* *A New Project ~~~ Revising the Ainulindale* *

[Petty Dwarf]

I don't know, antoine...

§ 19 After 'when the vision was taken away' there is a footnote that seems to have been an early addition:
And some have said that the Vision ceased ere the fulfilment of the Dominion of Men and the fading of the Firstborn; wherefore, though the Music is over all, the Valar have not seen as with sight the Later Ages or the ending of the World. Quoth Pengoloð.
MORGOTH`S RING - AINULINDALË - Version D - Page 32

That text is still functioning on the idea that it was Aelfwine's rendering of Pengolod's speech. We've voted against Aelfwine and made Pengolod a writer.

Ainu-10:Moving it to the Valaquenta is interesting...maybe a little brazen, but interesting.

[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Petty Dwarf ]

[antoine2]

i don t know.

For me, it s Rumil the writer and Pengolod an editor who transcribed the text and added some words.

Cf:

AINU-01
This was made by Rúmil of Túna in the Elder
Days. To it are added the further words that Pengoloð the Sage wrote concerning the Valar, the Eldar and the Atani; of which more is said hereafter.

And nowhere we can see that Pengolod added something or wrote anything in the Valaquenta.

[Aiwendil]

Petty Dwarf:

I think "Behold the towers and mansions of ice!" should be put back in; but how does everyone feel about it?

I'd rather like to put it back in, personally. It seems to me like it was most likely an error that it was left out of D by Tolkien.

Antoine wrote:

I disagree with this idea.
Valaquenta is a tale wrote by Rumil; there is no indication that there is insert of pengolod in this text.

That's true. And since Pengolodh is in any case the one who wrote the bit about Yavanna being a tree, that segment can't go in the Valaquenta. Alas.

On second thought - I just checked X and I can find no reference to the authorship of the Valaquenta. I'm probably missing something, but how do we know it was Rumil's work?

Antoine again:

For me, it s Rumil the writer and Pengolod an editor who transcribed the text and added some words.

Yes, but the passage about Yavanna seems to me more of an aside to Aelfwine than an addition to the text. If we included it, how would we indicate that it was written by Pengolodh rather than Rumil? If there's no indication, it will seem to be the words of Rumil, since later on we have a statement to the effect of "All the previous stuff was Rumil's account, but the following was added by Pengolodh."

[Findegil]

A way for that would be to turn it into a footnote to the proper Text of Rumil, introduced by something in the line of: "Here Pengolod added: ....."

Respectfully
Findegil

[Petty Dwarf]

A way for that would be to turn it into a footnote to the proper Text of Rumil, introduced by something in the line of: "Here Pengolod added: ....."

It's hard to do this...we'd have to write for the Translator, and we're definitely not doing that.

If we included it, how would we indicate that it was written by Pengolodh rather than Rumil? If there's no indication, it will seem to be the words of Rumil

Unless we state that the Yavanna tree was seen by some of the Exiles. This would be a flag that it was a Pengolod addition. It takes some attentiveness on a reader's part, but doesn't that hold for everything with TftE?

[Maédhros]

I was going to post these changes earlier, but alas, I couldn't.
Antoine's changes:

Introduction: the addition of the phrase: the sage.
that Pengoloð the Sage {spoke} wrote
Agree with that one.

§ 16: change from {the Elves} to we.
Agree.

§ 17: I would leave out the reference of:
{Behold the towers and mansion of ice!}
Because, it may have been an omision, but it is also likely that it is not. Since this was a change that was made in a later draft, I think that it should be gone.
A similar case was discussed when I proposed changing the Children of Ilúvatar to Men, because it too could have been an omision or mistake of JRRT, but it is also probable that it was not.
Since both are changes in later manuscripts, both should retain their later forms.

§ 25: Deletion of the word not:
Array themselves are {not} at all times ...
I would keep the not.

§ 25: Use of a note that is quoted by Pengoloð, so to remain Yavanna's tree description.
I definitely agree with that.

§ 27: Change of they to the Valar.
but little would {they} The Valar ever tell of the days of war ere the coming of the Elves..
Agree with that one.

§ 29: I'm ok with this but I would change the tense of the verb write to written.
But it can be {write} written more of the Valar as they were when...
I would exclude this part too:
{This tale {I have heard also among} /*have learned from*\ the lore masters [of the Noldor] in ages past. }

§ 36: I agree with this change. Inclusion of the word highest.
and these were the {eldest} highest of the {children} servants of the Valar.

§ [34]: Now all is said {to thee, Ælfwine, for this present,} concerning the manner of the Earth and its rulers in the time before days and ere the world became such as the Children have known it. {Of these thou hast not asked, but a little I will say and so make an end.}
Agree.

§ 40b: Can you be more specific Antoine?

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Maédhros ]

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Maédhros ]

[antoine2]

§ 40b: Can you be more specific Antoine?

It s correspond to

AINU-17
{End of the Ainulindalë spoken by Rúmil to Ælfwine}
Use previously

that is use in :

AINU-13
/*End of the Ainulindalë {spoken} [written] by Rúmil {to Ælfwine} [.]*\

Here are the words of Pengoloð {to Ælfwine}
{And when he had ended the Ainulindalë, such as Rúmil had made it, Pengoloð the Sage paused a while; and Ælfwine said to him:} Little{, you say, would} [was tell by] the Valar {tell} to the Eldar of the days before their coming[.] {: but do not the wise among you know more of those ancient wars than Rúmil has here set forth? Or will you not tell me} [But it can be write] more of the Valar as they were when first {your} [the] kindred [of the Noldor] beheld and knew them{?}[.]
{And Pengoloð answered: Much of what I know or have learned from the elders in lore, I have written; and what I have written thou shalt read, if thou wilt, when thou hast learned better the tongue of the Noldor and their scripts. For these matters are too great and manifold to be spoken or to be taught in speech within the brief patience and heedfulness of those of mortal race. But some little more I may tell to thee now, since thou askest it of me.} This tale {I have heard also among} /*have learned from*\ the lore masters [of the Noldor] in ages past. {For they tell us that the}[
The] war began before Arda was full-shaped …
Editorial introduction of Pengoloð section

[antoine2]

The project of Ainulindale need to be merge, i think, with two others sub-project :
- The Valaquenta
- The First Chapter of the Quenta Silmarillion : CRT's Of the beginning of the Days.

Lindil, we did nt discuss in the private forum, about the possibility to start a new sub-project/project.
If you disagree or you think that we need to finish totally the FOG and the Ainu project ...
You can delete the new thread what i will do in 5 min [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Antoine

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[lindil]

I was just speaking to Maedhros re: what was needed to finish Ainulindale and then get to work on the Valaquenta.

THe general procedure has been to email all ostensible and obvious team members to finalize [ in this cacse the Ainulindale] and then to also let folks know that the Valaquenta is begining.


Not sure what you mean by merge?

That they need to be considered in connection with each other because of the overlap of material?

[Aiwendil]

What more needs to be done here?

I am agreed on the final forms of all the changes above except in the case of the Yavanna as a tree bit. I have searched (rather cursorily, I admit) and can find no reference to the authorship of the Valaquenta. Can anyone else? It seems that it may matter whether it was written by Rumil or Pengolodh.

[antoine2]

me too
I find no reference to the authorship.

Anyway, i think if everybody is ok, we can declare this project closed.

Antoine

[Maédhros]

I agree that it is nearly done, but I'm still not sure about the exclusion of the Yavanna tree thing.
I would exclude it myself, but if people don't agree then a poll is needed.

[lindil]

I lean towards keeping it, although, I favor a move of it into Valaquenta.
It is such a beautiful line, and one of the few 'personal' touches that enters into the Aman portions of the Silm.

It is blatantly interventionist, but I think in this case the end justifies the move. CJRT also moved things to and fro from Ainulindale. If no one else seconds this idea, I will live with the group consensus.

[Maédhros]

I made a boo boo lindil. I meant to say the part about the icy mountains that was not kept in revision D. I'm all for keeping the Yavanna thing as a footnote like Antoine suggested.

[lindil]

A footnote sounds good, though it opens the floodgate to other such 'minor' editorial glosses and such, but on the whole, itseems best. Has the exact wording been posted above and I missed it?

I will look up the mntns section.

[Aiwendil]

I must admit that I've completely lost the thread of this discussion.

I think the point under consideration was whether we can retain Pengolod's reference to Yavanna as a tree.

I am inclined now to simply drop this. Moving it to the Valaquenta is simply too bold.

What do others think of this?

What else must be done to finalize this project?

[Maédhros]

Originally posted by Aiwendil
I think the point under consideration was whether we can retain Pengolod's reference to Yavanna as a tree.
I am inclined now to simply drop this. Moving it to the Valaquenta is simply to bold.

If I recall correctly, the problem with moving the text from the Ainulindalë to the Valaquenta lays in the fact that we know that it was Rúmil the author of the Ainulindalë and Pengoloð was a form of editor. Unfortunately for us, we have no such knowledge regarding the Valaquenta.
Now that I have had time to think about it, It agree with both Aiwendil and antoine that moving it to the Valaquenta is too bold a move.
I think that there might be some way that we could use this beautiful description of Yavanna in our main narrative, without resorting to the use of a footnote.
Do you think that this emendation could be acceptable in our project?

But{ think not, Ælfwine, that} the shapes wherein the Great Ones array themselves are at all times like unto the shapes of kings and queens of the Children of Ilúvatar; for at whiles they may clothe them in their own thought, made visible in forms terrible and wonderful. {And I myself, long years agone,} It has been told that in the land of the Valar {have seen} Yavanna has been seen in the likeness of a Tree; and the beauty and majesty of that form could not be told in words, not unless all the things that grow in the earth, from the least unto the greatest, should sing in choir together, making unto their queen an offering of song to be laid before the throne of Ilúvatar.

My changes are mostly editorial in nature. It is true that Pengoloð has seen Yavanna as a tree, so it would not be far fetched to retain it. Maybe Aiwendil can propose something better?

[Aiwendil]

Perhaps:

But {think not, Ælfwine, that} the shapes wherein the Great Ones array themselves are not at all times like unto the shapes of kings and queens of the Children of Ilúvatar; for at whiles they may clothe them in their own thought, made visible in forms terrible and wonderful. And {I myself, long years agone,} some in the land of the Valar have seen Yavanna in the likeness of a Tree; and the beauty and majesty of that form could not be told in words, not unless all the things that grow in the earth, from the least unto the greatest, should sing in choir together, making unto their queen an offering of song to be laid before the throne of Ilúvatar.

It has the advantage that it minimizes the addition.

[Antoine]

I m definitively around this change.

What i enjoyed in our version of ainulindale, it s this vision of 2 different writer Rumil and Pengoloth.
To put off, the reference of oral discussion like :

{thou must understand, AElfwine, that}

I'm ok.

But changing some quote of the editor looks for me like breaking of our rules.

I hope the note will stay like this.

Regards
Antoine

[Maédhros]

To tell you the truth Antoine, I really like Aiwendil's suggested change to include Yavanna's tree description in the main narrative.
I personally don't see Aiwendil's editorial change either disruptive or changing something drastically.

What do the others think?

[Findegil]

I had to reread the thread to get any idea were we are in the discussion. After doing so I figured out that first hand it was discussed to drop the Yavanna as a tree section because it was vocal addition by Pengoloð addressing Ælfwine.
Now we think of taking it back into place wihot any indication of the authorship of that peace of info.

I agree with Antione that this will not go. The sections is quite difrent in style from the rest of the Ainulindale. If we want to use that section (and I am symphatic with that idea) than I think we should indicat it as an addition by Pengoloð.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Antoine]

Fingedil, I m with you

And that about a note with little * in the text that refers to an insert of pengoloth ?

Great Ones array themselves are at all times like unto the shapes of kings and queens of the Children of Ilúvatar; for at whiles they may clothe them in their own thought, made visible in forms terrible and wonderful.[Note *]

(Note *) And I myself, long years agone, in the land of the Valar have seen Yavanna in the likeness of a Tree; and the beauty and majesty of that form could not be told in words, not unless all the things that grow in the earth, from the least unto the greatest, should sing in choir together, making unto their queen an offering of song to be laid before the throne of Ilúvatar. [Quoth Pengoloð.]

It works good with our solution where some other inserts of Pengolod are present.
Like in our introduction, it s write that:

To it are added the further words that Pengoloð the Sage wrote concerning the Valar, the Eldar and the Atani

Anyway for sur we can't put off this beautiful insert.
This add of Pengolod, that looks for me like a "sade remembrance", a spleen of Valinor.
And it looks better like an insert in this text.

Regards
Antoine

[Maédhros]

I'm all for using the Pengoldh's reference of Yavanna, but after the work done in the Fall of Gondolin, I'm against the use of a footnote.
If there is no other way than to use the footnote, I would eliminate that reference.

[Antoine]

why ?
Why after our work on fall of gondolin you don't want to use footnote.

It's different type of text.

Ainulindale is an oral story from the Valar that Rumil listens and Pengolod compiled this story and adds some comments.

Fall of Gondolin is part of Human mythology : long oral tradition, without compiled book since the work of Bilbo in "Translation from the elvish"

[Aiwendil]

If Findegil and Antoine are against the alteration and retention of the passage in the text, then I would go for eliminating it entirely. A footnote feels like a cheat to me.

Keep in mind that the reason that Pengolodh appears in the original text is because the framework is a Pengolodh-Aelfwine one. We have no indication that Pengolodh's comments and additions would have survived the removal of Aelfwine, much less that he would have actually added footnotes to the text. Such things are quite a different matter from spoken asides to Aelfwine.

[Maédhros]

why ?
Why after our work on fall of gondolin you don't want to use footnote.

Because while working on the Fall of Gondolin, we stumbled upon different dificulties which were all resolved in being integrated to our main narrative. If a compromise could not be reached, then it was better to discard the change or emendation. If we resorted to footnotes we would IMO lower the standards of the project by tip-toing the difficulties that arise in them.

The interesting thing was that we were all of the idea of wanting to keep the Yavanna description, but alas, we could not agree on the way of doing that. I think that if there are no new suggestions, then our work with the Ainulindalë is finished and we end up loosing that description.

If Findegil and Antoine are against the alteration and retention of the passage in the text, then I would go for eliminating it entirely. A footnote feels like a cheat to me.

My sentiments exactly.

[Findegil]

What makes the idea of an fottnote more bearable to me in these particular text ist the fact that we have a footnote in the original text, which does do exactly what we want do do with the remark about Yavanna seen as a tree: it provides a quote from Pengolodh.

But I am not all for a footnote here. I only wanted to make a clear statment that this obserfation came from Pengolodh and was not part of the text as given by Rumil.

If we all want to hold that nice pice of discription than I don't think we should so soon say there is no way. We are not in hurry, are we? So take it easy and think about it may be someone will come up with an emedation of the text that all are happy with.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Antoine]

Because while working on the Fall of Gondolin, we stumbled upon different difficulties which were all resolved in being integrated to our main narrative. If a compromise could not be reached, then it was better to discard the change or emendation. If we resorted to footnotes we would IMO lower the standards of the project by tip-toing the difficulties that arise in them.

I think what we did on FOG and the insert in the Ainulindale are two different things

Like said Findegil

we have a footnote in the original text

and Tolkien uses sometimes this type of insert like in Lotr about the fact that the sun is feminine and the moon is masculin. If I remember correcly it s an insert of the original editor of the book : Frodon :-)

[Aiwendil]

Findegil wrote:

What makes the idea of an fottnote more bearable to me in these particular text ist the fact that we have a footnote in the original text, which does do exactly what we want do do with the remark about Yavanna seen as a tree: it provides a quote from Pengolodh.

In the original text, it's not a footnote (unless I'm missing something). It's a completely intra-textual aside made to Aelfwine.

We have no indication that it is anything more than a spoken comment; we have no indication that Pengolodh edited or annotated Rumil's portions of the Ainulindale at all, much less that he added this particular comment as a footnote. That's my chief objection.

We have been proceeding as if the Ainulindale we are working on is supposed to literally be the Ainulindale, the document that existed in Arda. I've commented on that decision a few times - but now that we are doing it that way, we might as well continue in that manner. And it seems to me that if we are creating the literal Ainulindale then we ought to be even stricter with regard to changes such as this than we would be in a mere abstract account of events.

What I mean is that what is in doubt is not the idea that Pengolodh saw Yavanna as a tree. If this were the Fall of Gondolin or another section where we were not expressly trying to create a Middle-earth document, there would surely be nothing wrong with inserting mention of Yavanna as a tree in whatever way we could.

But what is in doubt here is the idea that Pengolodh added this footnote to the text. I think that it is too risky to decide that he did.

[Antoine]

Aiwendil wrote :

In the original text, it's not a footnote (unless I'm missing something). It's a completely intra-textual aside made to Aelfwine.

We have no indication that it is anything more than a spoken comment; we have no indication that Pengolodh edited or annotated Rumil's portions of the Ainulindale at all, much less that he added this particular comment as a footnote. That's my chief objection.

But in Home 10 Christopher Tolkien wrote :

§ 19 After 'when the vision was taken away' there is a footnote that seems to have been an early addition:

And some have said that the Vision ceased ere the fulfilment of the Dominion of Men and the fading of the Firstborn; wherefore, though the Music is over all, the Valar have not seen as with sight the Later Ages or the ending of the World. Quoth Pengoloð.

Aiwendil continued :

We have been proceeding as if the Ainulindale we are working on is supposed to literally be the Ainulindale, the document that existed in Arda. I've commented on that decision a few times - but now that we are doing it that way, we might as well continue in that manner. And it seems to me that if we are creating the literal Ainulindale then we ought to be even stricter with regard to changes such as this than we would be in a mere abstract account of events.

I m definitively with you, this Ainulindale needs to be the document existed in Arda, not the one from Aman, that is lost ; but the one that crossed the 3 ages of Middle Earth ... and if Pengolod put some quoth in the original text ... it looks for me more "authentic".

Regards
Antoine

[Aiwendil]

Antoine wrote:

But in Home 10 Christopher Tolkien wrote :

Yes, there are other footnotes in the text. But this, the comment at hand, was not a footnote.

I m definitively with you, this Ainulindale needs to be the document existed in Arda, not the one from Aman, that is lost ; but the one that crossed the 3 ages of Middle Earth ... and if Pengolod put some quoth in the original text ... it looks for me more "authentic".

I would agree if the comment were a written footnote in the original text. But in the original text it is not; it is rather a spoken comment made to Aelfwine.

I do not think that we can simply commute spoken comments made to Aelfwine into written footnotes made in the text.

[Antoine]

Yes, there are other footnotes in the text. But this, the comment at hand, was not a footnote.

I'm sorry, but i don't understand.

There is Ainulindale C, the full text can be found in home 10, it 's a text without footnote.

But for Ainulindale D, Christopher Tolkien explain that it 's :

a manuscript of unusual splendour, with illuminated capitals and a beautiful script

but nothing about some tapuscript that follows this manuscript.

CRT didn't write the full text but just the changes.
And he wrote about the paragraph 19 :

After 'when the vision was taken away' there is a footnote that seems to have been an early addition:
And some have said that the Vision ceased ere the fulfilment of the Dominion of Men and the fading of the Firstborn; wherefore, though the Music is over all, the Valar have not seen as with sight the Later Ages or the ending of the World. Quoth Pengoloð.

If I follow you , the

early addition

is a rejected addition.

Can you explain to me your way for this conclusion.


Regards
Antoine

[Aiwendil]

It's quite possible that I'm misunderstanding something.

I thought that the passage in question was from S. 25: "And I myself, long years agone, in the land of the Valar, have seen Yavanna in the likeness of a Tree." There was no change to this in Ainulindale D. I don't dispute the addition of a footnote to S. 19.

[Antoine]

You know that ...
I think I did a little mistake.

I re-read every thing and send some answer tomorrow.

[Findegil]

So when I understand rightly what was said so far, than
- we all want to hold the discription of Yavanna as a tree, if we can find a good way to do so.
- we know that the passage under discussion is not a footnote but a verbal aside from Pengoloð to Ælfwine.
- we agree that Ælfwine is to be deleted and that therefore the passage can not stand as it is.
- we also agree that in the Ainulindale as we created it, is a footnote to §19 (not directly connected to the passage under discussion) that is asigned "Quoth Pengoloð."

With so much in common we should find a way out of our problem.

Aiwendil and Maedhros suggested to incooperat the passage into the text, by deleting the indications of the spoken communication. This would mean to make the observer of scene unkown and to give the actuel wording to Rumil. The advantage is that we hold the passage as a part of the text.

Antoine and I suggested to move the passage into a footnote. The advantage is that we could leave the passage in the mouth of Pengoloð without to much emendations in the passage itself. The disadvantage is that we lift a spoken word of Pengoloð to a writen word a scribed to or written by Pengoloð and that we creat a textual footnote (in contrast to editorial footnotes) which we have avioded so fare.

As I read the latest devolopments in the discussion, it seems to me that Aiwendil is now fighting against the use of the passage at all. I think that we should not do that. We are not dealing (as we often did within FoG) with an editorial additon from some old text. We are talking about Tolkiens last version of the Ainulindale written in a time when the Lord of the Rings was published (if I am not mistaken). So he left that passage and we should try the same.

I have no conclusion that would deliver that "gordicknot" put I would like here some more arguments why it is better to change the source of the passage than to move it. I am as jet not able to understand fully Aiwendils point of view.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Petty Dwarf]

Aiwendil and Maedhros suggested to incooperat the passage into the text, by deleting the indications of the spoken communication. This would mean to make the observer of scene unkown and to give the actuel wording to Rumil. The advantage is that we hold the passage as a part of the text.

It might give the wording to Rúmil, but it might not. The ultimate author of this version we're dealing with is Pengoloð. True, he styled it after Rúmil's in Valinor, but that version and its author stayed there. It can be left for the reader to decide which narrator the Yavanna line came from. If we leave the it ambiguous it can rightly come from either.

Antoine and I suggested to move the passage into a footnote. The advantage is that we could leave the passage in the mouth of Pengoloð without to much emendations in the passage itself. The disadvantage is that we lift a spoken word of Pengoloð to a writen word a scribed to or written by Pengoloð and that we creat a textual footnote (in contrast to editorial footnotes) which we have avioded so fare.

We are talking about Tolkiens last version of the Ainulindale written in a time when the Lord of the Rings was published (if I am not mistaken). So he left that passage and we should try the same.

Not really. He left that passage in with the entire conception of the Ælfwine-Pengoloð convo. We've already made the editorial decision to move away from that, just as CT did. We're actually very far off from Tolkien's last version of Ainulindalë, but sadly it's a concession we have to make because we can't make Tolkien's true version work without radical new writing. By the same token, that is an enormous editorial leap to make. By comparison placing the Yavanna tree remark in a footnote is slight.

I'm going to tentatively throw in with the footnote idea. There does seem to be a precedent for it considering the final part is a pure Pengoloð footnote. And we do know for sure this line is taken directly from him since he said it to Ælfwine.

[Maédhros]

So when I understand rightly what was said so far, than
- we all want to hold the discription of Yavanna as a tree, if we can find a good way to do so.
- we know that the passage under discussion is not a footnote but a verbal aside from Pengoloð to Ælfwine.
- we agree that Ælfwine is to be deleted and that therefore the passage can not stand as it is.
- we also agree that in the Ainulindalë as we created it, is a footnote to §19 (not directly connected to the passage under discussion) that is asigned "Quoth Pengoloð."

Aiwendil and Maedhros suggested to incorporate the passage into the text, by deleting the indications of the spoken communication. This would mean to make the observer of scene unkown and to give the actuel wording to Rúmil. The advantage is that we hold the passage as a part of the text.

Antoine and I suggested to move the passage into a footnote. The advantage is that we could leave the passage in the mouth of Pengoloð without to much emendations in the passage itself. The disadvantage is that we lift a spoken word of Pengoloð to a writen word a scribed to or written by Pengoloð and that we create a textual footnote (in contrast to editorial footnotes) which we have avioded so far.

I'm a little intrigued so far with the problem that we are having in trying to accomodate Yavanna's tree passage into the text. The problem it seems lies in the fact that the passage comes from Pengoloð and not from Rúmil, meanwhile if we use a footnote, we would know for sure that the passage came from Pengoloð and not from Rúmil, and we have a precedent of another footnote in the Ainulindalë.
My first original idea agreed with Antoine, use a footnote in the text because we have a precedent in the Ainulindalë. But as I worked with the Fall of Gondolin, I came to dislike the idea of it. As I was re-reading our version today, I noted some interesting things:

§ 14... But {thou must understand, Ælfwine,} that when the Ainur had beheld this habitation in a vision and had seen the Children of Ilúvatar arise therein, then many of the most mighty of the Holy Ones bent all their thought and their desire towards that place. And of these Melkor was the chief, even as he was in the beginning the greatest of the Ainur who took part in the Music. And he feigned, even to himself at first, that he desired to go thither and order all things for the good of the Children of Ilúvatar, controlling the turmoils of the heat and the cold that had come to pass through him. But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subjects and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.

and this one...

§21 Thus it came to pass that of the Holy Ones some abode still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this condition Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should henceforth be contained and bounded in the World, and be within it for ever, so that they are its life and it is theirs. And therefore{, Ælfwine,} we name them the Valar, the Powers of the World.

How is it that in these two passages, we had no trouble keeping the text into our main narrative yet have have the problem in section §25.? Am I missing something here?

[Petty Dwarf]

Well, look at the section from Ainu§25...

But think not, Ælfwine, that the shapes wherein the Great Ones array themselves are not at all times like unto the shapes of kings and queens of the Children of Ilúvatar; for at whiles they may clothe them in their own thought, made visible in forms terrible and wonderful. And I myself, long years agone, in the land of the Valar have seen Yavanna in the likeness of a Tree; and the beauty and majesty of that form could not be told in words, not unless all the things that grow in the earth, from the least unto the greatest, should sing in choir together, making unto their queen an offering of song to be laid before the throne of Ilúvatar.

It's not that it's impossible to deal with the intrusion of the first person singular "I myself...have seen", it's just awkward to do so as an editor knowing it was written thus. It's not just eliminating an address to Ælfwine like in the beginning of the above quote. It can be reasonably kept in the text, if we gut the entire sentence and it's meaning. Here's an example (and excuse the slipshod notation, I'm going off the cuff):

And {I myself}[the XXX themselves], long years agone, in the land of the Valar have seen Yavanna in the likeness of a Tree; and the beauty and majesty of that form could not be told in words....

I left it XXX because we'd have to ask who was it that saw her like that. The Noldor? All the Eldalië? Pengoloð? That choice may go beyond editing.

I think keeping the sentence intact as a footnote is best because the intent of the sentence is expressing the intensely personal. Pengoloð's own experience of having seen a Vala in this beyond-Treebeard shape was so striking that he had to interject it here. Yes he said it to Ælfwine in the true text, but he would say it to every reader like this:

And I myself, long years agone, in the land of the Valar have seen Yavanna in the likeness of a Tree; and the beauty and majesty of that form could not be told in words, not unless all the things that grow in the earth, from the least unto the greatest, should sing in choir together, making unto their queen an offering of song to be laid before the throne of Ilúvatar. [Quoth Pengoloð.]

[Aiwendil]

Petty Dwarf wrote:

I left it XXX because we'd have to ask who was it that saw her like that. The Noldor? All the Eldalië? Pengoloð? That choice may go beyond editing.

If we were going to go this way, I think that my earlier proposal is as good as anything:

But {think not, Ælfwine, that} the shapes wherein the Great Ones array themselves are not at all times like unto the shapes of kings and queens of the Children of Ilúvatar; for at whiles they may clothe them in their own thought, made visible in forms terrible and wonderful. And {I myself, long years agone,} some in the land of the Valar have seen Yavanna in the likeness of a Tree; and the beauty and majesty of that form could not be told in words, not unless all the things that grow in the earth, from the least unto the greatest, should sing in choir together, making unto their queen an offering of song to be laid before the throne of Ilúvatar.

I think keeping the sentence intact as a footnote is best because the intent of the sentence is expressing the intensely personal.

I'm not sure that this is relevant, but I disagree. I don't see the passage as having fundamentally to do with Pengolodh at all, but rather with the Valar.

Maedhros wrote:

How is it that in these two passages, we had no trouble keeping the text into our main narrative yet have have the problem in section §25.? Am I missing something here?

This is an excellent point, and a subtle one I think. If I follow you, your argument is: in the Ainulindale D we have instances such as:

But {thou must understand, Ælfwine,} that when the Ainur had beheld this habitation in a vision and had seen the Children of Ilúvatar arise therein

These clearly suggest that some or much of the surrounding text is the invention of Pengolodh. That is - surely he is not simply reading Rumil's text and adding only phrases like "thou must understand, Aelfwine". He is giving an oral account, no doubt based closely on Rumil's written account, but not matching it word for word. We have so far ignored the fact that in the old version it was an oral account and in our new version it is a written one; we have not tried to wipe out Pengolodh's embellishments and reconstruct Rumil's written text because there is no way of establishing which words exactly Rumil used. Instead, we have more or less pretended that Pengolodh's oral version is exactly Rumil's written version, with only obvious first and second person phrases removed.

I need to think about this situation a little bit more before I can tell you what I think ought to be done.

[Maédhros]

These clearly suggest that some or much of the surrounding text is the invention of Pengolodh. That is - surely he is not simply reading Rumil's text and adding only phrases like "thou must understand, Aelfwine". He is giving an oral account, no doubt based closely on Rumil's written account, but not matching it word for word. We have so far ignored the fact that in the old version it was an oral account and in our new version it is a written one; we have not tried to wipe out Pengolodh's embellishments and reconstruct Rumil's written text because there is no way of establishing which words exactly Rumil used. Instead, we have more or less pretended that Pengolodh's oral version is exactly Rumil's written version, with only obvious first and second person phrases removed.

Yes, that sums it better than I did.
For the record, I think that Aiwendil's emendation is very good.