# The Resolution of Inconsistencies



## Azrubêl (Apr 17, 2017)

Hello everyone! I'm creating this thread as a place to mull over puzzles, mysteries, and apparent contradictions in Tolkien's works. As those of you who have read the Histories of Middle-earth know, this can be difficult because most of Tolkien's mythology went through multiple versions, and it is not always clear what his final intention was. However, this is the place to get to the bottom of any loose ends or holes!


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 17, 2017)

To start:

The West-gate where Gandalf leads the Fellowship into Moria for the first time has this inscription:
_
"Ennyn Durin Aran Moria. Pedo Mellon a Minno. Im Narvi hain echant. Celebrimbor o Eregion teithant i thiw hin."_

Gandalf translates the inscription as this:

_"The Doors of Durin, Lord of Moria. Speak, friend, and enter. I, Narvi, made them. Celebrimbor of Hollin drew these signs."_

I have found multiple sources on the internet that claim that Moria was only called "Moria" _after _it fell into darkness in the Third Age when the Balrog emerged there. Moria means "black chasm". The original name of the place is Khazad-dûm, meaning "Dwarrowdelf".

The apparent contradiction is this: The doors are said to have been made in the Second Age and inscribed by Celebrimbor. If this is the case, it would appear that the name "Moria" had not yet been given, despite it appearing in the inscription.

Ready, go!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 18, 2017)

Here's one, hotly debated:

Possibly the most noticeable inconsistency in _The Lord of the Rings_ is that both Tom Bombadil and Treebeard are referred to as the eldest being in Middle-earth. Tom says that about himself, and Elrond mentions that the Elves knew Tom as "oldest and fatherless". However, Gandalf tells Theoden that Treebeard is "the oldest of all living things" and Celeborn addresses Treebeard as "Eldest".

???????????

CL


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 20, 2017)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Here's one, hotly debated:
> 
> Possibly the most noticeable inconsistency in _The Lord of the Rings_ is that both Tom Bombadil and Treebeard are referred to as the eldest being in Middle-earth. Tom says that about himself, and Elrond mentions that the Elves knew Tom as "oldest and fatherless". However, Gandalf tells Theoden that Treebeard is "the oldest of all living things" and Celeborn addresses Treebeard as "Eldest".
> 
> ...



To further complicate this conundrum, in the Lord of the Rings, Treebeard tells Merry and Pippin that the Elves originally woke up the Ents! This would mean that the Ents were created _after_ the elves!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 20, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> To further complicate this conundrum, in the Lord of the Rings, Treebeard tells Merry and Pippin that the Elves originally woke up the Ents! This would mean that the Ents were created _after_ the elves!


I know right!?

To put the final straw on the camel... We have no blooming idea who or what Tom Bombadil is! 

CL


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 20, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> To start:
> 
> The West-gate where Gandalf leads the Fellowship into Moria for the first time has this inscription:
> _
> ...



I'll take a stab at my own post:

The Lord of the Rings is a translation from the Red Book, composed by Bilbo Baggins. While it may not be overly satisfactory, a possible answer to this contradiction is that either Bilbo, or whomever relayed the events at the West-gate to Bilbo, mistakenly attributed the contemporary name "Moria" rather than "Khazad-dûm" to the inscription, and that the inscription on the West-gate is actually "Khazad-dûm". 

Tolkien intentionally created a string of fictional translators for his works, and the individuals were not purely neutral but impacted their output according to who they were (the Valar relayed some of the events of the Silmarillion to the Elves who in turned relayed the events to Bilbo; various loremasters like Rúmil acted as scribes, etc). So, this may be a matter of imperfect transcription.

Alternatively, perhaps Tolkien was mistaken about the origin of the name "Moria" and that the name existed at the time of the gate's construction.


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 20, 2017)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> I know right!?
> 
> To put the final straw on the camel... We have no blooming idea who or what Tom Bombadil is!
> 
> CL



So it appears that to decide who came first, we have to figure out exactly what types of beings the Ents and Tom Bombadil are!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 20, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> I'll take a stab at my own post:
> 
> The Lord of the Rings is a translation from the Red Book, composed by Bilbo Baggins. While it may not be overly satisfactory, a possible answer to this contradiction is that either Bilbo, or whomever relayed the events at the West-gate to Bilbo, mistakenly attributed the contemporary name "Moria" rather than "Khazad-dûm" to the inscription, and that the inscription on the West-gate is actually "Khazad-dûm".
> 
> ...



That's always a possibility, it's like the telephone game: The information changes as it goes down the line. Also, Tolkien was always trying to work his creation to perfection, so he changed his mind at a lot of things.

CL


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 20, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> So it appears that to decide who came first, we have to figure out exactly what types of beings the Ents and Tom Bombadil are!



Wanna take a stab at opening Middle-earth's Pandora's Box then? 

My idea:
Maybe Tom is not "alive" as Treebeard is (though he seems to be). On this subject, Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron have existed far longer than Treebeard, as they are Maiar, but they haven't been alive (in a physical body) as long.

But that's all I have. 

CL


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 20, 2017)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> That's always a possibility, it's like the telephone game: The information changes as it goes down the line. Also, Tolkien was always trying to work his creation to perfection, so he changed his mind at a lot of things.
> 
> CL



That's true, Tolkien himself talked as if he was "receiving" these stories from a "lost past", and he kept trying to hone his account to make it better and better.


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 20, 2017)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Wanna take a stab at opening Middle-earth's Pandora's Box then?
> 
> My idea:
> Maybe Tom is not "alive" as Treebeard is (though he seems to be). On this subject, Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron have existed far longer than Treebeard, as they are Maiar, but they haven't been alive (in a physical body) as long.
> ...



I think your idea about Tom being "alive" in a different way from Treebeard is similar to what I've thought when I've tried to figure out exactly what the heck Bombadil is in the past! It seems to me as if Tom is a nature-spirit, intrinsically tied to the physical natural environment. He is utterly unconcerned with the concerns of the world beyond his woodland domain, and he is indeed the "Master" of those woods. 

Treebeard as an Ent, on the other hand, seems _more like _the Children of Iluvatar overall! But I'm not sure what to make of the conflicting accounts about Ents coming before or after the Elves.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 20, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> Treebeard as an Ent, on the other hand, seems _more like _the Children of Iluvatar overall! But I'm not sure what to make of the conflicting accounts about Ents coming before or after the Elves.



Especially since the Elves were known to teach the Ents how to speak! 



> The Eldar loved to talk to everything and had tales of teaching the trees to talk. They gave them the desire to speak and taught them Elvish, Treebeard said the Elves "curing the Ents of their dumbness" was a great gift that could not be forgotten.





> The Ents *perhaps* were created around the same time as the Elves.



As far as Tolkien Gateway says, it's not known for certain. I wonder if Tolkien ever knew surely himself? (I'm sure he did, but I am still wondering.)

CL


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 20, 2017)

So maybe, Bombadil is as old as Middle-earth, which makes him the "eldest" in the sense that he was here before all the Children.

As for Treebeard, I wonder if it's possible that he existed as a "tree" and then was woken up by the Elves?? Treebeard was the first Ent to awake, so maybe this makes him the "eldest" in that way?


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 20, 2017)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Especially since the Elves were known to teach the Ents how to speak!



That's a good point, because language is so important in Tolkien's writings. The Ents didn't already know language like Maiar or other spirits, but they had to learn it just like the Elves did.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 20, 2017)

Possibly. 

The origin of the Ents:


> After the Dwarves, the Ents are the most ancient people and living creatures surviving in the Third Age.[2][3] They were not a part of the Music of the Ainur[4] however during the Music Yavanna sung about trees who received the wind of Manwë and rain of Ulmo and sung to Ilúvatar.[5]
> 
> Eru gave life to Aulë's children, the Dwarves, whom he made from stone; but they were wont to fell trees. She then asked also herself (through Manwë) for His mercy, and to give life to growing things as He did with the Dwarves.[5] At her behest, Ents came into being, trees inhabited by souls[5] created/sent by Eru; or spirits who took the likeness of trees because of their devotion to them.[4]
> 
> Ents were envisioned as Shepherds of the Trees and their duty was to protect the forests from Orcs, Dwarves and other perils.[5] The males were devoted to Oromë while the Entwives to Yavanna.[4]



We can thank Yavanna for the Ents existence. Whether they were created before, during, or after the Eldar, we do not know for certain.


----------



## Isteth (Apr 20, 2017)

Tom Bombadil is a special snowflake, and no mistake. We can probably leave it at that and have everyone totally comprehend it, haha.

Truthfully, Tom Bombadil smacks of a "Father Time" figure to me, to go alongside Goldberry's "Mother Nature" sort of role. Yavanna, of course, holds the "Mother Nature" title, but the point still stands. It could be argued that Bombadil was meant to be the enduring loremaster of ME, who would carry on all the tales- great and small- down the Ages to the present day. Time, as a concept, has no real beginning and no real end. Only our perception of it does. Thus, it makes sense to me if Tom Bombadil is meant to be Father Time- or the person who inspired the concept. (Especially with the "oldest and fatherless" bits- can't have a father if you've always been there, right?)

"This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down."​
As to the Ents, Treebeard being referenced as the "Eldest" probably means that he was the eldest of the Ents- the first to wake after they were created. This is the Occam's Razor answer, but it does seem to be as good a theory as any. What do you guys think?


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 20, 2017)

Isteth said:


> Tom Bombadil is a special snowflake, and no mistake. We can probably leave it at that and have everyone totally comprehend it, haha.
> 
> Truthfully, Tom Bombadil smacks of a "Father Time" figure to me, to go alongside Goldberry's "Mother Nature" sort of role. Yavanna, of course, holds the "Mother Nature" title, but the point still stands. It could be argued that Bombadil was meant to be the enduring loremaster of ME, who would carry on all the tales- great and small- down the Ages to the present day. Time, as a concept, has no real beginning and no real end. Only our perception of it does. Thus, it makes sense to me if Tom Bombadil is meant to be Father Time- or the person who inspired the concept. (Especially with the "oldest and fatherless" bits- can't have a father if you've always been there, right?)
> 
> ...




First off, love that rhyme. 

Second, that is a really great way to look at it. Tom Bombadil does sound like a "Father Time" figure. 
Also, doesn't Goldberry refer to him as *"He Is*"? (Tolkien stressed that this doesn't mean he's Eru Iluvatar). This adds credence to the theory that Tom has always been there, and always will be.

Your Treebeard theory is sound. I would agree with it. 

By the by, has anyone _seen _or _heard _or _met _Tom lately? I mean, if he's always _been, _doesn't that mean he's still around??? 

CL

P.S. Good theories people!


----------



## Isteth (Apr 20, 2017)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> First off, love that rhyme.
> 
> Second, that is a really great way to look at it. Tom Bombadil does sound like a "Father Time" figure.
> Also, doesn't Goldberry refer to him as *"He Is*"? (Tolkien stressed that this doesn't mean he's Eru Iluvatar). This adds credence to the theory that Tom has always been there, and always will be.
> ...



Actually, I think I might have met him, lately. He goes by "Don". 

I love that rhyme, too. That one, and Gollum's rhyme about darkness. (Though that one, I can't read without hearing that creepy song from the Rankin Bass Hobbit movie from way back when. That was the first Tolkien video adaptation I ever saw as a kid.)

Thank you! I think she does refer to him in the present tense.

Treebeard is probably the easiest of the two to figure out. Like I said, Tom is... special.


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 21, 2017)

Isteth said:


> Truthfully, Tom Bombadil smacks of a "Father Time" figure to me, to go alongside Goldberry's "Mother Nature" sort of role. Yavanna, of course, holds the "Mother Nature" title, but the point still stands. It could be argued that Bombadil was meant to be the enduring loremaster of ME, who would carry on all the tales- great and small- down the Ages to the present day. Time, as a concept, has no real beginning and no real end. Only our perception of it does. Thus, it makes sense to me if Tom Bombadil is meant to be Father Time- or the person who inspired the concept. (Especially with the "oldest and fatherless" bits- can't have a father if you've always been there, right?)



I don't think that anywhere in Tolkien is there a strict "Father Time" or "Mother Nature" character, just like the Valar don't really line up with any gods in other mythologies. 

But I don't think it fits to say that Bombadil is primarily associated with Time. He doesn't actually keep memory of tales of Middle-earth; rather, he is entirely unconcerned with anything accept his woods, which he is tirelessly interested in and constantly interacting with. However, I think it is certainly true that Bombadil is "timeless" in the sense that he is himself not affected by the flow of time in Middle-earth.



Isteth said:


> As to the Ents, Treebeard being referenced as the "Eldest" probably means that he was the eldest of the Ents- the first to wake after they were created. This is the Occam's Razor answer, but it does seem to be as good a theory as any. What do you guys think?



Interesting idea! I hadn't thought of that, but it certainly seems plausible.


----------



## Isteth (Apr 22, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> I don't think that anywhere in Tolkien is there a strict "Father Time" or "Mother Nature" character, just like the Valar don't really line up with any gods in other mythologies.
> 
> But I don't think it fits to say that Bombadil is primarily associated with Time. He doesn't actually keep memory of tales of Middle-earth; rather, he is entirely unconcerned with anything accept his woods, which he is tirelessly interested in and constantly interacting with. However, I think it is certainly true that Bombadil is "timeless" in the sense that he is himself not affected by the flow of time in Middle-earth.
> 
> ...


This is true. Tolkien's works have many parallels with many different religions, which makes it so that anyone can read his works and find something spiritual in them. It's probably why they appeal to so many people. None of the Valar or Maiar line up with anything in any "real-life" mythologies (the closest I can get to a near-exact representation is Eru, who seems to align with God/Allah/Yahwe), so Bombadil also does not truly fit the strict "Father Time" role, at least in the part of lorekeeper.

So, perhaps he would better fit the role when paired with his wife, Goldberry, who seems to represent the seasons. Bombadil is timeless, while Goldberry represents the passage of time and the renewal of life. Perhaps together, they could be representative of time, rather than as individuals?


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 29, 2017)

May I refer to a particularly well written list of inconsistencies on the Tolkien Gateway here. Both inconsistencies mentioned in this topic are included.

I remember some of these disappeared after a number of corrections were made in the “50th Anniversary Edition” so it really depends on which version you’re studying; I refer to the Tolkien Gateway here.

You started an interesting topic, Azrubêl. I happen to have both a 1994 hardcopy edition and a 2004 electronic edition so I made a quick check of the example given of Samwise Gamgee’s modified birthdate (from 2983 to 2980) and indeed: I could notice that the correction was made in the later version!


----------



## Elthir (May 30, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> I'll take a stab at my own post:
> 
> The Lord of the Rings is a translation from the Red Book, composed by Bilbo Baggins. While it may not be overly satisfactory, a possible answer to this contradiction is that either Bilbo, or whomever relayed the events at the West-gate to Bilbo, mistakenly attributed the contemporary name "Moria" rather than "Khazad-dûm" to the inscription, and that the inscription on the West-gate is actually "Khazad-dûm".
> 
> ...



I'll take a stab too, although my approach here is similar. Externally, I think it's probably an error, but...

... one might suppose that Gandalf said Moria while another name appears on the doors. Some might (and do) object to that with _"but Moria is written"_ yes, in the modern [well published in the 1950s anyway] illustration in the book it is, but the appearance in writing of _Durin_ and _Narvi_ arguably bursts the idea that even a written example (in the illustration) must appear on the actual doors. 

In other words, as translations, these names cannot be written on the actual doors, even though they appear in the writing in the illustration of the doors. 

When referring to Balin’s tomb Tolkien noted: "The actual representation of the inscription has however landed in some absurdities (...) but the names _Balin_ and _Fundin_ are in such a context absurd." JRRT Of Dwarves And Men. But he also noted this was basically "effective in its place: giving an idea of the style of the runes when incised with more care for a solemn purpose, and providing a glimpse of a strange tongue" (same source)

And so the illustration of the doors of Moria is also effective in its place, well in my opinion anyway, showing the Elvish script and design, but it need not be a representation of the actual doors in every detail, even with respect to what is written in the illustration. For myself, I imagine the Sindarin name _Hadhodrond _on the doors, though the choice of saying and representing _Moria_ would probably be less confusing in any case.


----------



## Ingolmin (Jun 1, 2017)

Actually there is a lot of problems with the histories given in the annals of Middle earth written by Tolkien and later edited by his son. There are many inconsistencies, we can only theorise as to what may be true but we cannot be sure as to that is true or not. There were many things that were originally said by Tolkien but later removed, some were given more information about by his son but that is also not to the point. One example, Azrubel you gave the problem of Moria, because it was not called by this name then. Then why it is so? This is because first the Lord of the Rings was written, the tales and history of middle earth before LOtr although was written by Tolkien but was a bit incomplete as well as erroneous, but seeing it from broad point, we can make out the books like Hobbit and LOtr were sort of the beginning books for people and these might contain many things which are shallow, but those who want to learn about the histories read them and understand. There are many other examples, Aragorn said that he wasn't related to the Rohirrim, but if you read the Appendixes and some more history, you would find that Gondorian King Valacar married Vidumavi, daughter of Vidugavia, king of Rhovanion and their son was Eldacar, his descendant was Ondoher, father in law of King Arvedui who was the direct ancestor of Aragorn himself. Through Vidugavia was also descended Eorl the Young, the first King of Rohan. So, Aragorn was distantly related to the Rohirrim, and the Rohirrim were related to Lakemen(distaff cousins of the Rohirrim). See a new connection Bard and Aragorn were also related(although they had different blood), by relation I mean relation through genealogy.(Sorry, I consider myself an expert on genealogies of great families in Middle Earth)

Do you know that Tolkien was sort of a backward writer(just like Sherlock Holmes thought backwards so as to solve his case like the Study of Scarlet) by which I mean, he first created a story then imagined how it would have been before, obviously some gaps appear when somebody tries to create such a World of Mystery.


----------



## Elthir (Jun 2, 2017)

There are also those inconsistencies... which aren't inconsistencies 

That is to say, subjectivity!

To my mind, only a true inconsistency arguably exists if the statements in question hail from Tolkien published material.

And then there will be subjective characterizations too. Someone raised Tom Bombadil in the thread, and I understand why, but to me, Tom is an intended mystery not really an inconsistency in the way other examples might be. Another instance that some bring up, is Aragorn [essentially] saying that Sauron does not permit the name _Sauron_ to be spoken by his servants...

... but to me, while we technically might have an inconsistency given the Mouth of Sauron's later use, this simply reflects a realistic way people speak.. in other words, Aragorn has made his point about the S-rune: he is correct with respect to the matter at hand, and even generally speaking. So I wouldn't expect him to stop to muse about, and then mention, any instances that might prove him technically wrong.

And where we do find some "almost all-agreed-upon" problems, I think Tolkien would be happy to see his readers try to smooth them from an internal perspective, or from a "within the conceit" perspective... rather than to simply or only say, well Tolkien goofed.

But then there'll be subjective opinions about the explanations!

For instance, not everyone likes Tolkien's attempted "fix" to Gandalf not being able to read the runic sword-names in _The Hobbit_, but for me the explanation in the 1960 Hobbit [dried goblin blood obscuring the runes] works pretty well, and doesn't seemed stretched. Though the revision was never published by JRRT himself of course, in any case.


----------



## Elthir (Jun 5, 2017)

Hmm, my take on the timeline and Ent creation.

Treebeard's list begins with "Eldest of all, the elf-children", and in the _Silmarillion_, the Elves are the Firstborn of Iluvatar. Now admittedly, the following _Silmarillion_ passage could be said to be a bit vague regarding timing: "When the Children awake, then the thought of Yavanna will awake also, and it will summon spirits from afar, and they will go among the kelvar and the olvar, and some will dwell therein..."

"Awake also", but this is the thought of Yavanna to call spirits. Granted, with "gods" such things might be swift, but Yavanna has to wait until the Elves awake, and why would Eru allow these beings to awaken before the Elves, if the Dwarves could not?

A possible distinction is that the first Ent and Entwife, or first Ents and Entwives, were spirits from afar, and thus not Children of Iluvatar in the sense that Elves were, nor even in the adopted sense of Dwarves [Eru gave them "true life" but made them sleep], and that with the power of generation (note Melian) these first beings produced new made spirits conjoined with flesh or physical matter [Entings]... like the children of Eru, producing new souls.

If so, the Ents as Eru's adopted children [and as a distinct people for the list] would arguably begin with a first generation. In any case, I don't think Tolkien ever meant to "upstage" the Elves as the first Children of Iluvatar.

creation?

"Some of my kin look just like trees now, and need something great to rouse them; and they speak only in whispers. But some of my trees are limb-lithe, and many can talk to me. Elves began it, of course, waking trees up and teaching them to speak and learning their tree talk. They always wished to talk to everything, the old Elves did." The Ent

I realize that waking trees up and teaching them to talk seems like the origin of Ents, especially as the Elves taught speech to the Ents. Later in the chapter _Treebeard, _the Ent says: "Still, I take more kindly to Elves than to others: it was the Elves that cured us of dumbness long ago, and that was a great gift that cannot be forgotten."

But do these passages mean that Elves created Ents? Not necessarily in my opinion. To my mind, Treebeard appears to be comparing Ents who have gone tree-like, and trees who seem Ent-like, considering what the Elves did for _trees_ -- waking them up, teaching them to speak, learning their tree-talk... _and_ they also taught the Ents to speak.

The old Elves wished to talk to everything 

In Appendix F we learn that: "They were known to the Eldar in ancient days, and to the Eldar indeed the Ents ascribed not their own language but the desire for speech." The Ents used their own language among themselves, and loved Quenya, as can be noted in certain fragments in the book, strung together in Ent fashion.

But the Ents credit the Elves for their own desire for speech. And from a private letter not published in _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_: "The Ents claimed to be the oldest "speaking people" after the Elves [illegible] until taught the art of speech by the Elves... they were therefore placed after the Dwarves in the Old List... since Dwarves had the power of speech from their awaking."

In any case, according to the _Silmarillion_ account, Ents were basically created in response to the creation of the Dwarves. In a letter dated 1963 Tolkien takes an internal approach: 1) he explains that no one knew when Ents came or first appeared 2) that the High Elves say that the Valar did not mention them in the "Music", and 3) "But some (Galadriel) were of the opinion that when Yavanna..." [and so on, similar to the Silmarillion tale] "... and that the Ents were either souls sent to inhabit trees, or else they slowly took the likeness of trees owing to their inborn love of trees."

Galadriel

Again, my guess would be that these first Ents would be already existing spirits, but if we have Entings...

I also hold to my opinion that these spirits, whether embodying animal or plant life, would procreate with other like, embodied spirits.


----------



## Azrubêl (Jun 5, 2017)

Galin said:


> For instance, not everyone likes Tolkien's attempted "fix" to Gandalf not being able to read the runic sword-names in _The Hobbit_, but for me the explanation in the 1960 Hobbit [dried goblin blood obscuring the runes] works pretty well, and doesn't seemed stretched. Though the revision was never published by JRRT himself of course, in any case.



Ah interesting! I forgot about that part of the book. I made a post about the runes on the dwarf map a while ago, thinking that Gandalf couldn't read them which, but I must have conflated it with the sword runes. I believe someone replied with a solution in that thread that Gandalf suffered limitations in knowledge through becoming incarnate, so that he can be seen at times forgetting lore, or not recognizing an answer.


----------



## Azrubêl (Jun 5, 2017)

Galin said:


> And from a private letter not published in _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_: "The Ents claimed to be the oldest "speaking people" after the Elves [illegible] until taught the art of speech by the Elves... they were therefore placed after the Dwarves in the Old List... since Dwarves had the power of speech from their awaking."



Great post. Nice job compiling all that. I'm particularly interested in this letter, which I haven't heard of before. Have you been able to make heads or tails of it?

If we assume the Old List is the one that Treebeard mentions, of all the free created peoples, and that the list is in order from first to last born (as this letter seems to imply), then what would the list be? Perhaps this?

1. Elves, the firstborn
2. Dwarves (not counting their initial creation before their awakening)
3. Ents (not counting their life before learning language/awakening as incarnate beings)
4. Men
5. Hobbits

Would it then be the case that the order of creation, NOT order of _awakening, _would instead be as follows, to contrast it with the Old List:

1 and 2. Dwarves or Ents (unsure at what point the Ents were initially created)
3. Elves
4. Men
5. Hobbits


----------



## Elthir (Jun 6, 2017)

waking mist

I think the old list refers to Treebeard's old list, and in my opinion so far [wishing there was no illegible part in the letter and the [...] gaps were filled in], it _seems_ to me that Tolkien might be suggesting that the Ents are older beings than the Dwarves -- as far as being awake is concerned -- but given that the Ents did not have language _at first_, they took a place _after_ the Dwarves.

If the Dwarves awoke after the Elves but before the first Ents -- and had language from the start -- I would think there would be no question that the Dwarves should hold second place on Treebeard's list. _If_ that makes sense?

I mean, the Entish claim _seems_ to be: we are speaking peoples, and older than Dwarves [again, in the awaking sense, in any case]. But the rejoinder appears to be, yes, but you did not speak until the Elves inspired you to, so the Dwarves take precedence here.

That's my initial _guess_ there  other readings of this broken passage are welcome!


There's an interesting statement [War of the Jewels] in a series of passages where JRRT was trying to sort out the details of the making of the First Dwarves. There are five passages, the last one ending with: "And Aule returned to Valinor and waited long as best he might. But it is not known when Durin or his brethren awoke, though some think it was at the time of the departure of the Eldar over sea."

However, in the text used for the Silmarillion chapter 2 [note: Christopher Tolkien constructed this chapter from more than one source and inserted it here into Quenta Silmarillion], it merely says "... and he returned to Valinor, and waited while the long years lengthened."

Hmm.

creation mist

With respect to being created first, I think we might run into more mist. _The Awakening of the Quendi_ [The War of the Jewels] begins: "While their first bodies were being made from the 'flesh of Arda' the Quendi slept 'in the womb of the earth', beneath the green sward, and awoke when they were full grown."

But do we know how long this making took? So far I only recall the end date of awakening, Valian Year 1050. Moreover, some would question _The Awakening of the Quendi_ internally, as it's meant to be an Elvish "fairy tale" mingled with counting lore.

On the other, other hand, even fairy tales can contain truths! 

The _impression_ I get is that the Dwarves were created before the Elves, given Aule's "long" wait for the Quendi to awaken, but I'm not sure when Eru placed the Unbegotten Elves to begin with.

And though I've done a bit of rambling here, I feel like I'm missing something...

... I might be anyway!


----------

