Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
08-23-2017, 04:51 PM | #1 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Chapter 1: Of the Beginning of Time
This is the first draft of the chapter 1 Of the Beginning of Time. The shift of the material from the Ainulindalë into this chapter and the split of this first chapter was discussed in the thread about the Ainulindalë. The shift is as well the reason why some of the changes have already been discussed and why there is kind of a mess with the editing marker in this chapter.
Our text basis would be that of Ainulidalë D given in HoME 10. But it is not much left of it. The text is rather amalgamated from Myths Transfromed, Ainulidalë D, Later Quenta Silmarillion and Annals of Aman. Therefore all snippets that are used have a source info at their beginning. We have four three groups of changes: General changes given in the text below and discussed in the thread ‘General changes in TftE’. These changes are taken up here and marked in the text as changes (e.g. {Úrin}[Húrin]), but they are not indicated by "editorial markers". For the general changes please look into the Thread ‘General changes in TftE’. AINU-zz these were numbered by Antione, when the passages were still part of the Ainulindalë. I will stick to these editing marker for consistence reference. I have renumbered all the other changes with BoT-zz Some conventions of our writing: Normal Text is from the basic text that is mentioned above. Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {to be deleted} = text that should be deleted, for a better readability I have in this file crossed the text out. The forum does not support crossed out text. [ ] = normalised text <source > = additions with source information example = text inserted for grammatical reason / / = outline expansion Normally if an inserted text includes the beginning of a new § these is indicated by a missing “>” at the end of the § and a missing “<” at the beginning of the next. But the source information is not repeated before each §. But sometimes the new § was taken as a new add and handled accordingly. Quote:
BoT-01: If my memory is correct this title was agreed upon in the chapter structure thread were we discussed the split. The alternative was ‘Of the Beginning of Days’ from Sil77. BoT-02: We begin here with a long part from Myths Transformed. It serves nicely as introduction and is the latest source for all this time. As long as it fits to the flat Earth cosmology that we are working in it should be useable. BoT-03: In this editing it can be seen that Ainulindalë was our basis text. Since what we skip at the beginning was replaced with the more elaborated and later account from MT. BoT-04: The §§ 25-27 of the Ainulindalë are used in the corresponding chapter of TftE. The global decision to skip Ælfwine leads to the farther changes in the beginning of this passage. BoT-05, BoT-06 and BoT-07: Here AAm does provide some more fitting and phrases and some more details. BoT-08: MT has here the most specific detail that Melkor was driven into the void outside Arda. BoT-09: I think it important to tell that Melkor all the time desired Arda. BoT-10: We are back to our basis text now. BoT-11: An addition from an more arcane source. But nonetheless worth considering. BoT-12: The seven great Ones of Arda are replaced in the Valaquenta the nine Aratar the high Ones of Arda. Therefore the passage here is skipt. AINU-09 and AINU-10: The famous ‘Yavanna’ as a tree passage. For the long winding discussion leading to this editing look into the Ainulidalë thread. BoT-13: Here we skip the end of the Ainulindalë with its short description of the first Battle and the frame story element of Ælfwine bring Pengolodh to speak farther and jump the beginning of Pengolodh detailed description of the first War. BoT-14: LQ has a bit more of details here. BoT-15: The feast on Almaren is best descript in [/b]AAm[/b]. BoT-16: I added here the information what it meant that the Spring of Arda was marred. BoT-17: The search for Melkor, when the signs of evil are seen is a new element introduced in MT. But for me at least it makes a lot of sense. BoT-18: This Element is more difficult. It comes clearly from a round earth version. It would nonetheless be nice if we could hold it. At least it is clear in all later writings that stopping time form causing changes (as with the Rings of Power) was considered a sin (a deed against the design of Eru). The building of the Lamps might already have come near to such a deed. BoT-19, BoT-20 and BoT-21: For this § Three sources are mixed. Choosing from each the most detailed part. AINU-11: Back to the basis text. But we have to remove the frame story elements here. BoT-22: This is based on the maps, where after the fall of the lamps the three different continents Aman, Middle-earth and the Land of the Sun are build out of the full symmetric single land mass around the See of Almaren. BoT-23, BoT-24: This sounds a bit redundant, but I what is given as action after the darkness and confusion seems worth the mix. BoT-25: The text here was based on an older version of the story where Melkor attacked at once and build Utumno after the battle. There fore editorial change. BoT-26: The Info about Angband is missing from the other used sources. And with that we also give the information that from this time on Sauron was no longer a spy for Melkor among the Valar, but openly sides with Melkor. I think that many of these changes were already discussed in the Ainulindalë thread, before we decided to move the first War to the beginning of the Quenta Silmarillion. The chapter as it stands know as well interferes with the rest of the original first chapter Of Valinor and the two Trees. Therefore I will not waited for the discussion of this chapter to be finished but posted that chapter as soon as I find the time to prepair the draft. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
08-23-2017, 10:36 PM | #2 | |||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Thoughts
Having read through the changes, I have only a few comments:
In the second paragraph, the [sic] is in reference to the grammatically incorrect "being." it should be "beings" plural. In the next paragraph: Quote:
BoT-15: This addition is fine, but: Quote:
BoT-18: This is indeed a problematic section for several reasons. It references a change in light which has not yet happened (as everything is still lit in unchanging day, and the only ill that has happened is the corruption of Melkor) and thus feels out of place. If it were to be included it should be moved to after the fall of the lamps. Even so, I think it too closely tied to the round earth version to be included, as it references day and night, and the sun and moon, long before such things existed. Therefore, I think it is best and safest simply to remove it. BoT-20: This addition is fine but: Quote:
AINU-11: This entire segment until BoT-23 does not fit here. It pretty clearly refers to the original war of the Valar in Arda, as Melkor is said just after this to flee in the darkness and confusion after the fall of the lamps. Thus this whole section should be moved earlier. I would have it replace BoT-05,as it fits in quite nicely. Those were the only things I noticed, the rest was quite wonderful! |
|||
08-24-2017, 07:05 PM | #3 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Arcus Calion worte:
Quote:
Children of God -> Children of ?: I agree that God should be changed. But I think that Children of Ilúvatar is the most natural replacement, or was it your desire to keep a difference by taking Eru? BoT-15: What about: '..., and Vána robed her in her {flowers}[signs of spring], ...'? BoT-18: As said in my comment, I am also hesitating with this addition. Probably we can work it into the chapter of the making of the sun and the Moon. What about using such a reduced version here: Quote:
AINU-11: I am not that sure, which conflict is here discribed. But nonetheless I agree to chift the §. But I would not repalce BoT-05 but arange the texts differntly: Quote:
Findegil |
|||
08-24-2017, 08:12 PM | #4 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I agree with all of those changes, they all look good.
|
09-23-2017, 04:34 PM | #5 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
I found an addition worth considering while working on The Making of the Sun and the Moon ... chapter:
Quote:
In addition I found a better place to use a later part of BoT-17. So we must skip it here: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 09-23-2017 at 04:39 PM. |
||
09-24-2017, 09:13 PM | #6 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
agreed.
|
09-25-2017, 06:35 PM | #7 | ||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
I'm new to this forum so I apologize if I am misinterpreting how to read the draft. Here are some suggestions:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
09-25-2017, 07:51 PM | #8 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Welcome gandalf! It's nice to have another person around besides me and Findegil! I think I've been driving him a little crazy haha
To answer your points in order: 1. The "their coming" refers to the Elves. So the days before the coming of the Elves. It is not redundant therefore. 2. However weird it feels for Tulkas to use fire to defeat Melkor, it is what Tolkien wrote in his latest version of the story (Myths Transformed). Who are we to question him? 3. Iluvatar gifted the light to Varda which she used to make the stars. She is always the star-maker, not merely a transporter. 4. The names were removed here because later on in the draft they are formally named in the body of the text: Quote:
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo. |
|
09-26-2017, 12:51 PM | #9 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
Haha, I can definitely imagine you two driving each other crazy. I'm currently a PhD candidate in electrical engineering, so my free time oscillates wildly depending on when I have conferences/reports/presentations. However, this project is something I definitely think is worth the time put into it. I will try to contribute as much as I can.
1. Ahh, got it, I mistook who "their" was referring to. 2. I saw in the FAQ that preference is typically given to the most recent writing by Tolkien, but I feel like many of his later ideas are fundamentally problematic. For example, the idea that the Earth was always round. I'm sure you guys have debated this, are you sticking with the idea of the Earth first being flat then being reshaped after the drowning of Numenor? Either way, Tulkas using fire is a pretty minor point; I'm fine with it. 3. Got it, I guess I misinterpreted the text. I like that idea a lot more. The concept that Varda was simply a transporter seriously diminishes her status. 4. Ahh, I see. Yes, then I agree with removing the references to the names originally. Random aside: I'm currently listening to the SilmFilm podcast by Corey Olsen (https://silmfilm.mythgard.org/). It's really interesting. |
09-26-2017, 01:48 PM | #10 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
First of all welcome to this quite part of the Barrow-Downs gandalf85! The members of the project have always been thankful for any intrusion from outside, and as AcrusCalion has already mention additional opinions are very much needed at the time being. Feel yourself invited to post in any thread with the questions or suggestions that come to mind.
Since ArcusCalion answered most of your questions perfectly I only will add my to pence on Tulkas and the weilding of flame: I can understand your reservations. In the outline from Myths Transformed Tulkas is as well associated with the Sun being considered as the Valar of the Sun replacing Arien. But for me it makes perfect sense that Melkor in that war of the demiurgical powers is defeated especially in the field on which up to that point he only had specialised. Beside that Tulkas is descript as the 'good side of violence'. So we have to assume that in this war a lot of collateral damage occurred. About 2: Yes, that is what the project decided to do a long time ago: a realy falt earth until the drowning of Numenor at which point the earth was reshaped to be round. But none of us was around at that time. At that time only jallanite voted for a round earth version. I would have supported him, but when I joined the decision was long done and as today the choice in such fundamentel decisions is either to join and take these desisions as they are, or not to join. Two farther fundamental decision of this kind are: no frame story, that means all references to Eriol/Ælfwine have to be removed and no changes for reasons of 'style'. Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 09-27-2017 at 09:42 PM. |
09-26-2017, 04:27 PM | #11 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
Thanks for the welcome Findegil! I personally would have voted for the flat Earth which was reshaped after Numenor was drowned. I just think it's a very unique and interesting part of the mythology. I know Tolkien's final words on the matter were that he preferred the Earth to always be round, but his primary issue seems to be that a flat Earth and the creation of the sun/moon is "astronomically absurd" based on our current understanding of science. However, I think the story of the creation of the sun and the moon is absolutely beautiful and it ties into one of the major themes in Tolkien's works. Even though the trees die and there is sadness, from this tragedy comes hope in the form of the sun and the moon. Also, the entire universe is absurd based on our understanding of science, so I don't buy into that argument. I can justify disagreeing with Tolkien because he spent his entire life working under the flat Earth principle and then it wasn't until very near the end of his life that he decided to change it, not because it makes the story more beautiful (in fact it does the opposite) but on a "scientific" basis.
The frame story is a more complicated question in my mind. I could probably be persuaded either way. Last edited by gandalf85; 09-26-2017 at 04:34 PM. Reason: not to double post |
09-28-2017, 05:18 PM | #12 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
For all these three basic questions there is now no longer any choice for this project. But for all who would prefer a different option in these questions, it might be said that at least our finished texts would be a good to perfect starting point for any farther editing based on that different option.
lindil has always been a supporter of more stylistic uniformity and I think he had long cherished the hope, that once the first editing would be done in a second phase a stylistic smoothing would ocure. Respectfully Findegil |
10-09-2017, 06:21 PM | #13 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
As I mentioned in the outline thread, I had written drafts for "Of the Beginning of Days" and "Of Aule and Yavanna" quite a while ago, but hadn't posted them because I was waiting until we formally turned to those sections. I will post them now, for comparison with the approach taken by Findegil and ArcusCalion. Hopefully this can spark a discussion of the differences in approach and give us more options to consider in how we assemble these sections.
Actually, I made two versions of the first chapter - one with and one without several additions from the BoLT. I was (and still am) uncertain whether it's appropriate to include those additions, but I'll post the version with them. Note that this draft is for a single chapter including the "Of Valinor and the Two Trees" material. I took AAm as my basic text. As usual, these conventions are used: Normal Text is from the basic text that is mentioned above. Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {to be deleted} = text that should be deleted, for a better readability I have in this file crossed the text out. The forum does not support crossed out text. [ ] = normalised text <source > = additions with source information example = text inserted for grammatical reason / / = outline expansion Quote:
BD-01: I removed the first four sections as this is material covered more fully in the Valaquenta. BD-02: The section on the Reckoning of Time (sections 5-10) should I think be moved to after the Two Trees are made. BD-03: This is an attempt (probably not a very good one) to introduce material concerning Melkor from text VI in Myths Transformed. It possibly should go in the Valaquenta instead, if not be dropped entirely. BD-04: The Ainulindale gives a more detailed account here than AAm. BD-05, -06, -07: For most of section 14 LQ seems to give the fullest account, but for section 15 the Ainulindale does. BD-08: Here I add the names of Taniquetil given in LQ (following what CT did in the ’77). BD-09: Added the footnote into the text. BD-10: LQ gives the fuller description of the Trees. BD-11: Here it’s a little harder to judge, but I think that the LQ account of the waxing and waning of the Trees is the better one to use. BD-12: Here I add the ‘Reckoning of Time’ material back in. BD-13: The closing portions of Pengolodh’s addendum to the Ainulindale seem to me to work well here (more or less where CT puts them in the ’77), though this is not the only possible placement. BD-14: This passage was bracketed by Tolkien, presumably for exclusion. If we do decide to use it for some reason, we must at the very least remove the reference to the Noldor ‘inventing’ gems (the later story is that gems already existed in the Earth but the Noldor learned how to make them themselves.) BD-15: Also bracketed for exclusion by Tolkien (though I’m mystified as to why). BD-16: Removal of Aelfwine. |
|
10-10-2017, 11:44 AM | #14 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
While for the chapter ‘Concerning the Dwarves the Ents and Eagles’ I think a matching of our editing should be helpful, I am in this chapter sure thst it would lead to more confusion and not less. Therefore (and because it is a big bunch of work) I shuned back from makeing such a comparision. I also do not see much sense in a detailed critisem on Aiwendils editing. If we decised to take his draft as a basis for farther work, such critisim is in order, but is that what we will do?
Anyhow I will give only a few remarks that come to mind while reading through the draft: BD-12: I was under the impression that the project once discussed about the relation between Yen, Valian Year and Year of the Sun. And from my memory of that discussion I think the result was that we should not address this complex at all. The reason if remembered rightly was the hasitation of JRR Tolkien about the greatly expanded time frame during the flight of the Noldor. Since you toke this § into your draft, what did you remember as out come of the discussion? You did not us any of the Myths Transformed text, so I think we agreed on using such when we discussed the first part of the chapter while working on the Valaquenta. BD-16: This last part of the Ainulindalë we left in that chapter. And I think it fits there better then here, even so nothing of what happened in the age before this revelation of Iluvatar toke place is told in our version. Respectfully Findegil |
10-10-2017, 01:08 PM | #15 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Yeah I agree with Findegil, we went through long discussions about many of these points and additions and arrived at conclusions, so to start all over again seems to me to be pointless.
|
10-10-2017, 08:12 PM | #16 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not necessarily proposing that we adopt my version as the framework. However, I think the differences are instructive - they show, for one thing, that radically different approaches are possible. And I think this is important. When one person presents a text for discussion, it's easy to, without meaning to, get locked into certain choices that were tacitly or unconsciously made in preparing that text, and to assume that those choices were inevitable. In other words, I think it's worth taking a step back and considering, in broad strokes, the structure of the chapter, and which sources to base that structure on. I don't mean, by any of this, to undermine or disparage the work you and Findegil have done lately - on the contrary, I think it's great. But, as Findegil can tell you, I like to proceed with great caution and deliberation! So, I'm going to try to find some time in the next few days to examine Findegil's draft in detail, compare it to mine, and hopefully come up with some insights into the structure of the chapter. I do think that we should not take that structure for granted, and I don't think we should be unwilling to consider other alternatives. As a general comment on content (as opposed to structure), it appears that Findegil has obviously adopted a lot more of Myths Transformed than I did, whereas I have adopted quite a bit from the Lost Tales that I don't see in Findegil's draft. I'm inclined to be cautious on both counts, but I do think that Findegil has identified several good passages to use from MT. Do the two of you have any thoughts on the Lost Tales sections I introduced? I was quite uncertain about them when I wrote this draft, and could probably be persuaded that they shouldn't be used, but I am rather fond of them. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-10-2017 at 09:28 PM. |
|||||
10-11-2017, 11:54 AM | #17 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
BD-03: Your addition from MT, Text VI is a great in it self. I always had in mind that we had such a passage that clearly identifies Melkor and Manwë with special thoughts of Eru. As we are told that Ainur were the of prings of Eru’s thoughts these is a perfect exemplification. But as you mentioned already we might better use it in the Valaquenta. What do you think of this placement and editing:
Quote:
Posted by Aiwendil: Quote:
I agree on your approach to look from a helicopter view on the structure to avoid probably unconscious pre-elections. Posted by Aiwendil: Quote:
About the LT additions: I don’t think that your impression is fully correct: BD-LT-01 / VT-EX-02: The placement and editing seems a bit different, but the contenet is the same. BD-LT-02 and your next add about Melkor hearing the noise of their labor and BD-LT-03 are all included in what I called VT-EX-03. VT-EX-04: This addition from LT you did not use. Your addition from LT in §25 of AAm and BD-LT-04, BD-LT-05, BD-LT-06, BD-LT-07, BD-LT-08, BD-LT-09 and BD-LT-11, BD-LT-12 and BD-LT-13 are all included in the longe addition that I took that starts with VT-EX-05 and end at VT-EX-15. BD-LT-10: This I missed probably. But I agree that it should be included. And like your editing with the fitting surrounding. But for the time being I will restrain from putting into my version as long as the question of the structure is not clear. So you see that at least concerning the LT additions we are not that fare sundered. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
10-11-2017, 12:18 PM | #18 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
BD-03: I agree, this is better in the Valaquenta. I'm a little concerned about the stylistic dissonance between the Valaquenta and the more informal MT text, but perhaps we should discuss that in the Valaquenta thread.
BD-16: Right. Sorry, I did not look carefully enough at my own text, nor recall our previous discussions, before posting it! Quote:
All right, I will find some time to study the texts more carefully, and then give you my thoughts. |
|
10-15-2017, 08:25 PM | #19 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
I'm working on a long post comparing our versions, discussing the general approach, and then getting into some particulars. This should be done soon, but in the meantime I thought I'd just mention a few typos and (I believe) some missing editorial marks that I noticed in Findegil's text.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
10-15-2017, 09:14 PM | #20 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I apologize, re-reading my comment it sounds very brusque and rude. Please forgive my curtness Aiwendil! I was just somewhat confused that it felt like you were rejecting our version, which was obviously not the case at all. So sorry about that
|
10-16-2017, 07:01 AM | #21 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
No need to apologize; I didn't think you were being rude at all!
|
10-16-2017, 12:40 PM | #22 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Apologies in advance for the length of this.
I am going to first present my synopses of both my text and Findegil's. I indicate here only the major sections, not noting smaller additions from other sources. The idea is just to have the basic structure of each text visible in a digestible form for comparison. Findegil's text: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-16-2017, 12:41 PM | #23 | ||||||||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Obviously, the big difference here is that Findegil’s text is assembled in a more piece-meal fashion from Ainulindale, AAm, LQ, MT, and LT, whereas mine is based almost entirely on AAm, with fewer additions from the other sources. One might say that Findegil takes a maximalist approach, erring on the side of including passages from most sources when in doubt, while I take a minimalist approach, only breaking up Tolkien’s text when there seems to be a very good reason. As I reviewed both our texts, I became increasingly convinced that what would be best is something somewhere in between those extremes.
The danger in my approach is of course that we leave out material that could profitably be included, and I think my text does suffer from this. As I think both Findegil and ArcusCalion tend toward the “maximalist” side of things, I trust I don’t have to argue much to persuade you of this fact! On the other hand, there are a few dangers I see in taking Findegil’s approach, and I think his text also suffers as a result in some ways. First of all, there is the simple fact that chopping up Tolkien’s text into relatively small pieces disturbs it from a literary point of view, breaking up the rhythm of Tolkien’s language and the unity of his writing. This is of course unavoidable in our project, and we have explicitly decided that we are not going to trouble ourselves too much about stylistic descrepancies. Yet at the same time, I think that we ought to be careful not to hurt the text in this way unless necessary. Beyond this general point, I think the problems that a lot of chopping up of the texts can lead to are mainly redundancies and contradictions. As we saw in some of the later chapters, it’s surprisingly easy for redundancies to creep in when one assembles a text from multiple sources. I think there are several places where this happens in Findegil’s texts of chapters 1 and 2. It’s also possible to inadvertantly introduce contradictions without noticing it, if subtly different ideas lay behind the different texts. As a bit of an aside, in reviewing these texts I find myself getting a bit confused about the relative dating (and therefore priority) of the Ainulindale, AAm, and LQ. Of the AAm manuscript, Christopher Tolkien writes: Quote:
All right, having said all that, let me try to get into the texts a little more closely and discuss some issues I see. Myths Transformed II Findegil’s text makes heavy use, in the beginning of chapter 1, of the narrative from MT II. This narrative was Tolkien’s first (and I think only?) attempt to put into ‘literary’ form the story of the beginning of Arda with the new cosmology (round earth, sun and moon existing from the beginning). We have decided, of course, to reject the new cosmology, but Findegil’s text presupposes that we can still use some of the narrative. I’m uncertain as to whether this is usable. As Christopher Tolkien discusses here and in his discussion of the ‘Athrabeth’, the new cosmology conceives of Arda as being equivalent to the solar system, with the sun a star, and innumerable other stars elsewhere in the vast reaches of Eä. And it seems to me that, even if in the first few paragraphs there is no explicit mention of the round earth or of the sun, this conception underlies the narrative. In MT II and in Findegil’s text, while the Valar locate Arda and begin their labour there, other Ainur go out into other parts of Eä; this is an idea not present in the earlier texts, and I think it goes hand in hand with the idea that Arda, our solar system, is just the realm of one star among countless others. Similarly, the text here says that Melkor could have ruled in other parts of Eä, but that he instead sought for Arda. In the earlier cosmology, there is no suggestion that Arda could be difficult for the Ainur to locate once they entered Eä, nor that there were other places (other solar systems, I take this to mean) where Melkor could have set up shop on his own. In short, I can see a good argument that the opening of this narrative is inextricably bound up with the new cosmology - and that therefore we must reject the whole narrative, not just the parts that explicitly mention a round earth or the sun. There is one addition from MT II in Findegil’s text of chapter 1 that does not appear to have any cosmological implications, and that is BoT-17. This could stand even if we accept the argument above. However, I’m not sure whether this is true as Findegil says: Quote:
Quote:
The First War and Spring of Arda For these early parts, aside from the question of MT II, Findegil’s text and mine differ mainly in that Findegil takes a little bit more from LQ and Ainulindale, while I often take the equivalent statements from AAm. But these are pretty minor differences, and I don’t see any particular problems with Findegil’s text here. It couldn’t hurt to take another look at the bits where I used AAm and Findegil used other sources, and decide for each one which source is best for that spot - but this is minor detail-work, not a big issue. BoT-19, -20, -21 Here we have in Findegil’s text two passages from the Ainulindale followed by one from AAm. There are two things I question here. First (and perhaps this is just my failure to understand something), Findegil has in BoT-20 taken a passage about Melkor taking physical form that in the Ainulindale comes much earlier, at the beginning of the first battle between Melkor and the Valar. Why was this moved here? I assume it’s because there is a canonical statement post-dating the Ainulindale somewhere that this is when Melkor took physical form, in which case that’s fine. Otherwise it should be moved back to where it was. The other point is that I see a redundancy here between BoT-19 (from the Ainulindale) and BoT-21 (from AAm). We have: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In this same section is BoT-22, of which Findegil wrote: Quote:
BoT-23, -24 Here Findegil already notes that he finds a bit of redundancy between LQ and AAm, and I agree. But I think the main problem here is a slight contradiction between LQ (BoT-23) and AAm (BoT-24). LQ and AAm seem to give different explanations as to why Melkor escaped from the Valar at this time. LQ attributes it to his increased strength and the fact that he now has many servants; AAm, on the other hand says that it is because the Valar were busy restraining the tumults he had caused. Again, here I propose eliminating the addition from LQ and using AAm as a whole: Quote:
Findegil’s text returns to LQ at the end of this paragraph for: Quote:
Quote:
Let’s move on to the part that Findegil breaks off as chapter 2, “Of Valinor and the Two Trees”. Both Findegil and I begin this with AAm and then insert some material from LT. However, Findegil also inserts a bit from LQ in VT-LQ-01, and I think this leads to another redundancy: Quote:
Quote:
We both follow this with excerpts from LT that tell of the Valar finding a wide land beyond Avathar and raising the mountains, so this is fine. I find another redundancy in Findegil’s text here, though: Quote:
LT Descriptions of Valars’ Dwellings Findegil and I both include excerpts from LT giving details about the dwellings of the Valar, but we differ in where we place them - Findegil places them just after the gathering of light and materials, while I place them much later, incorporating them into the passage in AAm that describes (in far less detail) the places where some of the Valar dwell. I think Findegil’s placement of them leads to another redundancy, because that passage from AAm (at the end of this chapter) now seems to repeat some things that were told earlier. I also think the LT descriptions of the dwellings fit rather well in that AAm passage. So in this case, I prefer my placement of those passages. Building of Valimar In AAm, the building of Valimar, the city, is apparently distinct from the building of the mansions of the Valar. In fact, this is stated rather explicitly: Quote:
Quote:
It’s also worth noting that in AAm, the statements about Valinor becoming more beautiful even than Middle-earth in the Spring of Arda, and about Middle-earth being left in twilight, occur just before the building of Valimar. Findegil’s text moves these to after the creation of the Trees, but I’m not sure I see the justification or necessity for that. Growth of the Trees Here Findegil includes a description of the Trees’ growth from LT which I did not include. I think that this is a good addition. There may be some minor details of the descriptions to look into more carefully, but to first order I think that Findegil’s text for this part (up to and including VT-EX-27) is good. Names of the Trees I agree that it’s nice to have the detail of Yavanna and Lórien naming the Trees, but as Findegil’s text stands, there is a slight feeling of redundancy between this passage from LT and the following passage from LQ, which gives the many names of the Trees. This can perhaps be fixed by some light editing. In the LT, the Valar name each Tree immediately after it grows, rather than naming them both after they both have grown. If we followed that, I think the editing of the text of the LT passages would be a little less tortured. It’s true that in the earlier story, one Tree grew entirely first, before the other had even sprouted, whereas in the later story they seem to be growing a bit at the same time - but I still think there’s room for the Valar to name Telperion before we move on to the description of Laurelin’s growth; then they can praise Yavanna’s work and name Laurelin once it is done growing. A bit of an aside: in the later texts, I think “Telperion” is the more usual name rather than “Silpion”; should that not be the name given by Lórien? I don’t recall the history of the names of the Trees all that well, though, so maybe not. Waxing and Waning of the Trees I find another slight redundancy in Findegil’s text here, where a passage from LQ describing the daily waxing and waning of the Trees is followed by a passage from LT wherein Yavanna tells the other Valar about the waxing and waning of the Trees. More problematically, Yavanna’s speech to the Valar here assumes that Laurelin has just waned and Silpion is waxing - but that is because in LT Laurelin was the elder Tree. In our story, Telperion waxes first. Gathering of the Light As far as I can see we have the following stories about the light of the Trees: LT: Ulmo retrieves light from ‘blazing lakes’ and ‘pools of brilliance’ (presumably left after the destruction of the Lamps) and deposits it in the two great cauldrons Kulullin and Silindrin. The Trees are made by watering the ground with this light. After the Trees grow, Yavanna instructs the Valar to water each Tree with light from its respective cauldron every twelve hours when it wanes. Urwen and Silmo are tasked with this watering. LQ: The Valar gather all light to Valinor. The Trees are made. Varda lets hoard the dews from the Trees in great vats, like shining lakes. AAm: The Valar gather great store of light in Valinor. The Trees are made. Varda gathers the light that spills from them in great vats near the mound and the Maiar draw light from these vats and bring it to the more distant parts of Valinor, so that all the land will gain nourishment from it. MT II: (There were no Lamps. Melkor disarrays the sun and drives Tilion out of the moon.) Varda has a store of Primeval Light. The Two Trees are made (presumably with this light). In my opinion, Findegil’s draft includes too much from all these sources, so that they tend to repeat and contradict each other. For instance, in no text by Tolkien are there both great cauldrons from which the Trees are watered with light and great vats in which Varda gathers the light that is spilled. On the contrary, it seems to me that the vats of Varda replaced the cauldrons. Further, the “Primeval Light” mentioned in MT seems to me to replace the light (from the Lamps) that was gathered to Valinor after the destruction of Almaren, and I don’t think it has any place in our version of the story. Reckoning of Time I included in my text the sections from AAm on the Valian year. Findegil mentioned that he recalled us discussing the Valian year at some point and deciding not to include any specifics on it, but I cannot find this discussion. The issue, I suppose, is the later idea appearing in “The Shibboleth of Fëanor” of a Valian year being equivalent to 144 solar years, rather than the roughly 9.58 solar years of AAm. However, I have always been under the impression that this later version of the Valian year was adopted because of the revised cosmology. Even if that weren’t the case, I think an argument could be made that it is a proposed change that we cannot adopt, because it seriously distorts the pre-sun chronology. So I lean toward including this AAm passage. Joy in Valinor and Twilight in Middle-earth After telling of the Trees, Findegil’s text has passages from AAm, Ainulindale, and MT that seem to me to repeat and/or contradict each other. From AAm we have the statement that Valinor becomes more beautiful than Middle-earth in the Spring of Arda and that the Valar are joyful and leave Middle-earth in twilight (this has been moved here from its place in AAm, where it is before the making of the Trees). Then from Ainulindale we have a passage telling that Melkor walks abroad in Middle-earth and that the Valar dwell in bliss and seldom come to Middle-earth. And then we have from MT a section of outlining that says that the Valar go more and more often to Valinor and that then they are driven out of Middle-earth by Melkor and his servants. In my opinion, the AAm and Ainulindale passages are mostly redundant, and the MT passage contradicts them. In AAm and Ainulindale, Melkor does not drive them out of Middle-earth. Moreover, in the MT outline, it seems as if the Valar do not right away establish Valinor as their permanent home; they only “go there” sometimes, but that becomes more and more often. My preference here would be to leave out the MT excerpt and move the AAm passage but move it back to its original location (unless there’s a good reason to put it here). Then I suppose we can retain the full Ainulindale passage - even if it does slightly repeat the AAm passage, they are now far enough apart that it is not so obvious. Here, where from the Ainulindale we tell of Melkor walking abroad in Middle-earth, is where I would put the statement from LQ about Angband being built and given to Sauron to guard against attack from Valinor. Finally, we have the short descriptions from the Ainulindale of the dwelling places and activities of a few of the Valar. As I said earlier, I still think that this is the best place to put the LT descriptions of their dwellings. And then we have in my draft the Gift of Eru, but as Findegil has reminded me, we used this in the Ainulindale (and I agree that that is the better place for it). Well, that was long, but I hope it was useful. I feel as if I am starting to see a text take shape that is superior to both of our versions. I can try to produce a text that implements my proposals above. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-16-2017 at 07:02 PM. |
||||||||||||||||
10-18-2017, 01:26 PM | #24 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Thank you, Aiwendil, for this very through analyses and eloquent arguments for the structure of your draft, with which I mostly can agree.
Just to explain a bit how I arrived at the choice of basis text, which made up for many of the differences: In part one I took up the portion of text that we had worked on in the Ainulindalë thread and farther edited it. In the second part I made a similar research like Aiwendil to find out which text should have priority. My conclusion was that AAm and LQ were more or less contemporary. In such a case I assumed that a fuller text (and I considered LQ to be the fuller text) could be used instead of a probably slightly younger (AAm). I did not at that time observe the structural changes. Once the choice of the basis text was done and given my very well observed tendency to include as much details as possible the draft as presented was the logical consequence. However that might have been, back to the actual business. As said above I can agree to many of your arguments but not to all. And the most important point are the additions from Myths Transformed II I don’t think that the full content of the texts should be or can be rejected based on the fact that we have decided to reject the round earth cosmology. Let’s take an example from this actual chapter: We use part of the LT text even so many elements of the story were clearly at variance to what we considered ‘true’, like Laurelin sprouting first, or the story of the planting of the trees, ... now why is that possible? Because we consider that only that parts of the text, that were directly gainsaid by sources of higher priority must be skipped or such parts as are clearly depend on such gainsaid elements. This freedom is given under our rule 3). Now to MT, here are no contradictions with texts of higher priority. The reason why we do not use this text entirely is a decision following rule 2.b): a change proposed by JRR Tolkien but inadequately documented so that it is deemed unworkable by us. But this decision was up to this point only taken for the round earth cosmology. (And that question might have been the trigger for rule 2.b).) Your argument as I have understood is, that the changes introduce with MT are only needed to make the round earth cosmology work for the story. And I agree that these changes are needed for the round earth cosmology. But that the round earth cosmology does depend on these changes does not make the change depending on the round earth cosmology. So we have a high priority text not contradicted by a first priority text (LotR, Hobbit, RGEO, AdvTomB) but in an essential feature discarded by us due to the upheaval it would introduce in the project. Does that disqualify all the other features of the text? I don’t think so. At least we never handle other texts in a similar way. Now some comments on the single points Aiwendil raised: BoT-17: When I wrote my comments to the changes introduced it was years after compilation of the text. So I didn’t check if this was really new in MT. I fully agree that AAm §21 is similar enough. But if MT is seen as a valid text, than it has higher priority and would be preferable over AAm for such an addition. (If AAm is the basis text the addition is of course obsolete.) [b[]The First War and Spring of Arda[/b] I agreed to your statement about the first part. BoT-20: This was moved because the description of Melkor in MT does not fit to this. So I thought that at his first coming to Arda he was the bright and shiny guy he wished to be, but when he entered again, now to fight for his rule of the kingdom of Arda he appeared in that dark and frightening shape. I agree that we have some redundancy here and should amend that. But if the pure §21 of AAm is sufficient I doubt. But that can be checked later. BoT-22 might have been an artefact of my editing. I agree that it does not make much sense as it stands now. Probably I put it in to distinguish between the two passages, or both were added at different times, but I don’t really know. BoT-23 & BoT-24: If MT is a valid source than it might have to rule here, meaning that we should use this passage to describe the outcome of the war from MT II, outline: Quote:
Quote:
BoT-25 & BoT-26: I wanted the footnote and for that matter took the passage of BoT-25. But Aiwendil is right that the information of the footnote might be placed better at later point and probably in the text itself. Building of Valinor I agree to take rather the passages from AAm then what I proposed in VT-LQ-01. Also you are right that §13 of LQ can be removed. So we might add the ‘fair things’ from LQ into the LT material. If we use Silindrin and Kulullin here, we have to discuss. But it is linked with later times when the Light of the Trees is collected and used, so I postpone my remarks a bit. LT Description of Valars’ Dwellings The question is which text we split in order to include these descriptions. With your placement you had to split the LT material to small section that you could fit into the AAm passage. I took in the descriptions in here, where the story the mansion are build, as it was in LT in order to hold the text of LT more together. But in the end this did not work as well as thought, because I had to skip great part of the LT passage that I include completely leading to nearly the same sectioning of the text as your editing. So yes as I already said I can agree to follow in this part the structure of AAm and with that to insert the description of the mansions of the Valar and their houses in Valimar later. Building of Valimar I agree to your proposal here. Since we do not specify any house in Valimar here we can still include the descriptions given in LT later together with that of the mansions of the Valar. Analysing AAm more carefully I see that the movement of the statement about Valinor becoming more beautiful than Mibble-earth in the spring of Arda was a mistake. From AAm it is clear that this was the case even before the Trees were in being, which I thought (wrongly) was reason for this. Growth of the Trees Agreed. Names of the Trees I agree to your proposal for a better editing About Silpion or Telperion as name given by Lóriën: I do not see any good reason to change this Silpion was still as valid in LQ. Even so Telperion was a more usual name, why should that change the fact that Lóriën invented the name Silpion? Would we create a new factum by changing this? I think we should avoid that. Waxing and Waning of the Trees The redundancy we should eliminate. I observed as well that Yavanna is speaking in a phase were Laurelin waned, but since it could have been half a day later I did not see a problem with this. I at least would like to keep the direct speech of Yavanna in that passage. Gathering of the Lights This is a problematic part and it has influences on earlier and later parts as well (gathering of the Lights of the Lamps in Valinor and Ungoliant draining the stores of light). One detail that we have to discuss is the use of Silindrin and Kulullin. In LT these are the reservoirs (to use neutral word) for storing the light of the Lamps that the Valar collect at this stage in the story and then they are later used to store the light of Trees. If we use them there we will have to deal with them later in the chapter The Darkening of Valinor. There Ungoliant has to empty them to generate the need of Yavanna for the light of the Silmarils. On the other hand the Valar did need some reservoir for the light of the Lamps. One way to deal with this could be to hold the lights fully separated. That means Silindrin and Kulullin are used only for the Light or the Lamps. The Light of the Lamps is in all later stories collected to Valinor but not used in the creation of the Trees. If we remove the element from LT that the light from Kulullin and Silindrin were used in creating (that we removed both) and refreshing of the Trees out of our story line, we could (implicit) say that the light of the Lamps was not suitable for watering the Trees or for the rekindling of the Trees after Ungoliants attack. (This could be exemplified by the spilling out of light from Silindrins and Kulullin with no avail that Vána and Lóriën did in LT. But this addition might be a bit ‘risky’.) In that way Kulullin and Silindirn could stay intact as they do in LT but still Yavanna could utter the demand for the Silmarils. I think that such a separating of the Lights is already hinted at when we come to the creation of the Sun. The juice of the last Fruit of Laurelin is in LT not collected in Kulullin but in a newly build reservoir: Tanyasalpë. Thus the vats of Varda for the watering of the Trees and the nourishment of the distant parts of Valinor would be needed and can be the only reservoir drained by Ungoliant. Since only in them was collected the of the Trees. It is mentioned in MT if the “Primeval Light” was used in the creation of the Trees. Note 19 to text II reads: Quote:
Reckoning of Time The issue, as Aiwendil called it, is not restricted to a secondary priority source like Shibboleth and at least not directly connected to the revised cosmology. From LotR, Appendix D: Quote:
Joy in Valinor and Twilight in Middle-earth The AAm passage about Valinor being more beautiful I already agreed to move back to its original place. The MT passage (if we decide to use any MT material) is near enough to what Ainulindalë §31 does tell, so that we might combine the two. Especially the first parts of both seem to very close. In both it is made clear that at first the Valar did go to Middle-earth more often, but then stayed more and more in Valinor and left Middle-earth to Melkor. I agree to put the statement about Angband here. I also agree to put the descriptions of the dwellings of the Valar here, in cooperating them into the short passage from AAm. And the placing back of the communication of Iluvatar about the gift of Men to the end of the Ainulindalë we already agreed up on. The most important point to be solved is the issue with the MT material. As I see now it will influence many more parts than I thought. As an example the Dome of Varda is also a part that we did not consider so far. The more I read in that source, the more I agree to jallanite’s position that it is possible to create a round earth version (though I have ever been leaning to his side). Nonetheless as said before such a fundamental decision can not be revised at this stage of the project. So I stay to the flat earth version we try to create. But as argued above that does not render all elements of MT useless. Respectfully Findegil P.S.: Long post will bear long posts. |
||||
10-21-2017, 08:28 AM | #25 | ||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
I’m also not sure I agree with one point you make. You seem to say that if a change A was made by Tolkien and another change B followed directly from it and was therefore also made by Tolkien, we can (indeed, must) take up change B even if we have rejected change A as unworkable. As I see it, changes A and B are really two parts of one large change. B is part of the ‘working out’ of A. If Tolkien had made enough changes (B, C, D, etc.) to implement A then A would no longer be ‘unworkable’, and would not fall under rule 2b; but in the absence of sufficient changes, I think we must reject both A and B together. Here, obviously, A and B are the new cosmology and the new account of the Ainur’s actions at the beginning of time. Now, it’s not always so simple - sometimes it’s hard to tell whether B is a direct consequence of A or a separate change that would have been made even without A. And, if one grants that the MT passages under discussion don’t directly contradict the old cosmology, then this, I feel, is the question that must still be answered. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BoT-23, -24: Good point. This is one piece from MT that even I cannot really argue to be based on the cosmology change, so I agree we should take the passage from LQ, regardless of what we decide about the other MT excerpts. Quote:
Quote:
Gathering of the Lights: My issue here is mainly that in no version of the story are there two separate repositories of light associated with each tree. On the contrary, it seems to me that the “vats” or “wells” of Varda replaced the cauldrons from the Lost Tales. Indeed, I would sooner accept naming those vats Silindrin and Kululluin than I would having both the vats and the cauldrons. Retaining the cauldrons as receptacles for the light of the Lamps, but not of the Trees, seems far too great a liberty to me. I’m not sure myself whether the idea of the salvaged light of the Lamps being used to make the Trees was definitely rejected or just omitted in the relatively briefer LQ and AAm - but I think we must err on the side of omitting it. As for the Primeval Light of MT, here again I think this is part of the change to the new cosmology, with the new roles of the Sun, the Moon, and the Trees, and the rejection of the Lamps, and cannot be separated from it. Reckoning of Time: Thanks, I had forgotten that LotR mentions the 144 figure for yén. Of course, one could posit that the 144 year yén is different from the 9.58 year Valian Year, but this would be mere invention. So I agree, we should remove the section on the reckoning of time. Quote:
|
||||||||
10-21-2017, 08:14 PM | #26 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
First of all a addition to my last post:
Bot-20: Sometimes it would be better to read more before writing. It is ture that this passage came from much earlier in the text, but none the less it is from a description of the War that destroyed the Lamps and Almaren. The structure in the Ainulindalë is strange enough as already observed earlier. This seems to be a results of Tolkiens frame story. First we have Pengolodh quote the work of Rumil and telling in very short words the first strife (end of §23 and §24) with Melkors flight (end of §24), the Valar taking shape (§25) and Melkors return and taking shape (mid to end of §26) and the Battle after Melkors return which is here call ‘the first battle of the Valar and Melkor for the dominion of Arda’ (§27). Then follows the interlude with Pengolodh speaking to Ælfwine and vise versa (§28 to §29) but then with Pengolodh speak now free and not quoting from Rumils work the story returns to the first strife that was ended by the flight of Melkor before Tulkas (beginning of §31) continues through the making of the Lamps and Almaren (rest of §31). §32 retells then again Melkors return and the following Battle with the destruction of the Lamps and Almaren. MT: Then it seems to me, we have to discuss each element in turn. The more I read in the text the more find my self inclined to use elements of it. Like the dome of Varda. And I as well do not fully agree that Arda interpreted as one world amid many is bound to the round earth. I think we have some where a mixed text with both a flat earth and other world around. I will search for it. BoT-17: I agree to combining the passages. §21 AAm: Yes I will come back to this. Quote:
The End of the Days of Bliss: This a difficult question. I will search for an answer. Who of us is now to produce the combined draft? But probably we both should wait until we cleared the open questions. Respectfully Findegil |
|
10-22-2017, 04:14 PM | #27 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, rereading the Ainulindalë and Christopher Tolkien’s discussion of it, I think I find some support for your position regarding Arda as one world among many, for the Ainulindalë D has: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ArcusCalion, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on these points too before we go too far down the road of producing a new draft. |
|||||
10-22-2017, 06:45 PM | #28 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond, irl duties and school and all that have kept me somewhat busy these past few weeks.
On the Basic Structure I agree with Aiwendil that the structure of Findegil's drafts are often very piecemeal, but I am on his side: the more detail the merrier. He and I used to clash very often over stylistic issues I had, so I find sympathy with the issue of choppiness in the drafts. However, what about the AAm text is inherently better or worse than the LQ text? On the MT questions The "Arda as a solar system" situation I feel very strongly that, as you yourself pointed out with the quote from Ainulindale C and D Aiwendil, Tolkien had changed the cosmology from its old concept of "Arda globed amid the Void" to "Arda amid the innumerable stars." This is not a concept necessarily bound up with a round earth cosmology, as Arda is perfectly capable with being bound by the "circles of the world" as described in, say, the Ambarkanta, as well as amid many stars and planets of Ea. I would thus say that, while the term "solar syatem" clearly doesnt apply to the flat-earth/sunless version of the primordial cosmology, Arda is still very much a "planet" in space, with layers of atmosphere and a flat surface (Ambar) but instead of globed amid the Void of nothingness, it is globed amid the vast halls and spaces of Ea. Thus, I was very amenable to Findegil's inclusion of the MT material about the earliest movements of the Valar in the deeps of space, and Melkor's arrival in Arda. It is the fullest account of these events and is not contradictory to any of the latest versions of the flat earth canon. The "primeval light" of Varda While in the MT text, the light given to Varda by Iluvatar is clearly meant to be the foundation of the Sun, not the trees, I see no reason to exclude it once the Sun has been removed from the narrative. There are many instances of using the LT in the project, notably in the Ruin of Doriath or Earendil chapters, to add depth while changing the application of the words from their original use. This is, in my opinion, not a very drastic change, as Varda is said to be tied to light intrinsically, and the making of the stars and trees could not be said to have been done without special light. However, that being said, the creation of the Sun later with this light might need revision from Findegil's version, as for Varda to give this light to Arie, it would mean she had some already, and if so, why could she not use it to give light to Arda. It is therefore a difficult question, but one that could be said to be inherent in the mythos as written. If Aule can produce mountains, and Ulmo water, and Manwe air, and Yavanna cause trees to grow, why can Varda not seem to produce light? It would seem that this question went unanswered by Tolkien, and so must remain a logical issue in all versions of our text. Thus, I think overall, it wold be best to include the descriptions of Varda's light, as they do not contradict (by themselves) anything from the latest versions of the flat earth cosmology, even if their original application was different. the "Dome of Varda" I can see no real reason not to include this feature, as it is not explicitly tied to the round earth structure. It simply seems to be Tolkien's latest thoughts on the matter. However, the two starmakings of Varda are in the essay on it changed from 1) before Arda, 2) before the elves to 1) before Arda, 2) the dome of Varda. Whether we keep the two original starmakings (as we must) and simply add the Dome as a third (which seems easiest to me) is a very minor point, and I think could be done without much editing or loss of Tolkien's sense. BoT-17: I think it gives a sense of completeness and detail that AAm lacks, so I am with Fin on including it. That being said, I see the redundancy of the following passage and agree that the two references to the "going to war" should be reduced to one. Aiwendil's version of this combination looks great. BoT-20: I think the description of Melkor as desirous of Light is not simply born out of the round earth ravishing of Arie story. I think in Tolkien's philosophical considerations of the nature of Melkor and the Valar and Eru, he went into great consideration of the motives of each of these players. The "unfallen" state of Melkor as a being of Light and beauty fits with his later ideas of Melkor beginning with great power and glory and falling into darkness and smallness through self-involved nihilism. I think the brightness of Melkor in the beginning is, in fact, relatively essential to his progression as a character and type of a Satan figure in the mythological structure, and as a motivating and defining character state. BoT-23, -24: I agree with Fin that the LQ bit should be used, as per MT, so I would combine it thus: Quote:
Building of Valinor: I agree with Aiwendil's points here. Descriptions of the Dwellings of the Valar: I agree that this should be later, as in AAm. Growth of the Trees: agreed Names of the Trees: As you have already agreed to use Silpion, I just want to say that I favor Aiwendil's general change of Silpion > Telperion, as Tolkien did himself, but in this and the few other cases in the Sun and Moon story where it is appropriate to use Silpion, I think we should. Waxing and Waning of the Trees: It seems we are all in agreement that Yavanna's speech should be kept, but the wording issues will no doubt be resolved in one of your drafts which are to come. Gathering of the Lights: This seems to be the most controversial point in the chapter, as it is a difficult one. If Kullulin/Silindrin are to be removed, then many of the LT descriptions of Valinor need heavy editing, and the Tale of Sun and Moon as well (but this we already know). I think personally that there is no reason to remove them, as it says that the Maiar removed the light from the wells and watered the friths and fields of Valinor with in in AAm, so why is it contradictory to have the cauldrons and the wells of varda? I agree that they are most likely abandoned, but there is nothing against their inclusion alongside the wells. ALternatively, we could simply say the Wells of Varda are the cauldrons, and have them made after the trees, leaving the part about the lack of light for Aule's building out. Reckoning of Time: This has been resolved already, so I have no further comments. Joy in Valinor and Twilight in Middle-earth: I agree with everything Aiwendil said for this section. Phew that was a lot. I hope I have articulated myself well enough on each point. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 10-22-2017 at 06:50 PM. |
|
10-23-2017, 10:49 PM | #29 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
BD-12: It seems we a situation of turned tabels. Both of you agree to skip that passage about the reckoning of time but now I have made some caacluclations and might be willing to include it incooperating the 144 YS = 1VY:
Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||
10-24-2017, 08:21 AM | #30 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I assume you are refferring to the 144 YS = 1 Year in Aman from the MT text: Aman. I had thought about this as well. It would increase the amount of time before the sun and moon, but as this was Tolkien's plan, I think it might be worth it. If we agree that this is the best solution, then we need to go through the drafts and find every place where we have removed specific dates or amounts of time.
|
10-24-2017, 05:59 PM | #31 | ||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
On the MT Questions I'm now coming around on the question of the opening section and the "measureless regions" of Ea. The cosmology in the Ainulindale C and D already matches this conception, which shows that this feature is independent of the changed cosmology of Myths Transformed. On the other hand, I'm still rather convinced that the Primeval Light and, most especially, the Dome of Varda, are part and parcel of the Myths Transformed cosmology, and that in rejecting the new story of the sun and moon we must reject them as well. I think this is clearest in the case of the Dome of Varda. The Dome is introduced thus in MT III: Quote:
Quote:
The “Primeval Light” also seems to me to have been introduced as a direct consequence of the new story of the Sun. That, at least, would again appear to be Christopher Tolkien’s view: Quote:
BoT-23, -24: I think the LQ and AAm extracts still slightly contradict each other, as they ascribe the failure to overcome Melkor to different things. If we agree that the explanation from LQ is to be preferred, since it agrees with MT, then I think we need remove the AAm (BoT-24) extract completely. Quote:
Quote:
BD-12: I’m extremely hesitant to simply alter the math here to get a number close to 144. Actually, the more I look into this issue, the more confusing it seems to become. First, in AV and AB (c. 1930), and retained in AV 2 and AB 2 (mid to late 1930s), the Valian year is stated to be equivalent to ten years. In the drafting for what became Appendix D, given in HoMe XII, the Eldar are said to reckon in yéni, one of which is equivalent to a century, 100 years of the sun. This was written in 1949 or 1950. Then in AAm as originally written (around 1950-1952), the Valian year was again said to be 10 years (I had not really noted this until now). This was emended such that the Valian Year (based on the waxing and waning of the Trees) was equivalent to 3,500 solar days, or about 9.582 solar years. Another thing I hadn’t noted earlier is that this whole passage on the reckoning of time was marked to be removed from AAm and transferred to the Tale of Years - which indeed it was, being included (with a few minor changes, but nothing affecting the math) in two manuscripts of the Tale of Years. Then in the text published as Appendix D to The Lord of the Rings in 1955, the yén is stated to be 144 years of the sun rather than 100 that it was in the draft. I find it very doubtful that the yén/Valian year was changed from 10 years to 100 years then back to 10 years and then to 9.582 years and finally to 144 years. It seems clear to me, instead, that appendix D with its 100 -> 144 figure and the Annals with their 10 -> 9.582 figure are talking about different things. That is, at least up to the mid-1950s, the yén and the “Valian year” were not synonymous. Note that the appendix is speaking only of the Eldarin calendar, while the annals (at least in the elaborate passage in AAm) are talking about the reckoning of the Valar. These two systems need not be assumed to be identical! (And indeed, I think that what we can conclude from the passages mentioned above is that they were not identical). Now, in MT XI Tolkien gives a different explanation for the Valian year in reference to the rate of change perceived by the Valar, and in a related note on the proposed much-expanded chronology, he wrote “144 Sun Years = 1 Valian Year”. Here, it would seem, the Eldarin yen of Appendix D and the Valian year of the annals have been identified with each other. Christopher Tolkien sees this as directly tied to the new cosmogony: Quote:
My inclination, then, is to either retain the 9.582 figure, on the assumption that Eldarin yéni and Valian years are different units, or to remove the whole passage and leave things ambiguous. Quote:
Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-24-2017 at 08:35 PM. |
||||||||
10-25-2017, 06:44 PM | #32 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
So I think we all agree to take AAm as basis text for the draft to come.
On the MT Questions Okay for the “measurless regions” of Eä. That means we should use a part of MT opening section. The Primeval Light and the Dome of Varda: I do not fully agree to your arguments, but I can see your reasoning and for the sack of safety I can go on without it. BoT-24, BoT-25: I do not agree to this. Following MT Melkor is to mighty at this time to be overcome. But none the less he can fell into fear seeing the reaction of the Valar and take to flight back to Utumno, which he reaches before Tulkas can overtake him. And in Utumno he is safe since the Valar could not afford the craft needed to overcome Utumnos fortifications because they had to save what could be saved f their work. Silpion: It seems we only can chose which fact we will create: either Lorien named the Tree not Silpion but Teleperion or the name given by Lorien did not become the normally used one. I tend to the second. Gathering of the Lights: If you feel safer not using the names, that is okay for me. So our solution is to use the descriptions of the cauldrons but name them “wells” as it was in the latest version and take the two as the only wells? BD-12: The argument that the Eldarin Yén form LotR is a different unit from the Valian Year referred to here does not hold any water for me. It is for me unbeleiveable, that he Eldar in Middle-earth (specially the Exiles) would use a longer entity for the measurement of time then the Valar in Valinor. If the relation would be the other way around (Eldar counting with 10 time of a Year of the Sun and the Valar with 144 times) I could agree to it. But why should the Eldar in Middle-earth use a longer period? So I think safety rules! Let as skip the passages and be ambiguous about the time scale and remove all references to “Valian Years”. Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
10-25-2017, 08:00 PM | #33 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But that's a moot point. If you find the issue too uncertain, we can do as you suggest, skipping the passage and avoiding references to Valian years. Quote:
|
||||||
10-26-2017, 11:40 AM | #34 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I like this combination Aiwendil!
I think I am with Fin on the Silpion issue, as I see no real reason to change it here. It seems a shame to lose the names, and I see no reason that they are not valid. Kulullin contains the elements kulu- and -lin, which mean "gold" and "a musical sound" respectively. Culu is a valid word for gold (the metal) in later Quenya, and is an element in one of the names of Laurelin (Culumalda, although culuma might mean orange, the element culu- is clearly related to gold.) Lin is a perfectly valid word in later Quenya. If the name needs updating at all, it would simply be to change the double "l" to a single one, but even that seems unnecessary to me. Silindrin is said to mean "Moon Cauldron" by Christopher Tolkien, and the element sil- is the "Qenya" term for moon, which in Quenya is "Isil." however, the verb silë in Quenya means "to shine," and could be used in a compound. -ndrin is less clear. There is no clear etymology for it, but using CT's analysis, it could mean cauldron. In "Qenya" we have the word tambë for cauldron, with a Gnomish cognate as tambos. However, this word does not reappear in Quenya or Sindarin, and so may not be valid. Thus, -ndrin could be easily thought to be an element denoting "cauldron" in Quenya, although the phonology is not up to date. Similar to the way Gwarestrin -> Gwarestirin in our version, we could do Silindrin -> Silindirin. As it is though, these names are not too difficult to salvage, and it would be a shame to lose them. In regards to the dating, I say ambiguity is our friend. About the placement of the descriptions of the dwellings of the Valar, I would say that there it would be somewhat awkward to describe them so late, but I do see the advantage of the Light and the trees in the descriptions. I have no preference either way, but if the fuller versions of the descriptions are to be used, it might be best to put them at the end, so we can use the parts that reference the Trees. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 10-26-2017 at 11:58 AM. |
10-26-2017, 06:20 PM | #35 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
So the 9.58 will be removed.
Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
Bot-24, BoT-25: Nice edit, I think we should go with it. Good research of the elements of the names, ArcusCalion. I am not against the names. If your research confinced Aiwendil that they are useabel, that is okay for me. Respectfully Findegil |
|
10-26-2017, 07:56 PM | #36 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
I think we've settled the main issues for these chapters. I'd be happy to try to put together a new draft in the next few days, unless someone else would like to do that. |
|
10-27-2017, 12:31 AM | #37 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
I will not have much time to work in the next week, so if you have the hope to find time for it earlier, that is fine for me.
Respectfully Findegil |
10-27-2017, 12:26 PM | #38 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Sounds good. I should be able to have a revised draft done in the next few days.
|
10-30-2017, 11:58 AM | #39 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Here is my new draft for chapter 1. I have kept most of Findegil's edit numbers, though in some cases where the edit has changed significantly, I've added a distinguishing letter.
Normal Text is from the basic text that is mentioned above. Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {to be deleted} = text that should be deleted [ ] = normalised text <source > = additions with source information underlined = text inserted for grammatical reason / / = outline expansion Quote:
BoT-02: We agreed to retain this extract from MT. BoT-02.5: I’ve taken out this section from MT, since it is part of the ‘Primeval Light’ story. BoT-03: I altered the editing slightly from Findegil’s version to make the join between MT and Ainulindale smoother. AINU-11: These changes were agreed on in the Ainulindalë thread. BoT-04: I retained the ‘For they tell us that’ that Findegil deleted; I think this is fine since we still say this information comes from the loremasters. BoT-05: I omitted this addition, because looking at it now it seems redundant with the preceding passage from the Ainulindalë. BoT-06b: I take Tulkas’s entrance from AAm. BoT-08: This sentence from MT II doesn’t add much, but I see no problem with it either. We could leave it out or put it in. BoT-08.6: From the Ainulindalë I take the statement that Tulkas became one of the Valar, a detail missing in AAm. BoT-09: I edited this very slightly differently from Findegil, combining sentences instead of starting a new one. BoT-10: As in Findegil’s draft. BoT-11: As in Findegil’s draft. BoT-12: As in Findegil’s draft. AINU-09: As in Findegil’s draft. AINU-10: As in Findegil’s draft. BoT-13b, -13.5: I use AAm and Ainulindalë for the making of the Lamps, which I think chops the text up less. BoT-15: As in Findegil’s draft. BoT-15.1: This paragraph from AAm was emended in the typescript AAm*, and we should use the final version. BoT-15.2: Change of ‘Walls of the Night’ to ‘Walls of Night’ from the typescript AAm* BoT-15.5: I’ve moved this passage telling of Melkor taking physical form (Findegil’s BoT-20) slightly. In Findegil’s version, we tell that he re-enters Arda and delves Utumno and then say that he takes physical form; this requires a change to the statement that he ‘descended upon Earth’. I think that, in contrast, the Ainulindalë (from which the passage comes) suggests that he assumed physical form immediately before re-entering Arda - hence ‘descending’. BoT-15.6: The beginning of this paragraph was emended in AAm*. BoT-16: As in Findegil’s draft. BoT-17: As in Findegil’s draft. BoT-19: I omit this, as it is redundant with what follows from AAm. BoT-20: Moved to become BoT-15.5 BoT-21: Without the BoT-20 passage intervening, there’s no need to change ‘But’ to ‘And’. I also incorporate a change from AAm* here. BoT-24: As discussed above, I merge the AAm and LQ versions here. Also, the last phrase here was omitted in the typescript AAm*, so I omit it here. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-30-2017 at 07:02 PM. |
|||
10-30-2017, 11:35 PM | #40 | |||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I have prepared some comments, and this post actually turned out far shorter than I expected. I think this draft was actually a great improvement over the first one, and I am extremely excited about it.
Bot-03: Where it says "fields of Aman" it should be "Arda." BoT-04: after "so would Melkor undo or corrupt it." I would add in Fin's BoT-05: Quote:
BoT-06b: I miss the longer LQ description of Tulkas' coming. It conveys his personality and description so much more fully and charismatically: Quote:
BoT-08: This seems redundant, and adds no information, simply repeating things already said in the last paragraph. BoT-08.6: what about Quote:
BoT-13b: i somewhat miss the turns of phrase in Fin's version, but there is no real reason not to use yours BoT-15.1: in the AAm insert, as I said to Fin, Vana cannot robe Nessa in flowers, as it has been said that flowers have not come forth yet on earth, so we decided to change it to "signs of spring". BoT-21: what is the source of your replacement for the "And" in the second sentence? |
|||
|
|