![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#81 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
VE-04: The Lost Tales fragments will of course end up being a little choppy no matter what we do with them. So I guess I can live with Findegil's last proposal, despite the unevenness in style. I'm still torn on the issue of whether these fragments really ought to be used. But as both of you want to use them, I suppose we shall. I will try to see if I can come up with any alternative ways of editing them together, though I doubt I can do any better.
VE-11: Findegil wrote: Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 | |
The Kinslayer
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#83 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Posted by Maedhros:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#84 | |
The Kinslayer
|
Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I went back and looked (albeit quickly) at each change individually.
VE-01: The original changes look fine VE-02: I expressed some doubts earlier in the thread about using QS77 and AB here. I still have these reservations, but it's not a critical point to me. VE-03: I think we came to an agreement on this. VE-04: This looks good. VE-05: I'm not sure whether we finally agreed on Findegil's proposal (post 50) to switch the paragraphs. I would go with it. VE-06: Good. VE-07: It still feels a little awkward to me, but I think there may be nothing we can do about that. The one thing that strikes me that we might change is: Quote:
VE-08: I'm confused. Did we accidentally start calling this "VE-04" above? We elected not to use LotR additions. Did we come to an agreement on the LT? VE-09: Correcting "Lothrim" back to "folk of Sirion" as agreed, this looks good. VE-10: I believe Maedhros had a possible objection to the addition from the Name-list which was never resolved. VE-11: Looking back at this, I think that the addition of the LT material on the Sleeper in the Tower of Pearl is very disjointed. We might try smoothing it out - but no matter what we do, it will be awkward, since it plays no logical role in the sentence it interrupts. Even if we keep it, we must consider the poem. As I said earlier, there is a major problem there with lines like: Quote:
VE-12: I think this is good. VE-13: After being discussed at great length, this section looks good to me. VE-14 - VE-19: With the minor corrections to these, they are good. VE-20: Did we ever come to a final decision on the MT additions? I'm still inclined against them. VE-21: I think the decision in the Prophecy thread is good. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#86 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
I will try to comment on the § questioned by Aiwendil:
VE-02: In addition to the marked haven just south of the cape of Balar, I hold the way to introduce Avernien here as highly disierable. Also I think that we have to add Gil-galad in these § (the change is numbered VE-03). Thus the addition from QS77 seems in place to introduce the way Gil-galad came to them. What is left than is the Silmaril and the Elessar healing them. The introduction of the Elessar is needed since we tell the further story of the stone. And since its ability was to heal the hurts of the world this function should be added here from AB2. But two thinks are awakward for me: Can the crused Silmaril bring belssing to anybody? I don't think so, especially in view of the role the cruse play the the Nauglamir chapter. And did the fugutives realy multiply? They might become swelled by further arrivals but the naturell interpretation would be child bearing and birth, which I find very unlikely for Elves in such a situation of a last revuge. I would rather skip the "and multiplied". Thus we would get: Quote:
VE-05: Since I brought it in I also find it a good solution to switch the §§. VE-07: The "then" as an editorial brigde looks good for me. The flow of the text is deal better with it. VE-08: It seemed that this was my fault. My appologies. I head-lined it in post no. 80 VE-04 which is clearly wrong. VE-10: I thought Maedhros did agree to them when I gave the apropirate source information. But Meadhros might comment on that better. VE-11: Does this work better: Quote:
Quote:
For the phrase "past Gondobar" we also have to take the singer into account. As I read the poem it recounts here a song that the sleeper in the tower utters to the mariners that go by. But he is an very isolated being that had no news from the world outside his tower. Thus even if he had heared from Eärendil that Gondolin was no more he might still express the longing for accompainment with the mariners by a (wrong) discription of area he belived they came from. Especially that becomes belivable for me when we think of his history as a messenger of Turgon. VE-20: At least I thought that your arguments against them were valid. But Maedhros suggested these addition. He might still say something for their inclusion. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#87 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
VE-02: As I look at this again I begin to see your point. My only reservation is that the additions from AB cannot really be necessary, as Tolkien didn't add these points into Q30. I wonder about the date of AB2, though. Christopher seems unsure about the time of its composition, but I wonder whether we may safely assume it's from after 1930. If so, then I could see the additions being justifiable as updates to the earlier account.
I agree now about the Gil-Galad additions from QS77, though. I don't see the need to eliminate "and multiplied". I do understand your concern, but Tolkien clearly thought it was okay in AB2. I also don't see a problem with the Silmaril bringing blessing upon them. The Silmarils are not like the Ring - they are not inherently evil. It is only the Oath of Feanor and the Doom of the Noldor that, as it were, attach a sort of evil to them - or perhaps "evil" isn't the right word even here; they attach doom to them. And the havens do indeed come under the Doom of the Noldor in the Third Kin-slaying. VE-11: Well, it's going to be a bit awkward any way. Maybe we could use a "there" to smooth things out: Quote:
Quote:
As for the divers and their hoarded sparks - as I understand it, the motivation for these lines is the story in the LT version of "The Hiding of Valinor" that some of the radiance of the sun was dropped accidentally into the ocean. With that story removed, all justification for the lines is also gone. We could invent some justification, but that would be fan-fiction, whether we explicitly state it or not. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | |||||
The Kinslayer
|
I think that Findegil explanation of VE-02 is ok. I have no problems with the additions from AB2.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, I like Aiwendil's suggestion regarding VE-11. I think now that if find that the Poem is in any way unsuitable to our purpose because it is difficult to enmend, then we should drop it. Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#89 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
VE-02: Posted by Aiwendil:
Quote:
Concerning the blessing brought by the Silmaril: Maybe I did not make my argument clear enough. What I meant was not the general fate the Silmaril brought to any possesor, i meant that this special Silmaril was bound up with the Naglamir. And that Necklace was really crused by Mîm to bring woe to anybody who possesed it. Now that does not mean that the Silmaril could not bring blessing to the Folk of Sirion while the Nauglamir brought (in the end) woe to Elwing who possesed it. If both of you think the sentence can stand we will keep it. VE-11: Posted by Aiwendil: Quote:
Concerning "Gondobar": Okay, if the destination of the journey that the Sleeper did (rightly?) ascribe to the Mariners is the Door of Night as it is discribed in LT, my argument is clearly not valid. But then that does not fit any cosmology what so ever. Since that Door is further west then the "grey Islands" (and anythink else) however can Gondobar then lay between the Sleeper and the destination he did ascribe to the mariners? But how then can the load of the ships can be named "sparks of orient fire"? The "orient fire" must be found in the east! This is also told in LT in The Hiding of Valinor: Quote:
The same goes for the "sparks of orient fire": The words are still part of the revised poem, when the story that motivated them had gone but Tolkien retained the words than the meaning he intended for these words must have changed. We could speculat about the new meaning as I have done in my last post but that was not meant to be mentioned anywhere, it was just meant to be an example of how it could be interpreted in the new circumstances Tolkien put them. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
VE-02: Even if the curse of Mim brought eventual doom upon the Havens via the Nauglamir, the Silmaril may simultaneously have brought blessing. I definitely still vote for keeping it.
VE-11: Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
It is "orient" spark, I think, because it comes from the Sun, which rises in the east. That Tolkien revised it in 1940 does not necessarily mean that he considered it canonically valid at that point. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
VE-02: Okay, your are perhaps right in this, though I can accept that.
VE1-11: I think we must analyse the Song completely through before we can get some answers. So I will start to give my view of it. For convenience I will give first the text of the poem as revised in 1940. For reference I have numbered the lines according to the numbering in LT (some line were skipped in 1940): Quote:
The line 10 to 14 are more critical. They doe tell us something about the journey of the mariners: Line 10 does tell us that the ships are sailing from east to west at the moment described by the poem. Line 11 to 14 doe tell us some thing about the load the ships carry and therewith some thing of the purpose and course of the journey they had undertaken before they encounter the Tower (possibly for the second time). With our knowledge of LT we could make that knowledge of the journey more clear: The mariners are "elfin divers{, and divers of the fays}" that had "sought beyond the outmost East" for "secret sparks in many an unknown ocean cavern". What the sparks are in the circumstances of the LT is clear: "much precious radiance [that] was spilled in their [the Gods] attempts about the deepest waters" "to draw the Sun ... beneath the Earth". But this concept is clearly gone in 1940 when the poem was last revised and even earlier when the poem was greatly reshaped. Thus what Tolkien meant the "orient fire in many a hoarded spark" to be, in the later version is unknown to us and we should kept it dubious. Line 15 to 22 tell us that the mariners did know that the tower was inhabited and sing a farewell to him which led him to his lament in the second half of the poem. How did they know about him? This raise the question were the journey of this mariners started. Were did they come from? In my view they could only be Teleri (Solosimpi) that had come from Eldamar and crossed the tower once before. Or (and that might prove the killing argument for the inclusion of the poem) if the scene for the poem was later they were Elves of Tol Eressea that were on such a journey. If the west as the home of mariners and the place of their final destination is accepted, than the next trouble some lines 23 to 28 become clearer: The "journey fare" had led the "happy mariners" from their home "beyond the grey islands [were the tower stood] and past Gondobar" (poetic form of an messenger of Turgon to say) fare to the east and know they are heading back into the west "to those great portals on the final shores where far away constellate fountains leap, and dashed against Night's dragon-headed doors in foam of stars fall sparkling in the deep!" Thus my conclusion in the last post was clearly wrong the "portal on the last shore" is the door of the night. And this again hints at a later date for the scene, since the door is only necessary when Morgoth is finally put outside the world. In my view the rest of the poem is more or less uncritical. In this long and winding post I have now explained to the best of my ability what kind of journey the happy mariners did undertake and how the description given in the poem can be interpreted in accordance with that, but I also convinced myself that the journey described would be impossible before the bane of the Noldor was lifted and Morgoth was finally overthrown. Thus I am now convinced that we should not include the poem in the chapter of The Voyage of Eärendil. If there is any place for it in our work it must be placed in the second age, but that is far in the future so we need not discuss it now. (That's what is so nice in our discussion: I will learn which each new post - in some rare cases even with my own once.) So I think we are settled at long last concerning the poem. We will not include it here. But I still think we should keep the Sleeper in the Tower of Pearl even if his song is gone. Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Some thing that came to mind after I did my above discussion of the Happy mariners song:
The Door of Night is only two times mentioned in Sil77 both times in the chapter The Voyges of Eärendil. Once when Eärendil passed it with his ship to lunch it into the sky and the other time when Morgoth is put through it to put him outside the world. In view of the old conception of the door as a way through which the Sun did went out to journey by night under the flat world that was okay, but since we have now the chasm of Ilme through which Sun and Moon make their journey under the roots of the World to the east, we must ask how Eärendil can be said to pass the Door of Night to come into the sky. And since he is told to come back to Valinor he must cross the Door of Night often which isn't very proable. And which propurse did the Door fulfill at that time at all? In view of what we read in Myths transformed I must say that it would be savest to skip the Door of Night from the journeys of Eärendil. That would lead to: Quote:
Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
VE-11: I suppose that if we agree that the poem ought not to be used here, there's no point in continuing to debate its meaning (not yet, anyway).
As for the Door of Night: Tolkien still considered it valid in 1937 when he added it back to QS. As far as I recall, the old conception was that the Door of Night was not made until Melkor was cast out; but Tolkien's additions to QS have it existing before then. If it's not mentioned anywhere else in the narrative then there can be no contradiction. Which Myths Transformed texts are you referring to? We're not using that cosmology in any case. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
The question I raised proves much more diffcult than I thought!
The text in Myths Trabsformed reffered to in my last post is in § iii of text VII Notes on motives in the Silmarillion.: Quote:
However the Door of Night can stand as a passage of Eärendils journey in the sky in our version even if I find it still odd. Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I agree that the Door of Night feels a bit odd. The whole QS/Ainulindale D cosmology feels a little odd to me, actually. But we're not going with the Myths Transformed cosmology and since "Door of Night" is used in QS I say we stick with it.
It looks to me like the only thing left not completely resolved is VE-08. I've gone back and forth on whether the Lost Tales fragments work here. In the end, though, I think it would be safer not to. So I guess I vote against them. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 | ||
The Kinslayer
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
That is right but the direct respons Aiwendil did say that he was tempted to use the LT fragments. And thus I did re-incooperat them after you also suported them. Thus up to Aiwendils last post I thought we would use them. But as I said in post #77:I would like to have them included but I can live without them.
Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I've gone over things again just to be sure and I can find nothing else that is not settled.
It looks to me like we're done with the Voyage of Earendil (for now, anyway). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Okay, that's nice. I have a Dokument nearly ready for this chapter. I have just to controll it again so that it contains the last things deciede here. (Just to prevent some double working.)
Respectfull Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
The Kinslayer
|
![]()
Wow, that definitely took less time than the 2 years it took for our Fall of Gondolin.
Does that mean that we can now continue with our discussion about the Ruin of Doriath.
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
I found some further snippets of text that we need to consider for this chapter:
The first is from the Sil77 and will give a better coupling between the telling of Tuors departure and Eärendil’s voyage. And it will introduce the marriage of Eärendil and Elwing and their children Elrond and Elros: Quote:
Quote:
And we have later on a passage from Ros: Quote:
Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 | |||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Armenelos
Posts: 37
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Either way, the description of Mandos about what the War of Wrath will not be able to do for Middle-earth (i.e. cleanse it entirely) is a very good addition to the story, especially since the Akallabêth and Of the Rings of Power are right around the corner...
__________________
"Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you." —Eru Ilúvatar |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Findegil wrote:
Quote:
In any case, I'm quite hesitant about using the 'Shibboleth' and 'Ros' material here; the etymological aside completely disrupts the narrative and is blatantly out of place. On the other hand, I do recognize the desirability of includinig that information if possible. Note, though, that if this material (or some form of it) is added here, the "Yet" that begins VE-07.8 no longer has any reference and must be deleted. The next proposed addition is VE-11.025, correct? I think it is a good idea to add the detail of Elrond and Elros being found in a cave behind a waterfall, but I would try to avoid the redundancy which you've already noted. Concerning VE-11.035, I think that Tar-Telperien is right here (and welcome to the project, by the way!). The information here is good, but the bit concerning the languages spoken at Sirion is jarring and disruptive. I think Tar-Telperien's proposed revision is suitable. I don't see a particular problem with the Silmarillion material's anticipation of the content of Earendil's prayer (it is, after all, fairly obvious that he is going to ask for the pardon and aid of the Valar). However, I would delete the "And his prayers were granted" which now comes out of sequence. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Armenelos
Posts: 37
![]() |
Thank you.
If we are going to use that Ros segment, should we replace Atani with Edain? This is potentially a big issue—sometimes the word Atani means "all Men", and other times it is used as a synonym of its Sindarin cognate, Edain—"the Men of the Three Houses who aided the Elves in their war against Morgoth". This Atani/Edain conflict could easily come up in other places, too; has any consensus been made on it? Aiwendil, I had also considered cutting out that line, but I like its "definiteness"... I was wondering if there was a way we could break up that long sentence about the languages of the prayers and sneak it in somewhere. But if not, oh well.
__________________
"Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you." —Eru Ilúvatar |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 | |||||||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Postes by Aiwendil:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By Aiwendil: Quote:
VE_11.025: Okay since we agree to shorten it, what about this: Quote:
Quote:
Even so I at first impulse tend personally to a replacement, I must say that at best this would be a replacment for clearness which normaly do only if confusions is inserted by our edting. But this I do not see here. If Tolkien used it both ways why shouldn't we? Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 12-17-2007 at 06:58 AM. |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#106 | ||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Sorry for my delay in responding.
I see now I was looking at an old version of the text (a .pdf made by Antoine in March 2004). I had your version here all along but for some reason was looking at the wrong one. VE-07.8: Quote:
VE-11.025: I like your suggestion but would emend it slightly: Quote:
VE-11.035: This revision is excellent. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#107 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,033
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
A) I would say that, since with Tolkien story and nomenclature can be as one, and the meaning of Elrond as (it seems) *Elf of the cave (letter 211) was not to last, one wonders if the fact that he was found in a cave -- explaining his name in this conception -- was still in play. B) but more confusingly for me, I'm wondering if we necessarily have the notion of a fostering here? We know that was part of the Quenta Silmarillion tale, but is it part of this letter? The letter seems to say (to me anyway): Elrond and Elros were carried off by the sons of Feanor, but were not slain, and were left like babes in the wood -- and there they were found (doesn't say by whom) and so forth. But found by a Feanorean? Again it's the Feanoreans who carried them off in the first place, but didn't slay them, and left them. Why leave them if the sons of Feanor intend to foster them? I thought this seemed to echo a version of the fate of Dior's sons, but if so, to leave out that Maglor repented for example (and went back and 'found' them)... well it just seems strange phrasing to me so far. What do others think? We know the Silmarillion tale, but reading the letter as if one hadn't read the Silmarillion... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#108 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
The letter makes this a repeating story: Like the children of Dior, Elrond and Elros are carried of into the woods and left their to die by some of the Feanorians. When may speculate that thes were followers of Amrod, who was killed during the attack, so that his followers sought to avenge him by this cruelty. Others under the direct command of Maeðros and Maelor later searched for them. And in contrast to Elured and Elurin found Elrond and Elros and fostered them with care and later love grew between Maelor and the boyes.
If anything is to be questioned here it is in my oppinion the repetition of the 'babes in the wood' motive. But then it would be the doom of Elured and Elurin which is to be questioned, and we do not have any hint of what else Tolkien supposed for them. So I feel we are bound to use the story of Elured and Elurin lost in the woods of Doriath and accept the repetition of the motive. Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 01-05-2011 at 11:19 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#109 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,033
![]() ![]() |
Hmm, thanks Findegil. That speculation reads possible enough, assuming Tolkien left out some rather notable information here...
Quote:
But possible I suppose, as I say. And I would reiterate the possibility that history might go hand in hand with nomenclature here. If (as we know is true) Elrond no longer means *Elf of the Cave according to text written after this letter, the question arguably becomes: was he found in a cave by anyone? and thus, was he left in the woods in the first place? Not that this question can be answered easily ![]() Last edited by Galin; 01-05-2011 at 08:45 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#110 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
I think you could find examples for everything, story told in letters that are in agreement with the Silmarillion, letters in which Tolkien altered the story told in the Silmarillion and storys that are told in letters in such a way that you are wondering how he could have meant the same story but were we have later scripts that show that in the Silmarillion the story was unchanged.
Therefore if their is a clear contardiction a letter might rule out an earlyer script, but as long as they can be reconciled, I would go with the combined story. Respectfuly Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#111 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 245
![]() |
I'm right with
Findegil wrote Therefore if their is a clear contardiction a letter might rule out an earlyer script, but as long as they can be reconciled, I would go with the combined story. But what is your final text? Greetings |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Our final text reads thus:
Quote:
Respectfuly Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#113 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,033
![]() ![]() |
By the way I noticed that a reference to the Nauglamír has been retained from QN. I don't think it's noted specifically in the constructed Silmarillion, despite that Elwing wore the Silmaril upon her breat somehow. It's interesting: in the early QN I the Nauglamír is cursed and lost in the Sea, along with the Silmaril. In QN II the Nauglamír is noted, but (IIRC) not after Elwing was raised from the Sea as a bird -- but now the Silmaril is saved with Elwing by Ulmo, although Elwing has the Silmaril upon her breast.
In Bilbo's verse -- if we are allowed to take this as Tolkien's version as conceived of at the time, and not part of Bilbo's artistic opinion -- the use of carcanet would seem to suggest Elwing wore the Nauglamír from up out of the Sea, but took the Silmaril out, and it was bound upon Earendil's brow. If so, what happened to the 'cursed' Nauglamír after? Foster's Guide to Middle-earth wonders if Earendil did not still wear it, at least at times (or something like that), but what's interesting there is that he did not have the use of QN I or II when he published his book, so he appears to be using the poem for guidance... ... in other words, if he's only using the constructed Silmarillion as published, Elwing jumps into the Sea wearing a Silmaril, is saved by Ulmo still wearing a Silmaril; but if the Nauglamír was cursed one might wonder if Ulmo left it to the Sea (if the jewel were still within the necklace before Elwing t this point in the first place), and by his power had Elwing, somehow, continue to wear only the Silmaril. Although in Bilbo's externally 'latest version' of this poem (published in HME or at least by Hammond and Scull), is Elwing necessarily changed into a bird? One would think so, since she flies like one; but we are dealing with a 'god' here... although that's not really my main point anyway. ... it's more about the fate of the Nauglamír itself. Have I forgotten something else? Or something? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Galin, may be we overanalyse the text her but the case is interresting:
In J.R.R. Tolkien last version of the text in the Quenta Noldorinwa we read, that Dior went to Doriath after the fading of Luthien and the death of Beren. We have to asume that he took the Nauglamir with him. Then we read: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In Sil77 the last mention of the Naulglamir is when Dior wears it: Quote:
So it is clear that Christopher Tolkien changed the use of Nauglamir and Silmaril in naming the treasure deliberatly form what he found in the source texts. But the only hint we have for the reason might be JRR Tolkiens use in the Tale of the Year. Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 12-08-2014 at 01:16 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#115 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,033
![]() ![]() |
Thanks Findegil, and to be clear I wasn't questioning your choice in the text, but was looking more for confirmation about what I found in HME.
Last edited by Galin; 12-09-2014 at 06:45 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#116 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
![]()
Greetings again!
Having analysed the changes in the Earendil chapter, I found only 2 things I was unsure of: The first is the use of "Valmar." In the threads I've seen, Valimar was considered the latest form of the name, as it was used in the published LotR. Should it be changed? The second is in this reference: Quote:
Besides these two points, I found only two spelling errors: the first is in the title: it should be Orthad, not Othrad. The second is in the 5th line of the Lay: it should be Gwared, not Gwareth. Aside from that, I am again blown away by the skillful synthesis of the text! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#117 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
{Valmar}[Valimar]: That seems to be a general fault of mine. I had to introduce that general change in all chapters.
{Gwareth}[Gwared] in line 5 of the Lay: Luckily that was a single miss of the general change, Thanks for catching it. Orthad: Ups, that is my typo for sure. Most proberbly it is wrong in all the chapter structure posts. About Eärendil as Lord: I tried to find the end of the end discoussin. But could not fined any think. I will look when I am less tired. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#118 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Awesome! I was reading through the discussion and my understanding was that the Lord was considered not to contradict the kingship of Gil-Galad.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#119 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Okay looking again, I agree that this is an artefakt of my editing process. I will restore it.
Respecfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#120 | ||||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
I actually found a few more things I wanted to comment on:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |