Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[Huinesoron]

Taking these in reverse order:

864 or 863 - I take the point that XVII.3(7) uses 2016, not 864/144, as the date of the Finding. That means Tolkien's error in XIII.1 was the reverse of what I thought it was, and I need to adjust the dates as Arvegil suggested. (Note: XVII.3(7) also dates the March to 2232, which is later and more precise than the dating in XIII.3.) I suspect this throws off the 3100 years from the arrival in Aman to the end of the Age; I'll have to run the calculations.

Aging - XVIII is later than XVII.3(7), so I have to use 72 years as adulthood for named Elves. All this means is that in the beginning, the Quendi aged faster - which is suggested in multiple generational schemes. I have no problem with that, and it's part of why I didn't list every generation-start date in the first place.

Celeborn - the simplest solution here is to leave Celeborn's birth-date in place, but to remove his father's name and reference the later source as to why. There's nothing in the late sources saying he was born in Aman, right? He could still be born on the March; we already saw that there was time for him to be a grandson of Elmo, and Olwe is older. (The rest of Elmo's descendents have no birth-years, so are out of scope anyway.)

Celebrimbor - At the risk of being facetious, there's no reason he couldn't be a Teler of Alqualonde and Curufin's son. His birth is long before Feanor's exile, so he could have stayed with a Telerin mother; and PoME notes that Curufin's wife was of wholly different temperament to him. To go full synthesis on the tales, he could have sailed with Celeborn and Galadriel, reconciled with his father and uncles, lived in Nargothrond with them, rejected them, travelled to the Nirnaeth with Gwindor, and wound up retreating to Gondolin with Turgon. –but all that matters is that there's no source contradicting the claim that he was the son of Curufin.

Beleriand - There is no natural divide in the GA timeline (unlike AAm, which splits very nicely into early history / late history blocks): it's all supposed to be early. So other than Elwe's awakening (and Luthien), it all has to be anchored on a single date. There is no obvious right answer; I'll need to work up a table of all the options, once I've got the rest of the numbers adjusted.

Luthien - Given that Luthien's birthdate is fixed solely on the basis of "one third of Melkor's imprisonment", that will need to be maintained. There is no other basis for including her at all.

The Fall of Utumno - Did Utumno fall at the beginning or end of the Great March? The only case for "beginning" is the VI.B claim that the Arising and Fall of Men happened during the Captivity, and that only indicates "beginning" if you take the relative dates of the Awakening/Finding/Fall, rather than the absolute date of 10 VY after the Finding. With several later sources stating or implying that the Fall of Men was solely at Melkor's hands, we can ignore that tenuous argument entirely, and go with the plain text that says Utumno fell after the March was over.

I'll have to work the numbers on most of these points, but other than Beleriand I think this is a solid plan.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Aging - XVIII is later than XVII.3(7), so I have to use 72 years as adulthood for named Elves. All this means is that in the beginning, the Quendi aged faster - which is suggested in multiple generational schemes. I have no problem with that, and it's part of why I didn't list every generation-start date in the first place.

The problem is when a later source contradicts a key earlier one (on which the whole reconstructed timeline is based on, moreoever) in such a way as to make the timeline practically unusable - and I do think it contradicts 'Scheme 7': it's not just that the Elves are grown up by age 24 in the first three generations, it's that the pattern of parent/child age difference doesn't stop at 72. It goes 25 > 37 > 49 > 61 > 73 > 85 > 97 > 109 > 121 > 133 by generation 27.

Also, take a look at this quote (pp. 141-2):

When do Ingwe, Finwe, and Elwe come in? If born before the Finding in FA 2016, they should be then adult, and at least 24: sc. born no later than 1992.

What Tolkien is saying here is effectively that his entire 'Scheme 7' was based on Elves reaching adulthood at 24 loar, even in FA 2016, by generation 20+!

Which implies that there's something else other than Elves reaching adulthood which is pushing the parent/child age gap upwards.



EDIT: Totally irrelevant rant incoming - why do you think Tolkien felt that he should change the '5 generations from OG Elves, c. FA 1080 March' to '24/25 generations from OG Elves, FA 2232 March'?

'Schemes 1 and 2' have:

1) c. 864 years from Awakening to Finding, plenty of time for Melkor to find and terrorize the Elves

2) the total number of Elves at Cuivienen at the onset of the March, c. 26-55,000, a very decent number indeed

3) the infinitely more reasonable (and prettier) 5 generations from OG Elves to Ambassadors (seriously, the later figure of 24/25th generation for the Ambassadors is as comical and ugly as the 72 years for Feanor crossing the ocean)

Why can't he just leave well enough alone??

I'm not suggesting of course that you take up the earlier schemes, but I had to vent somewhere.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Celeborn - the simplest solution here is to leave Celeborn's birth-date in place, but to remove his father's name and reference the later source as to why. There's nothing in the late sources saying he was born in Aman, right? He could still be born on the March; we already saw that there was time for him to be a grandson of Elmo, and Olwe is older. (The rest of Elmo's descendents have no birth-years, so are out of scope anyway.)

Probably best to leave Celeborn's parentage vague (maybe a footnote explaining the possible versions).

However, I think Tolkien's latest word (CT dates it to about a month before Tolkien died) on the subject was that he was a grandson of Olwe (via one of Olwe's sons I assume):

There she met Celeborn, who is here again a Telerin prince, the grandson of Olwë of Alqualondë and thus her close kinsman.

- UT, 'History of Galadriel and Celeborn'

Problem here is of course that it makes Galadriel and Celeborn first cousins.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Celebrimbor - At the risk of being facetious, there's no reason he couldn't be a Teler of Alqualonde and Curufin's son. His birth is long before Feanor's exile, so he could have stayed with a Telerin mother; and PoME notes that Curufin's wife was of wholly different temperament to him. To go full synthesis on the tales, he could have sailed with Celeborn and Galadriel, reconciled with his father and uncles, lived in Nargothrond with them, rejected them, travelled to the Nirnaeth with Gwindor, and wound up retreating to Gondolin with Turgon. –but all that matters is that there's no source contradicting the claim that he was the son of Curufin.

Again, depending on how you date the 'Shibboleth' (even though CT says c. 1968, some of it could very well be later), probably no.

The latest we hear of Celebrimbor's descent is from 'Of Dwarves and Men' (c. 1969):

This was, no doubt, due to the influence of Celebrimbor, a Sinda who claimed descent from Daeron.

- PoME, p. 297

I don't think the gymnastics required to square this with his other accounts is worth it, even if possible.

Concerning Celebrimbor (and Celeborn above) I think we should stick to what CT said:

When my father wrote this [Celebrimbor being a Teler of Aman] he ignored the addition to Appendix B in the Second Edition, stating that Celebrimbor 'was descended from Feanor'; no doubt he had forgotten that that theory had appeared in print, for had he remembered it he would undoubtedly have felt bound by it.

That was probably not always the case, but when in doubt, I think we should take the above quote to heart.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Beleriand - There is no natural divide in the GA timeline (unlike AAm, which splits very nicely into early history / late history blocks): it's all supposed to be early. So other than Elwe's awakening (and Luthien), it all has to be anchored on a single date. There is no obvious right answer; I'll need to work up a table of all the options, once I've got the rest of the numbers adjusted.

Luthien - Given that Luthien's birthdate is fixed solely on the basis of "one third of Melkor's imprisonment", that will need to be maintained. There is no other basis for including her at all.

As I mentiond before, AAm has an interesting note attached to it (note to §81, p. 106):

After the entry for 1190 a new entry was added for the year 1200: 'Luthien born' (with a query).

So if we're following the AAm post Feanor's birth, we should keep this addition. And I think this note might postdate the same entry in the GA.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The Fall of Utumno - Did Utumno fall at the beginning or end of the Great March? The only case for "beginning" is the VI.B claim that the Arising and Fall of Men happened during the Captivity, and that only indicates "beginning" if you take the relative dates of the Awakening/Finding/Fall, rather than the absolute date of 10 VY after the Finding. With several later sources stating or implying that the Fall of Men was solely at Melkor's hands, we can ignore that tenuous argument entirely, and go with the plain text that says Utumno fell after the March was over.

I tend to agree with Melkor being the only one to corrupt Men - however, how is Melkor supposed to come back to Men (the 'second visit') after he is captured (i.e. after the fall of Utumno)?

[Huinesoron]

Reposting the Late Timeline for the new page.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

What Tolkien is saying here is effectively that his entire 'Scheme 7' was based on Elves reaching adulthood at 24 loar, even in FA 2016, by generation 20+!

To cut the Gordian knot here: the only reference to 72 year adulthood prior to Aman is the birth of Celeborn. The first person referenced in XVIII as having that growth rate is Galadriel, who was born in Aman. Therefore, the aging rate of the Quendi before they reached Aman is not relevant to this timeline. I'll add yet another note on how speculative Celeborn is.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

3) the infinitely more reasonable (and prettier) 5 generations from OG Elves to Ambassadors (seriously, the later figure of 24/25th generation for the Ambassadors is as comical and ugly as the 72 years for Feanor crossing the ocean)

Absolutely definitely and emphatically agreed. But Tolkien gonna Tolk.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Problem here is of course that it makes Galadriel and Celeborn first cousins.

Not a problem for the Timeline, thankfully! If Tolkien had written in 1973 that Feanor married himself and was his own father I'd cheerfully put it in (wait, he didn't, right??).

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

The latest we hear of Celebrimbor's descent is from 'Of Dwarves and Men' (c. 1969):

I don't think the gymnastics required to square this with his other accounts is worth it, even if possible.

Look, it's perfectly simple. After leaving Curufin to sail with Celeborn, returning to Curufin, leaving him again, popping into Gondolin for 30 years, and evacuating to the Havens, Celebrimbor was actually guarding Elrond and Elros at the Third Kinslaying. He was knocked out and lost his memory, becoming as a child, so Maglor adopted him as well, giving him the name "Celebrimbros". He went with Elrond and Elros to the War of Wrath, got knocked out and lost his memory again, was re-adopted by Maglor after he chucked the Silmaril in the Sea, and then the two of them ran into Daeron (also a wandering crazed minstrel) and Daeron adopted him too. It's all explained in NoME 2: Tolkien's Newspaper Doodles, coming soon to a bookstore near you.

... yeah all right we'll leave him as Curufin's.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

As I mentiond before, AAm has an interesting note attached to it (note to §81, p. 106):

So if we're following the AAm post Feanor's birth, we should keep this addition. And I think this note might postdate the same entry in the GA.

That's just a reference to the 1200 entry in the Grey Annals, though, which specifically says "nobody knows when Luthien was born, but legend says it was after 1 Age of Melkor's imprisonment". That's my point - the 1200 date is entirely conditional on the Chaining of Melkor.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I tend to agree with Melkor being the only one to corrupt Men - however, how is Melkor supposed to come back to Men (the 'second visit') after he is captured (i.e. after the fall of Utumno)?

He's not. Ignore the "Arising and Fall" source entirely, it's implicitly rejected by later sources. Men awoke around *1075, and were visited by Melkor within the lifespan of the first generation. Sometime between then and the Fall of Utumno a thousand years later, possibly (though not definitely) sneaking out of the theoretically-besieged Utumno, he returned and completed their corruption. Somewhere in the 3000 years that followed, a small number of them repented and fled, and wound up in Beleriand just in time to meet him again. I think Athrabeth says that he stopped showing up in person, which being chained in Mandos would do to a chap.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Reposting the Late Timeline for the new page.



To cut the Gordian knot here: the only reference to 72 year adulthood prior to Aman is the birth of Celeborn. The first person referenced in XVIII as having that growth rate is Galadriel, who was born in Aman. Therefore, the aging rate of the Quendi before they reached Aman is not relevant to this timeline. I'll add yet another note on how speculative Celeborn is.

I think we're talking past each other - the rate of 'ageing' and the time at which Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely inseparable from the 'Scheme 7' (the basis for XIII.1).

I mean, try constructing the 20-30 generations of Elves via '72 years as adulthood + 3 years of gestation', and see where you end up. (The timeline is either too long or it's too short, depending on how you apply the '72 years').

And regardless, you will inevitably end up with your own timeline, not that of Tolkien.

In other words - you can either preserve the timeline or you can preserve the '72 years to adulthood' figure - but combining it is going to end up with a Frankenstein's monster of a timeline.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Not a problem for the Timeline, thankfully! If Tolkien had written in 1973 that Feanor married himself and was his own father I'd cheerfully put it in (wait, he didn't, right??).

The problem is that, if it's adopted, the whole 'Idril v Maeglin' storyline loses much of its weight.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

That's just a reference to the 1200 entry in the Grey Annals, though, which specifically says "nobody knows when Luthien was born, but legend says it was after 1 Age of Melkor's imprisonment". That's my point - the 1200 date is entirely conditional on the Chaining of Melkor.

Is it though? Again, depending on when this note dates from, I could easily imagine Tolkien divorcing himself from the 'ages of the chaining of Melkor' idea.

Regardless, it's an explicit addition to the AAm, so I think it should be regarded as such, and adopted into your revised AAm timeline.

In fact, from there, you can anchor the early dates of GA in YT 1133/1200, and the later dates in c. 5473/4 (rough date of the First Battle of Beleriand). The mess in the middle I leave to your capable hands.

And yes, I'm aware of all the problems with this method - it's just that I don't think they are as problematic as they appear to be.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

He's not. Ignore the "Arising and Fall" source entirely, it's implicitly rejected by later sources. Men awoke around *1075, and were visited by Melkor within the lifespan of the first generation. Sometime between then and the Fall of Utumno a thousand years later, possibly (though not definitely) sneaking out of the theoretically-besieged Utumno, he returned and completed their corruption. Somewhere in the 3000 years that followed, a small number of them repented and fled, and wound up in Beleriand just in time to meet him again. I think Athrabeth says that he stopped showing up in person, which being chained in Mandos would do to a chap.

This seems as good as it'll ever be - I agree.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I think we're talking past each other - the rate of 'ageing' and the time at which Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely inseparable from the 'Scheme 7' (the basis for XIII.1).

I agree we're talking past each other. The rate of aging & the time Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely irrelevant to the "Late Timeline". It's not mentioned! "72 years" comes up precisely once before the birth of Feanor: with Celeborn. "3 year gestation" has additionally been used once, with Indis. That's it. There is no problem to answer here, unless the problem is "sources which differ can never be combined", in which case the whole concept of this timeline has to be discarded.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I mean, try constructing the 20-30 generations of Elves via '72 years as adulthood + 3 years of gestation', and see where you end up.

(I did in fact try this at one point, it was a niiiightmare.)

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

The problem is that, if it's adopted, the whole 'Idril v Maeglin' storyline loses much of its weight.

Timelines care nothing for narrative weight!

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Is it though? Again, depending on when this note dates from, I could easily imagine Tolkien divorcing himself from the 'ages of the chaining of Melkor' idea.

Regardless, it's an explicit addition to the AAm, so I think it should be regarded as such, and adopted into your revised AAm timeline.

I'm confused. It seems clear to me that at some point, Tolkien noted [some of the] dates from the Grey Annals onto the Annals of Aman. That doesn't make them a new, more recent source for those dates - it just means he made some notes. The source for 1200 Luthien remains the Grey Annals, which state it's an estimate based on the Captivity of Melkor.

~

Adopting the 2016 Finding has immediately messed up the Finwean dates something awful. Since the 5018 date for Galadriel and Aredhel is counting backwards from 888/1, it remains fixed, while Finrod's birth jumps back 153 SY. That messes up the "standard gap between children" - Finwe's remains 192 SY, Finarfin's is now 245 SY, and Fingolfin's children are spaced 383 and 736 SY.

I think the best approach is to recalculate based on an approach I rejected before: using Feanor's AAm birth year (360 SY after Finwe reached Aman), and keeping Fingolfin's birthdate in AAm 1190 despite moving his parents' marriage back about 50 SY. That version of the timeline puts Finrod's birth in 4423, 595 SY before Galadriel - which means an even gap between the four children of Finarfin is 198 SY, and means I can keep the calculations pretty much as they are.

As a bonus, this method on the new timeline means that "AAm 1362" falls in 5017 - only one year out from our "Galadriel at 20" date for Aredhel and Galadriel. I'm more than happy to take that as evidence!

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I agree we're talking past each other. The rate of aging & the time Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely irrelevant to the "Late Timeline". It's not mentioned! "72 years" comes up precisely once before the birth of Feanor: with Celeborn. "3 year gestation" has additionally been used once, with Indis. That's it. There is no problem to answer here, unless the problem is "sources which differ can never be combined", in which case the whole concept of this timeline has to be discarded.



(I did in fact try this at one point, it was a niiiightmare.)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear (it's my fault) - I understand that this issue only emerges occasionally - however, what I'm trying to say is that, unless the 24-year adulthood figure is adopted, the entire 'Scheme 7' collapses, and therefore XIII.1 is useless.

You might as well throw away the entirety of XIII.1 (the basis of the timeline), since it is predicated upon a completely different idea of Elvish ageing.

Even if it doesn't seem obvious immediately, I guarantee that the XIII.1 would get completely wrecked if the later figure were applied.

You can relatively easily get away with certain things, however, this ('Scheme 7') is too specific to do so.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Timelines care nothing for narrative weight!

Maybe not, but Tolkien's '60/'70s are definitely calling out such a thing as..."unnatural".

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I'm confused. It seems clear to me that at some point, Tolkien noted [some of the] dates from the Grey Annals onto the Annals of Aman. That doesn't make them a new, more recent source for those dates - it just means he made some notes. The source for 1200 Luthien remains the Grey Annals, which state it's an estimate based on the Captivity of Melkor.

I'm confused that you're confused! Yes, obviously, Tolkien might've grafted some GA dates onto AAm - however, they are there, in the AAm context!

I don't even know if Tolkien would've kept the whole 1/3 captivity of Melkor when he added this note to the AAm.

Maybe, maybe not - but at least now you have a concrete figure in an 'AAm framework'.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Adopting the 2016 Finding has immediately messed up the Finwean dates something awful. Since the 5018 date for Galadriel and Aredhel is counting backwards from 888/1, it remains fixed, while Finrod's birth jumps back 153 SY. That messes up the "standard gap between children" - Finwe's remains 192 SY, Finarfin's is now 245 SY, and Fingolfin's children are spaced 383 and 736 SY.

I think the best approach is to recalculate based on an approach I rejected before: using Feanor's AAm birth year (360 SY after Finwe reached Aman), and keeping Fingolfin's birthdate in AAm 1190 despite moving his parents' marriage back about 50 SY. That version of the timeline puts Finrod's birth in 4423, 595 SY before Galadriel - which means an even gap between the four children of Finarfin is 198 SY, and means I can keep the calculations pretty much as they are.

As a bonus, this method on the new timeline means that "AAm 1362" falls in 5017 - only one year out from our "Galadriel at 20" date for Aredhel and Galadriel. I'm more than happy to take that as evidence!

Again, whatever makes the mess slightly less of a mess.

[Huinesoron]

Okay, timeline is stable again with the revised Finweans.

On aging: the only pre-Valinor reference to the 72 years is Celeborn, who is already a dubious date on so many levels; not least that we've had to discard the 3100 years already, so he should be born in Beleriand (or Aman) now regardless.

Various texts mention the idea that the aging rate of the elves changed over their history. For example XVI says "All the elaborate calculations [about aging] are both cumbrous, and in early narrative (Awaking and Finding, March, etc) quite unworkable." Tolkien seems to have used and rejected this idea at various times, but since we need to reconcile XIII.1 and XVIII, it is the best tool around. The Eldar simply grew up slower after they reached Aman.

(I think the only direct use of 72 years that affects the timeline is Miriel's death; everything else is around "mortal-equivalent" ages or just comparatives within the AAm.)

So yeah, I'm happy with it as it is.

Beleriand/the Grey Annals remains a mess.



Blue highlighting is events pushed after Melkor's unchaining; orange is events pushed back before Elwe's awakening.

Working from left to right:

• Event - what it says on the tin
• GA - dates in the GA
• GA Full - what the dates would be if we adopted the full length of GA/AAm. We can't do this (because "the Trees died in 888" is a later source); it's here for reference.
• LT - Late Timeline dates, with the last few dates adjusted to use 888/144 rather than 888/1 for the death of the Trees. Tolkien's calculation actually used 889/1, so this would be legitimate. The argument against it was "3100 years", but we're already at 3265 and counting.
• Elwe - GA events anchored on Elwe's awakening.
• Unchaining / Trees slain / First Battle - GA events anchored on these three events. All very similar.
• Luthien (1 Age) - GA events anchored on "Luthien was born 1/3 of the way through the Captivity".
• Trees / Unchaining / First Battle - the result of scaling the GA down to match the LT time between Elwe's awakening and the relevant event.
• Nearest AAm (and reference columns) - each event is anchored on SY from the nearest AAm event to it

In GA, Denethor arrives 479 SY before the unchaining of Melkor; none of these options even come close, even the ones that push Luthien's birth back to the March.

I think the best single timeline is actually the Luthien one: it's non-compressed (unlike the Relative ones), and is the only one that gets at least the Orcs into Beleriand before Melkor is unchained. I don't see any way we can hybridise the Elwe timeline with any of the late-anchored ones: whatever you do, events are going to swap positions. Any of the compressed timelines would of course work, but I've avoided compressing related events in Aman; taking any of these would mean Menegroth only takes 300 SY to build rather than 500, for example, and I feel like Tolkien would have kept the 500.

But I'm open to being convinced. What looks least-wrong?

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Okay, timeline is stable again with the revised Finweans.

On aging: the only pre-Valinor reference to the 72 years is Celeborn, who is already a dubious date on so many levels; not least that we've had to discard the 3100 years already, so he should be born in Beleriand (or Aman) now regardless.

Various texts mention the idea that the aging rate of the elves changed over their history. For example XVI says "All the elaborate calculations [about aging] are both cumbrous, and in early narrative (Awaking and Finding, March, etc) quite unworkable." Tolkien seems to have used and rejected this idea at various times, but since we need to reconcile XIII.1 and XVIII, it is the best tool around. The Eldar simply grew up slower after they reached Aman.

(I think the only direct use of 72 years that affects the timeline is Miriel's death; everything else is around "mortal-equivalent" ages or just comparatives within the AAm.)

So yeah, I'm happy with it as it is.

Beleriand/the Grey Annals remains a mess.



Blue highlighting is events pushed after Melkor's unchaining; orange is events pushed back before Elwe's awakening.

Working from left to right:

• Event - what it says on the tin
• GA - dates in the GA
• GA Full - what the dates would be if we adopted the full length of GA/AAm. We can't do this (because "the Trees died in 888" is a later source); it's here for reference.
• LT - Late Timeline dates, with the last few dates adjusted to use 888/144 rather than 888/1 for the death of the Trees. Tolkien's calculation actually used 889/1, so this would be legitimate. The argument against it was "3100 years", but we're already at 3265 and counting.
• Elwe - GA events anchored on Elwe's awakening.
• Unchaining / Trees slain / First Battle - GA events anchored on these three events. All very similar.
• Luthien (1 Age) - GA events anchored on "Luthien was born 1/3 of the way through the Captivity".
• Trees / Unchaining / First Battle - the result of scaling the GA down to match the LT time between Elwe's awakening and the relevant event.
• Nearest AAm (and reference columns) - each event is anchored on SY from the nearest AAm event to it

In GA, Denethor arrives 479 SY before the unchaining of Melkor; none of these options even come close, even the ones that push Luthien's birth back to the March.

I think the best single timeline is actually the Luthien one: it's non-compressed (unlike the Relative ones), and is the only one that gets at least the Orcs into Beleriand before Melkor is unchained. I don't see any way we can hybridise the Elwe timeline with any of the late-anchored ones: whatever you do, events are going to swap positions. Any of the compressed timelines would of course work, but I've avoided compressing related events in Aman; taking any of these would mean Menegroth only takes 300 SY to build rather than 500, for example, and I feel like Tolkien would have kept the 500.

But I'm open to being convinced. What looks least-wrong?

hS

I think the death of the Trees should be VY 887/144, if we follow the timeline faithfully (i.e. 24 VY exact after the Finding - that is VY 863/144, if you adopt the change).


And in regards to the GA - 300 SY vs 500 SY building Menegroth is completely trivial from the perspective of Elves, isn't it?

The dates approaching the death of the Trees won't be pretty - but you dealt with that in the AAm, haven't you? And as the second anchor point you can take the 'First Battle of Beleriand' which occurred around the time that Feanor was getting to Middle-earth: and since that only took 1 solar year in your timeline (incl. Fingolfin and co. over Helcaraxe) - how does the timeline work in this context?

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron - I was wondering if we could deduce when the Ents were awakened? Or even if Tolkien gives a specific time range.

[Arvegil145]

Can you give us an update, @Huinesoron ?


Anyway, I've been musing over the 'Cirdan' text in the PoME - and, depending on how you interpret the following quote, it might suggest that at least some of Olwe's children were born in Middle-earth:

Thus he [Círdan] forfeited the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to see the Blessed Realm and find again there Olwë and his own nearest kin.

- PoME, 'Last Writings', p. 386

Now, given the fact that this was written in the last year or so of Tolkien's life (1972/3), the family tree of Elwe and Olwe might've changed somewhat.

For example, we see in the NoME (3.XVI.Text 1, pp. 348-9), that in mid-60's (?) Tolkien at least considered Earwen to be a sister of Elwe and Olwe (and Nelwe), but that whole passage was struck through.

Nonetheless, there are only few interpretations of the above passage that I can think of:

1) Elmo still existed as a character at this point - and he had more children (or grandchildren) than just Galadhon, or Celeborn as in the revised timeline, and some of them went to Aman: and it is these that are referred to as '...and his own nearest kin'

2) Earwen was reintroduced as a sister of Elwe and Olwe in Tolkien's final years, and she goes to Aman with Olwe - and she and her children (Finrod, Galadriel, etc.) are referred to as '...and his own nearest kin': possible, but given that Tolkien struck out the passage that refers to her as a sister of Elwe and Olwe years before + Tolkien going out of his way to make Indis the same generation as Finwe (otherwise, Earwen would be generation above Finarfin), I find it unlikely

3) Cirdan had siblings/nephews/nieces who went to Aman - maybe the most likely interpretation, however the way the passage is worded ('...find Olwe and his own nearest kin...'), I think it might allude to

4) Olwe already had children (either just the sons, or sons + Earwen - my money is on just the sons, since I have a feeling that Tolkien wanted Earwen to be of an age with Finarfin)


Unfortunately, there's nothing concrete here, and I don't think you can draw a strong conclusion one way or another. However, I'd like to point out that Ingwe conceived children in Aman too.



Oh yeah! Why I made this post in the first place - here's the relevant passage as to Cirdan's existence at Cuivienen:

Before ever they came to Beleriand the Teleri had developed a craft of boat-making; first as rafts, and soon as light boats with paddles made in imitation of the water-birds upon the lakes near their first homes, and later on the Great Journey in crossing rivers, or especially during their long tarrying on the shores of the 'Sea of Rhun', where their ships became larger and stronger. But in all this work Círdan had ever been the foremost and most inventive and skilful.

- PoME, 'Last Writings', note 29, pp. 391-2


First off, I think you have to revise the timeline again, due to "during their long tarrying on the shores of the 'Sea of Rhun'"...

Second, while this quote alone doesn't necessarily say that Cirdan was alive during the Elves' existence at Cuivienen, the "in all this work" part makes me think that Cirdan was alive at least when the Elves reached the Sea of Rhun.

Moreover, and I think this is the strongest evidence for him being born at Cuivienen, there's this:

Pengolodh alone mentions a tradition among the Sindar of Doriath that it was in archaic form Nōwē, the original meaning of which was uncertain, as was that of Olwë.

- PoME, 'Last Writings', note 30, p. 392


Nōwē here refers to Cirdan's original name - and the only characters we find (other than Elenwe and Voronwe) which have the suffix -wë are Ingwë, Finwë, Elwë, Olwë, Nelwë (replacement for Elmo?) and Lenwë (+ Morwë and Nurwë, the abandoned OG leaders of the Avari).

This, plus the above quote about boat-making, indicates to me Cirdan was most certainly born at Cuivienen.

[Arvegil145]

Before I make my point about Ents, it occurred to me that maybe you could add certain dates before the First Age (i.e. before VY 850/1) -

1) the creation of the Two Trees (VY 1/1)

2) the creation of the Dwarves by Aule, and other still applicable events (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Year_of_the_Trees_1000 )



As to the Ents - Elves were clearly in contact with the Ents at some point; when exactly? Who knows. But it seems that they inspired Ents towards language.

There's this quote from Letter 131:

Even some whole inventions like the remarkable Ents, oldest of living rational creatures, Shepherds of the Trees, are omitted.

However, given the numerous developments in the legendarium since that letter (c. 1951), I can hardly take that letter as the 'latest'.

Especially given these three quotes in conjunction:

1)

The fëar of the Elves and Men (and Dwarves via Aulë, Ents via Yavanna) were intrusions into Eä from outside. As the Valar were sent into Eä.

- NoME, 'Primal Impulse', Text A, p. 290; indicating that Ents are some kind of equivalent to the Dwarves

+

2)

Durin I, eldest of the Fathers, 'awoke' far back in the First Age (it is supposed, soon after the awakening of Men)...

- PoME, 'Last Writings', p. 383

+

3)

Learn now the lore of Living Creatures! First name the four, the free peoples: Eldest of all, the elf-children; Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses; Ent the earthborn, old as mountains; Man the mortal, master of horses

- LOTR one-volume edition, 'Book Three', 'Treebeard', p. 464



How do you make sense of this mess?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Can you give us an update, @Huinesoron?

The Master wants updateses, yes he does. Nice Master, very kind to poor Huinessssoron.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I think the death of the Trees should be VY 887/144, if we follow the timeline faithfully (i.e. 24 VY exact after the Finding - that is VY 863/144, if you adopt the change).

Agreed, after checking the source. Which is only 1 SY off where I already had it.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

And as the second anchor point you can take the 'First Battle of Beleriand' which occurred around the time that Feanor was getting to Middle-earth: and since that only took 1 solar year in your timeline (incl. Fingolfin and co. over Helcaraxe) - how does the timeline work in this context?

The timeline anchored from the First Battle is shown in the image (twice, once direct, once relative); it's basically identical to anchoring on the Trees. The First Battle would have to take place in 887/144 or 888/1; presumably Sauron had everything ready to go when Melkor started screaming about spiders.

In any event: I have decided to anchor on the birth of Luthien/3 Ages concept. I don't want to use a compressed GA, as I specifically didn't compress the "blocks" in AAm. Anchoring on either end gives problems. And Luthien's birth is the only date which has an internal logic to it (the rest are basically just 50 years apart each time). Obviously Tolkien would have just rewritten the entire thing - but if for some reason he hadn't, I think this is the most likely solution for him to have used.

The Late Timeline is updated to match this conclusion; I've also removed Celeborn to his own little section at the bottom saying that he's not in there.

Originally Posted by Last Writings

Thus he [Círdan] forfeited the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to see the Blessed Realm and find again there Olwë and his own nearest kin.

I think "his own" is deliberately there to avoid implying Olwe's family - "Olwe and his nearest kin" would mean that, so "his own" looks like an attempt to be explicit that it is Cirdan's kin. The fact that the sentence puts Olwe first might imply that Olwe is close kin to Cirdan; presumably he'd be an uncle, since as you rightly say, Cirdan Nowe was born at Cuivienen.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

However, I'd like to point out that Ingwe conceived children in Aman too.

Source? I'm not doubting it, I just don't remember seeing it. It would make sense - Ingwe seems to have been the most impatient to reach Aman, so he and Ilwen would avoid having more children on the March, and their second was born just before it.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

First off, I think you have to revise the timeline again, due to "during their long tarrying on the shores of the 'Sea of Rhun'"...

That's in there; they linger by Rhun from 2232 to 2362.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Before I make my point about Ents, it occurred to me that maybe you could add certain dates before the First Age (i.e. before VY 850/1) -

1) the creation of the Two Trees (VY 1/1)

2) the creation of the Dwarves by Aule, and other still applicable events (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Year_of_the_Trees_1000 )

The Trees, yes; that's a nice fixed date. The Dwarves I can't do, for the same reason I've avoided the Council of the Valar; I have no evidence either way on whether Tolkien would keep the actual SY between those events and the Awakening, or the relative dating between the Trees and the Awakening. (Same goes for all the Almaren stuff, which has ends up looking much quicker against the 850 VY between the Trees and the Quendi - there's just no useful data.)

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

How do you make sense of this mess?

Well, obviously Fangorn is Tom Bombadil, as they are both Eldest...

No, all right. If we want to accept both "Ents are the first rational creatures" and "Elves are eldest", then I think we have to say that the Ents consider themselves to have only become rational when they acquired language. Fangorn hints at this, when he says Some of us are still true Ents, and lively enough in our fashion, but many are growing sleepy, going tree-ish, as you might say. Tree-ish Ents are no longer "true Ents" - just as pre-speech Ents weren't.

So the Ents were the first to be incarnated, and Ere iron was found or tree was hewn... it walked the forests long ago. But until Elves began it, of course, waking trees up and teaching them to speak..., they weren't (in their own view) truly Ents.

As for when... the published Silm has Yavanna coming up with the idea for Ents right after Aule creates the Dwarves, but Manwe says they will only come to be after the Children awaken. If we want the Ents to walk before the Quendi awake, then they must have been created at that time. When that would be, I'm not going to try and guess.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The Master wants updateses, yes he does. Nice Master, very kind to poor Huinessssoron.

Sorry about that! It did sound like that to me on second viewing, but anyway...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

In any event: I have decided to anchor on the birth of Luthien/3 Ages concept. I don't want to use a compressed GA, as I specifically didn't compress the "blocks" in AAm. Anchoring on either end gives problems. And Luthien's birth is the only date which has an internal logic to it (the rest are basically just 50 years apart each time). Obviously Tolkien would have just rewritten the entire thing - but if for some reason he hadn't, I think this is the most likely solution for him to have used.

I still have reservations about the whole '3 ages of the imprisonment of Melkor' - perhaps you could convert the 2874.6 figure (in the AAm) into something similar but more duodecimal - let's say 2,880 SY years (20 x 144).

Or otherwise - you could simply keep the whole 144 x 15 (i.e. 2,160 years) idea...I don't know.


Also! I thought that you would shave off 144 SY from the timeline - so that the timeline would end in c. 5,930 or so.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The Late Timeline is updated to match this conclusion; I've also removed Celeborn to his own little section at the bottom saying that he's not in there.



I think "his own" is deliberately there to avoid implying Olwe's family - "Olwe and his nearest kin" would mean that, so "his own" looks like an attempt to be explicit that it is Cirdan's kin. The fact that the sentence puts Olwe first might imply that Olwe is close kin to Cirdan; presumably he'd be an uncle, since as you rightly say, Cirdan Nowe was born at Cuivienen.

If you're going to remove Celeborn because he's problematic, you really ought to remove Galadriel, Celebrimbor, Gil-galad (though he doesn't feature in the timeline), etc.

My point is that Celeborn's ambiguous origins are no different than Galadriel's - in other words, please just refrain to using what Tolkien's own published texts involve, regardless of utter insanity that followed and progressively intensified as Tolkien was heading towards his '80s.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Source? I'm not doubting it, I just don't remember seeing it. It would make sense - Ingwe seems to have been the most impatient to reach Aman, so he and Ilwen would avoid having more children on the March, and their second was born just before it.

Sorry, I was busy with other stuff - here it is:

Alone among the Eldar I have no wife, and must hope for no sons save one, and for no daughter. Whereas Ingwe and Olwe beget many children in the bliss of Aman. Must I remain ever so?

- MR, 'Later Quenta', §10, p. 258

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

That's in there; they linger by Rhun from 2232 to 2362.

Sorry, I'm a dumbass.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The Trees, yes; that's a nice fixed date. The Dwarves I can't do, for the same reason I've avoided the Council of the Valar; I have no evidence either way on whether Tolkien would keep the actual SY between those events and the Awakening, or the relative dating between the Trees and the Awakening. (Same goes for all the Almaren stuff, which has ends up looking much quicker against the 850 VY between the Trees and the Quendi - there's just no useful data.)

There's no 'Almaren stuff' in the revised timeline, since the whole 'Two Lamps' and the consequences of their destruction aren't a part of it.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

No, all right. If we want to accept both "Ents are the first rational creatures" and "Elves are eldest", then I think we have to say that the Ents consider themselves to have only become rational when they acquired language. Fangorn hints at this, when he says Some of us are still true Ents, and lively enough in our fashion, but many are growing sleepy, going tree-ish, as you might say. Tree-ish Ents are no longer "true Ents" - just as pre-speech Ents weren't.

So the Ents were the first to be incarnated, and Ere iron was found or tree was hewn... it walked the forests long ago. But until Elves began it, of course, waking trees up and teaching them to speak..., they weren't (in their own view) truly Ents.

As for when... the published Silm has Yavanna coming up with the idea for Ents right after Aule creates the Dwarves, but Manwe says they will only come to be after the Children awaken. If we want the Ents to wake before the Quendi awake, then they must have been created at that time. When that would be, I'm not going to try and guess.

According to the latest version of the legendarium, Men awoke after the Dwarves - the whole "awaking after the Children of Iluvatar" makes zero sense unless the Ents awoke after Men.



EDIT: sorry, I left an [/I] instead of [/QUOTE]

[Arvegil145]

BTW, @Huinesoron, what do you think about the idea of creating a post (recorded)-Fourth Age timeline?

There is, to my surprise, actually some meat to the basic skeleton that Tolkien mentioned in his '1960 of the 7th Age' comment - it most certainly wouldn't be a simple repetition of the dates of the SA and TA.

Though I suppose that 'meat' might be significantly cut down if one were to exclude the 'Notion Club Papers'...

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I still have reservations about the whole '3 ages of the imprisonment of Melkor' - perhaps you could convert the 2874.6 figure (in the AAm) into something similar but more duodecimal - let's say 2,880 SY years (20 x 144).

Or otherwise - you could simply keep the whole 144 x 15 (i.e. 2,160 years) idea...I don't know.

Yes, you could do any of those things. "Three Ages" is the only one for which there are multiple sources tied to it (the AAm entry for his release, and the GA entry for Luthien's birth), so I have used it as the version with the "most evidence". It also gives the best Beleriand dates ("best dates" being the same logic I used for the Finwean calculations). Out of curiousity, here's where the three versions fall in the timeline, with the Unchaining fixed to the death of the Trees:

• 1153 - "Heresy" among the Quendi.
• 1681 - Chaining of Melkor ('duodecimal AAm' = 2880 SY)
• 1686 - Chaining of Melkor ('AAm' = 2875 SY)
• 1778 - Awakening of Men.
• 2016 - Finding of the Quendi.
• 2232 - Great March begins.
• 2373 - Vanyar and Noldor pass Greenwood after Orome drives out Sauron's evils, and settle east of Anduin in Atyamar.
• 2401 - Chaining of Melkor ('3 Ages' = 15 VY = 2160 SY)
• 2426 - Teleri begin to arrive in Atyamar, having come around the southern end of Greenwood.
• 2652 - The March is over.
• 2808 - Noldor and Vanyar arrive in Aman.
• 2833 - Chaining of Melkor ('3 Ages' = 12 VY = 1728 SY)
• 3084 - Teleri under Olwe depart Beleriand.
• 4561 - Release of Melkor

Using the AAm date definitely doesn't work, falling before even the Finding. The choice between 15 VY or 12 VY can be based on two things:

1. Per VI.B. "the rescue of the Quendi must be … before the assault upon Utumno". How far away do the Quendi need to be before the Valar will risk assaulting Melkor? Is "beyond the Greenwood" far enough? Equally, would they really wait more than 1 VY after the Quendi reached Beleriand to start the attack?

2. Tinuviel, Tinuviel. 12 VY puts her birth in 3409, as on the Timeline; 15 VY pushes it back to 2880, which is 223 SY before Elwe awakens.

I think the combination of the direct statement from VI.B, and the calculations from Luthien, make 2833 the best date for the Chaining. If you wind up creating your own timeline, you can weight the evidence differently; all it affects is the Fall of Utumno and the Beleriand dates.

Bonus calculation: per AAm, the war with Utumno lasted 11 "VY" (at 9.58 SY): a running battle 1090-92, the siege from 1092-1099, and the Chaining in 1100. If that timeline is maintained, then the war begins 105 SY before the Chaining. If the Chaining is 2401 (15 VY), then the war starts in 2296 while the Quendi are in Rhun; if the Chaining is in 2833, the war starts in 2728, one SY off from half a VY after "All the Eldar of the main host are in Beleriand".

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Also! I thought that you would shave off 144 SY from the timeline - so that the timeline would end in c. 5,930 or so.

XVII.2 gives the years between the Finding and the death of the Trees. I adjusted to match that.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

If you're going to remove Celeborn because he's problematic, you really ought to remove Galadriel, Celebrimbor, Gil-galad (though he doesn't feature in the timeline), etc.

The issues with Celeborn and Galadriel are completely different. Celeborn - whoever he's related to - is dated once, with a big "at least" and a huge "if this calculation is correct (it probably isn't)". Since we've thrown out the 3100 SY, there's no basis left to his birthdate. Galadriel, meanwhile, has too many sources; I list three on the Timeline and I think we've discussed others.

Celebrimbor the Sinda is hilarious, because it doesn't fit with anything else - Daeron has no wife and an infatuation with Luthien, so this Celebrimbor would have to be born in the Second Age, so can't be a descendent of Feanor or a resident of Gondolin. You already convinced me to drop that one.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

There's no 'Almaren stuff' in the revised timeline, since the whole 'Two Lamps' and the consequences of their destruction aren't a part of it.

They're not mentioned in any post-AAm/GA source, no. Neither are the birthdates of the descendents of Finwe, the building of Menegroth, or frankly most of the stuff we're putting in here. Given that the Valar were building domes to grow trees in because the Sun just wasn't shiny enough for them, I'd need a solid source saying there weren't Lamps before I'd say they never existed.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

According to the latest version of the legendarium, Men awoke after the Dwarves - the whole "awaking after the Children of Iluvatar" makes zero sense unless the Ents awoke after Men.

You see why I'm leaving the Ents out. The sources disagree too strongly.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

BTW, @Huinesoron, what do you think about the idea of creating a post (recorded)-Fourth Age timeline?

There is, to my surprise, actually some meat to the basic skeleton that Tolkien mentioned in his '1960 of the 7th Age' comment - it most certainly wouldn't be a simple repetition of the dates of the SA and TA.

Though I suppose that 'meat' might be significantly cut down if one were to exclude the 'Notion Club Papers'...

Honestly, I agree that a Grand Unified Timeline of all the Ages of Arda, from the arrival of the Valar to the release of Rings of Power Season 2, would be both amazing and hilarious. But having seen how complicated it is just for this piece of the First Age, I'm not sure I could handle it!

For one thing, the latest source on "how long ago was this" is NoME 1.VI (the "1960 of the 7th Age" text), which adds 3000 years to the usual "6000 years" version, contradicts the astronomy in LotR, and aligns best with stuff from the Lost Road era. And let's not even ask how long the Valar were in Arda before the creation of the Trees!

(3500 AAm VY, but that's about a fifth of the time between the creation of the Trees and the Awakening of the Quendi. You'd probably want to either treat the pre-Trees stuff as 144SY years, making it 504 000 SY, or keep the ratio of 3500:1000 for Beginning-Trees:Trees-Awakening, which makes it about 428 000 SY.)

hS

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Honestly, I agree that a Grand Unified Timeline of all the Ages of Arda, from the arrival of the Valar to the release of Rings of Power Season 2, would be both amazing and hilarious. But having seen how complicated it is just for this piece of the First Age, I'm not sure I could handle it!

Lies, lies, lies. Of course I went ahead and did it.

The Unified Tolkien Timeline runs from the entry of the Valar into Arda, through to the discovery of the Notion Club Papers. It's not complete - I've skipped the bulk of the Grey Annals and Tale of Years (2nd-4th ages), and the Lost Road material from the 7th Age is missing - but it gets the outlines in place.

I've used the current Late Timeline in its entirety, and drawn on the Ages discussion. As we're using latest sources, the question of how long ago this all was is simple: Bel. 310 is 16 000 years before 1960 CE. I've used the 2700-year Fourth Age from the Ages thread, and put the end of the Fifth Age at the end of the 4.2-kiloyear event; the dates pretty much line up, though it looks like our own Age must be coming to an end...

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The issues with Celeborn and Galadriel are completely different. Celeborn - whoever he's related to - is dated once, with a big "at least" and a huge "if this calculation is correct (it probably isn't)". Since we've thrown out the 3100 SY, there's no basis left to his birthdate. Galadriel, meanwhile, has too many sources; I list three on the Timeline and I think we've discussed others.

Celebrimbor the Sinda is hilarious, because it doesn't fit with anything else - Daeron has no wife and an infatuation with Luthien, so this Celebrimbor would have to be born in the Second Age, so can't be a descendent of Feanor or a resident of Gondolin. You already convinced me to drop that one.

Did we threw away the 3,100 years idea?

As to Celebrimbor, descendant of Daeron, I have no comments other than one - maybe you shouldn't treat that which Tolkien wrote last as scripture. (Not saying you do - but anyway...)

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

They're not mentioned in any post-AAm/GA source, no. Neither are the birthdates of the descendents of Finwe, the building of Menegroth, or frankly most of the stuff we're putting in here. Given that the Valar were building domes to grow trees in because the Sun just wasn't shiny enough for them, I'd need a solid source saying there weren't Lamps before I'd say they never existed.

Other than being very conspicuously absent from c. late '50s to Tolkien's death in 1973?

All else is fanfiction in the worst way possible.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

For one thing, the latest source on "how long ago was this" is NoME 1.VI (the "1960 of the 7th Age" text), which adds 3000 years to the usual "6000 years" version, contradicts the astronomy in LotR, and aligns best with stuff from the Lost Road era. And let's not even ask how long the Valar were in Arda before the creation of the Trees!

If I'm being honest, I don't give a toss about 'strange astronomy!' - is this really going to be the crux of all this stuff? Unless you're an astronomer, I can't see why anyone would give a single damn about the intricacies of this stuff.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Did we threw away the 3,100 years idea?

There are 3264 years from the arrival to the end of the Age. That's far enough off that I can't honestly say it matches the 3100 XVIII statement, especially since that quote says it was probably wrong.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Other than being very conspicuously absent from c. late '50s to Tolkien's death in 1973?

I feel like there were lots of things not written about by Tolkien post-AAm/GA; that doesn't mean they were discarded. The Lamps were always something of an afterthought to the Trees; it's entirely possible Tolkien was simply waiting until he had the "round-world Trees" story straightened out before bothering to think about the Lamps.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

If I'm being honest, I don't give a toss about 'strange astronomy!' - is this really going to be the crux of all this stuff? Unless you're an astronomer, I can't see why anyone would give a single damn about the intricacies of this stuff.

I mean, Tolkien devoted whole calendars to the phases of the moon, it's entirely possible the seasonal rising of Orion and how it changes over millennia was also on his mind. However, in my view the later explicit 16 000 years quote trumps any possible unrecorded workings on that score.

Not sure if you missed it, but I did put together a bare-bones Unified Timeline, from the entry of the Valar into Arda to the discovery of the Notion Club Papers.

hS

[Arvegil145]

First of, I have to apologize for my tone in the above post - I haven't slept for two days and for some reason decided to post here. Not that any of that is an excuse.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I feel like there were lots of things not written about by Tolkien post-AAm/GA; that doesn't mean they were discarded. The Lamps were always something of an afterthought to the Trees; it's entirely possible Tolkien was simply waiting until he had the "round-world Trees" story straightened out before bothering to think about the Lamps.

My biggest problem with the Lamps post-'Round World legendarium' (other than their complete absence) is their necessity.

There was a clear purpose behind them in the 'Flat World legendarium' - they were the original light source on Arda back then: however, since the Sun existed from the beginning in Tolkien's later framework, there is obviously no need for a light source other than the Sun, except in the sense of said light containing the 'light of Iluvatar' that originally was contained within the Sun.

That is where the Two Trees come into focus - their role in the RW legendarium isn't that of a light source per se, but as a last vestige of that 'holy' light, which later on is in turn only preserved in the silmarils.

Problem is, the Trees were never intended to be the original source of light illuminating the whole world, even in the earliest legendarium - the Lamps filled that purpose in the pre-RW legendarium. But then, Tolkien changed his mind and made the Sun into the original source of light instead (assuming the same role that the Lamps had previously), with the Trees being created much later to preserve the 'holy' light which the Sun originally had.

In other words, from a story-telling perspective, the Sun replaced the Lamps in its primary role as the original main source of light on Arda (or Ambar in the RW version).

Or to put it this way:

1) 'Flat World legendarium': Lamps > Trees > Sun and Moon/Silmarils

2) 'Round World legendarium' (concerning the carriers of the 'holy' light): Sun > Trees > Silmarils

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I mean, Tolkien devoted whole calendars to the phases of the moon, it's entirely possible the seasonal rising of Orion and how it changes over millennia was also on his mind. However, in my view the later explicit 16 000 years quote trumps any possible unrecorded workings on that score.

Not sure if you missed it, but I did put together a bare-bones Unified Timeline, from the entry of the Valar into Arda to the discovery of the Notion Club Papers.

Yeah, I was being embarrassingly flippant about the whole situation regarding 'astronomy'.


In regards to your timeline, I missed it - I'll check it out.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

First of, I have to apologize for my tone in the above post - I haven't slept for two days and for some reason decided to post here. Not that any of that is an excuse.

It's not a problem. You came across as abrupt but not angry. Hopefully you've managed to sleep now?

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

My biggest problem with the Lamps post-'Round World legendarium' (other than their complete absence) is their necessity.

There was a clear purpose behind them in the 'Flat World legendarium' - they were the original light source on Arda back then: however, since the Sun existed from the beginning in Tolkien's later framework, there is obviously no need for a light source other than the Sun, except in the sense of said light containing the 'light of Iluvatar' that originally was contained within the Sun.

Interesting... I went back and looked at the BoLT version, and the course of the "light of Iluvatar" is even more complex: it starts with light as a sort of floating liquid that is gathered into the Lamps and then regathered into the cauldrons Kulullin and Silindrin, before the Trees ever sprout.

Your mention of the Sun no longer having its "holy" light in the Round World conception makes me think of the BoLT "rekindling of the Magic Sun", in which the Sun was originally strongly magical but was defiled by Melko (who may or may not have killed its pilot). Obviously the idea that the Eldar could restore the power of the Sun by sailing Eressea over to Europe and fighting Germans didn't come back, but it seems like Tolkien returned to at least some of this. Do you know what he decided had reduced the "holiness" of the Sun in the Round World model?

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

It's not a problem. You came across as abrupt but not angry. Hopefully you've managed to sleep now?

I wasn't angry as such, but I definitely was a prick, so an apology is the least I could do.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Interesting... I went back and looked at the BoLT version, and the course of the "light of Iluvatar" is even more complex: it starts with light as a sort of floating liquid that is gathered into the Lamps and then regathered into the cauldrons Kulullin and Silindrin, before the Trees ever sprout.

Your mention of the Sun no longer having its "holy" light in the Round World conception makes me think of the BoLT "rekindling of the Magic Sun", in which the Sun was originally strongly magical but was defiled by Melko (who may or may not have killed its pilot). Obviously the idea that the Eldar could restore the power of the Sun by sailing Eressea over to Europe and fighting Germans didn't come back, but it seems like Tolkien returned to at least some of this. Do you know what he decided had reduced the "holiness" of the Sun in the Round World model?

I mean, assuming that Tolkien kept in his head through the years what he wrote in the 'Myths Transformed', the (original) Sun was effectively...assaulted...out of existence by Melkor:

But Melkor, as hath been told, lusted after all light, desiring it jealously for his own. Moreover he soon perceived that in Âs there was a light that had been concealed from him, and which had a power of which he had not thought. Therefore, afire at once with desire and anger, he went to Asa, and he spoke to Árië, saying: 'I have chosen thee, and thou shalt be my spouse, even as Varda is to Manwë, and together we shall wield all splendour and mastery. Then the kingship of Arda shall be mine in deed as in right, and thou shalt be the partner of my glory.' But Árië rejected Melkor and rebuked him, saying: 'Speak not of right, which thou hast long forgotten. Neither for thee nor by thee alone was Eä made; and thou shalt not be King of Arda. Beware therefore; for there is in the heart of Âs a light in which thou hast no part, and a fire which will not serve thee. Put not out thy hand to it. For though thy potency may destroy it, it will burn thee and thy brightness will be made dark.'

Melkor did not heed her warning, but cried in his wrath: 'The gift which is withheld I take!' and he ravished Árië, desiring both to abase her and to take into himself her powers. Then the spirit of Árië went up like a flame of anguish and wrath, and departed for ever from Arda; and the Sun was bereft of the Light of Varda, and was stained by the assault of Melkor. And being for a long while without rule it flamed with excessive heat or grew too cool, so that grievous hurt was done to Arda and the fashioning of the world was marred and delayed, until with long toil the Valar made a new order. But even as Árië foretold, Melkor was burned and his brightness darkened, and he gave no more light, but light pained him exceedingly and he hated it.

- MR, 'Myths Transformed', Text II, pp. 380-1