Silmaril into the sea and wandered the shores lamenting.

[Arvegil145]

1) I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - because we seem to agree, unless I'm missing something.

The reason I said that it was Amrod/Amarthan who dies at Losgar is because the 'Earendil' text in the private forum still has this line:

The dwelling of Elwing there, where still she possessed the Nauglamír and the glorious Silmaril, became known unto the remaining sons of Fëanor, Maedron and Maelor and Amrod; and they gathered together from their wandering hunting-paths, and messages of friendship and yet stern demand they sent unto Sirion.

However, I would like to point out that the story of one (or two) of Feanor's sons being burned alive potentially goes back all the way to the 'Annals of Aman', as per this note:

A marginal note at the end of the paragraph reads: 'Tragedy of the burning of one of Fëanor's [added: 2 younger] sons, who had returned to sleep in his ship.'

- Morgoth's Ring, 'The Annals of Aman', note to §162, p. 128


2) Personally, I'm not particularly attached to either version of the story, even though I think that Maglor dying alongside Maedros, each with their own Silmaril, has some poetic quality at least.

With that said, I think it's really a stretch to interpret these three quotes in any way other than that Maglor dies.

[Aiwendil]

Oh, I was confused because you wrote:

It's not Amrod that dies in the Third Kinslaying - it's Amros (previously called Amras)!

But we agree, it should be Amrod. I'm not sure how that got missed before.

[Arvegil145]

Ummmhh...I don't think we're getting through to each other.

In my last comment (and I edited it recently) I should have said that Amrod/Amarthan dies at Losgar: and that it was a mistake to have him be at the Mouths of Sirion during the Third Kinslaying - that should be Amros there!

Amrod is Sindarin for 'Ambarto'.
Amarthan is Sindarin for 'Umbarto' ("the Fated").


Tl;dr It's clearly Amrod/Amarthan who dies at Losgar in YT 1497, and Amros (the older Ambarussa) dies at the Mouths of Sirion in FA 538.

To quote the Shibboleth (p. 355):

The story first emerged, I think, with the words 'The most authentic seems to be thus: The two twins were both red-haired. Nerdanel gave them both the name Ambarussa ...' It was then, no doubt, that my father changed the name Ambarto to Umbarto in the list and reversed the names of the twin brothers (see note 62), so that Ambarussa becomes the elder of the two and Ambarto/Umbarto the youngest of Fëanor's children, as he is in the legend told here.

[Aiwendil]

Sorry, I must be tired today - for some reason even though you wrote "the Third Kinslaying" I thought you were saying Amrod did not die at Losgar. We're in agreement.

[Findegil]

Hello again! Nice to read a new wave of activity!

I checked in my working copy and it has in line from 'Earendil' already teh correct reading of 'Amros'. So probabaly this has been observed before and corrected but without updating the text in privat forum. As I do not update that text un regular basis, this is quite likely.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Is there any particular reason that this line from the 1930 Quenta was excluded:

But Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race, and joined with the Noldoli whom he loved, and in after time dwelt still, or so it hath been said, ever upon his ship voyaging the seas of the Elven-lands, or resting a while in the harbours of the Gnomes of Tol Eressëa; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.

I know that later texts are far less explicit about Tuor's whereabouts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the idea was scrapped - it might just mean that Tolkien decided to keep it more of a mystery.

[Findegil]

As I don't remember any duscission about it, I think we simply overlooked it. We used insteed the rendering from QS77 (see VE-07.3). But I think we should change it to:

... Then they set sail <TY (and some say Voronwë with them)> into the sunset and the West. <TE-E {Eärendel}[Eärendil] {hears}heard a great song swelling from the sea as{ Tur's skiff dips over the world's rim.}<TE-NC {Idril and Earendel see} Tuor’s boat {dropping}dropped into the twilight{ and a sound of song}.>{His}/Great was his/ passion of tears upon the shore.> {, and}And Tuor came no more into any tale or song. VE-07.25 <Q30, note 2 <But Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race, and joined with the {Noldoli}[Noldor] whom he loved, and in after time dwelt still, or so it hath been said, {[struck out: in Tol Eressea] }ever upon his ship voyaging the seas of {Fairyland [> }the Elven-lands{]}, or resting a while in the harbours of the {Gnomes}[Exiles] of Tol Eressea; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.>VE-07.3a <QS77 {But in after days it was sung that Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.}
Bright Eärendil was then lord of the people that dwelt nigh to Sirion's mouths; ...

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I know that later texts are far less explicit about Tuor's whereabouts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the idea was scrapped - it might just mean that Tolkien decided to keep it more of a mystery.

It seems to me that for precisely this reason, we should omit the statement from our version. In any case, enough had changed an been elaborated in Tolkien's thinking about the natures of Elves and Men between Q30 and the later period that I think it should not be stated as a definitive fact that Tuor was counted afterward as one of the Noldor.

If, however, we do keep that statement, I think we need to remove the previous sentence, and perhaps soften the statement with a "some say":

... Then they set sail <TY (and some say Voronwë with them)> into the sunset and the West. <TE-E {Eärendel}[Eärendil] {hears}heard a great song swelling from the sea as{ Tur's skiff dips over the world's rim.}<TE-NC {Idril and Earendel see} Tuor’s boat {dropping}dropped into the twilight{ and a sound of song}.>{His}/Great was his/ passion of tears upon the shore.> {, and came no more into any tale or song.} VE-07.25 <Q30, note 2 <But some say that Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race, and joined with the {Noldoli}[Noldor] whom he loved, and in after time dwelt still, or so it hath been said, {[struck out: in Tol Eressea] }ever upon his ship voyaging the seas of {Fairyland [> }the Elven-lands{]}, or resting a while in the harbours of the {Gnomes}[Exiles] of Tol Eressea; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.>VE-07.3a <QS77 {But in after days it was sung that Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.}
Bright Eärendil was then lord of the people that dwelt nigh to Sirion's mouths; ...

[Findegil]

If we would include the Q30, note 3 stuff, I would rather use a little bit more of the QS77 text we used so fare instaed of introducing some editorial inserts:

... Then they set sail{, and came no more into any tale or song.}<TY (and some say Voronwë with them)> into the sunset and the West. <TE-E {Eärendel}[Eärendil] {hears}heard a great song swelling from the sea as{ Tur's skiff dips over the world's rim.}<TE-NC {Idril and Earendel see} Tuor’s boat {dropping}dropped into the twilight{ and a sound of song}.>{His}/Great was his/ passion of tears upon the shore.> VE-07.3b <QS77 But in after days it was sung that {Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.}> VE-07.25 <Q30, note 2 <{But }Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race, and joined with the {Noldoli}[Noldor] whom he loved, and in after time dwelt still, or so it hath been said, {[struck out: in Tol Eressea] }ever upon his ship voyaging the seas of {Fairyland [> }the Elven-lands{]}, or resting a while in the harbours of the {Gnomes}[Exiles] of Tol Eressea; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.>
VE-07.3c <QS77 Bright Eärendil was then lord of the people that dwelt nigh to Sirion's mouths; ...

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

It seems to me that for precisely this reason, we should omit the statement from our version. In any case, enough had changed an been elaborated in Tolkien's thinking about the natures of Elves and Men between Q30 and the later period that I think it should not be stated as a definitive fact that Tuor was counted afterward as one of the Noldor.

If, however, we do keep that statement, I think we need to remove the previous sentence, and perhaps soften the statement with a "some say":

I disagree about Tuor, per this letter:

Immortality and Mortality being the special gifts of God to the 'Eruhíni' (in whose conception and creation the Valar had no part at all) it must be assumed that no alteration of their fundamental kind could be effected by the Valar even in one case: the cases of Lúthien (and Túor) and the position of their descendants was a direct act of God.

- Letter 153 (from 1954)

So, at least in 1954, Tolkien clearly thought that Tuor was counted among the Eldar.

[gondowe]

I agree with Arvegil in the Tour matter

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Why is The Second Prophecy of Mandos included in TNS?

Since per the notes to the Athrabeth, Tolkien recontextualized this legend as a Mannish/Numenorean myth?

Not that I'm advocating removing the actual details of it, but the current fusion of the 'Prophecy of Mandos' + the mention of 'it is said among Men' seems like fanfic.

[Findegil]

Sorry Arvegil145, I do not understand what you mean her. Didn't we do, with the combi of the 'Phophecy of Mandos' and 'it is said among Men' exactly what Tolkien did in the notes to the Athrabeth: 'recontextualizing this legend as a Mannish/Numenorean myth'?

What about that is like fan-fiction?
Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Sorry Arvegil145, I do not understand what you mean her. Didn't we do, with the combi of the 'Phophecy of Mandos' and 'it is said among Men' exactly what Tolkien did in the notes to the Athrabeth: 'recontextualizing this legend as a Mannish/Numenorean myth'?

What about that is like fan-fiction?
Respectfully
Findegil

According to the Note 7, 'Author's Notes on the Commentary' to the Athrabeth, p. 342, it says:

It is noteworthy that the Elves had no myths or legends dealing with the end of the world. The myth that appears at the end of the 'Silmarillion' is of Númenórean origin; it is clearly made by Men, though Men acquainted with Elvish tradition.

My argument is thus: a prophecy made by Mandos would be highly authoritative, and the Elves would surely have known it - therefore, since Elves didn't have any myths or legends regarding the ending of the world, the 'prophecy made by Mandos' has to go.


Also, don't forget the ending of the Valaquenta...

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Sorry Arvegil145, I do not understand what you mean her. Didn't we do, with the combi of the 'Phophecy of Mandos' and 'it is said among Men' exactly what Tolkien did in the notes to the Athrabeth: 'recontextualizing this legend as a Mannish/Numenorean myth'?

What about that is like fan-fiction?
Respectfully
Findegil

Mind you, I'm NOT advocating the removal of the details of Dagor Dagorath (i.e. breaking of the Silmarils by Feanor, killing of Melkor at Turin's hands, etc.)!

[Aiwendil]

I had forgotten about Letter 153. I agree that this justifies the statement about Tuor, and I think Findegil's suggestion for the text there is good.

[Findegil]

If I understood now at a long last, what you mean correctly, Arvegil145, you would like either to leave out the sub-chapter title The Second Prophecy of Mandos or change it. Right?
As I just posted in another thread, since the project has decided against the idea of Middle-earth equivalents of our text, we do not make any direct statement how the overall text or this chapter has come down the long year. What we do in our text is give a clear indication that this prophecy was only know as rumour about Men (directly below the sub-title).
I don’t think that any Elf would have had a full knowledge of all prophecies Mandos had made in all the long time that allowed for a transfer of knowledge about it to Men. Thus the question is, even if we think about a larger group of Elves, what could they have said, if Men reported about such a prophecy? In my opinion they could only have voiced some doubts about its authorship by Mandos (and only by that cast some doubts on its content). And that is exactly what we have done. And that is especially true if we consider that they ‘had no myths or legends dealing with the end of the world’. How could they gainsay any myths or legends of Men about the far future, without any knowledge (feigned or real), myth or legend of their own?

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.: I appreciate, that the arguments are backuped by quotes. But sometimes it easier to understand the intention when you take the time to make a proposal for the change in question.

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Findegil

If I understood now at a long last, what you mean correctly, Arvegil145, you would like either to leave out the sub-chapter title The Second Prophecy of Mandos or change it. Right?
As I just posted in another thread, since the project has decided against the idea of Middle-earth equivalents of our text, we do not make any direct statement how the overall text or this chapter has come down the long year. What we do in our text is give a clear indication that this prophecy was only know as rumour about Men (directly below the sub-title).
I don’t think that any Elf would have had a full knowledge of all prophecies Mandos had made in all the long time that allowed for a transfer of knowledge about it to Men. Thus the question is, even if we think about a larger group of Elves, what could they have said, if Men reported about such a prophecy? In my opinion they could only have voiced some doubts about its authorship by Mandos (and only by that cast some doubts on its content). And that is exactly what we have done. And that is especially true if we consider that they ‘had no myths or legends dealing with the end of the world’. How could they gainsay any myths or legends of Men about the far future, without any knowledge (feigned or real), myth or legend of their own?

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.: I appreciate, that the arguments are backuped by quotes. But sometimes it easier to understand the intention when you take the time to make a proposal for the change in question.

On second thought, I suppose that the Numenorean writers who either created/compiled/translated the Quenta and its associated texts might have erroneously attributed their own myths about Turin to Mandos himself! Thus creating the (falsely attributed) 'Second Prophecy of Mandos' sub-chapter of the Quenta.

Therefore, I take back my proposal for the removal of the sub-chapter 'The Second Prophecy of Mandos'!


However, with that said, what is the provenance for the other statements about the 'End of Days', 'Dagor Dagorath', 'Manwe descending from Ilmarin', etc.? Not that it really matters for our purposes, but I'm still curious.

[Findegil]

Okay, seems I did not make my line of think clear enough. My assumption was from the start, if the prophecy is only a roumor among men the sub-chapter tilte is of course no more authoritativ than the content and equaly who wrote it, it reffers to not more than the roumor of men.

'End of Days': I would think Finrod allude to that concept in the Athrabeth.
'Dagor Dagorath' and 'Manwe descending from Ilmarin': Came from a discussion about Gandalf, when he could no longer been asked. So equaly if the author is considered to be a Hobbit or a Gondorian, he is a learned person of the early Fourth Age. The ultimate source could thus be either elvish via Imladris or ( Manish or Elvish ) via Númenor - ( Arnor - Imladirs ) or Gondor.

Respectfully
Findegil