# Did Christopher Tolkien Make the Right Decision with the Ending of the Silmarillion?



## Keith Mathison (Jun 25, 2020)

After working through the History of Middle-earth volumes, I have begun to question whether Christopher Tolkien made the right decision with the conclusion he chose for the published Silmarillion. I finally gathered all of my thoughts together here - making a case that he probably should have kept the Second Prophecy of Mandos in the ending. These thoughts are tentative, of course. I'll be looking forward to the publication of _The Nature of Middle-earth _next May to see whether there is any additional evidence in there that would affect my thoughts one way or another. In the meantime, if anyone here has any comments, criticisms, or crebain, I would love to hear them!


----------



## Elthir (Jun 25, 2020)

*Drat*. Keith I wrote a longish response here, but lost it. Which is not easy in these forums, but somehow I did it in the midst of trying to save it!

All I'll say for now is that I agree with Christopher Tolkien that the _Second Prophecy of Mandos _was abandoned. CJRT himself says so explicitly . . .

. . . *not* an end-times scenario however (which Christopher Tolkien included references to, though admittedly in brief and "inconclusive" in a sense, in both the constructed QS and AK), rather an end times scenario given as a _prophecy_ *from* Mandos himself.

In other words: abandoning the Second Prophecy does not equal abandoning myths or references to an end-time scenario. *Not that you said otherwise*. But in the past, in my over 20 years chatting Tolkien on line, some have seemed to equate these two things, which I don't think CJRT himself meant.

So for me the question becomes, given the extant evidence, if the end of _Quenta Silmarillion_ (which was never really updated by JRRT, outside of some "late-ish" cursory emendations) was still to be included, newly characterized as a Numenorean myth, what was it going to say?

🐾


----------



## Keith Mathison (Jun 25, 2020)

Thank you for the feedback (sorry you lost the first version of your response). I'm not sure it is possible to answer conclusively that final question even if we had access to everything Christopher had - but as I suggested in that lengthy blog post, I think the 1936 ending could provide the bulk of it. 

With regard to Christopher's explicit statement regarding the Second Prophecy, are you referring to the comment on page 204 of _Morgoth's Ring_? As you can tell, I think his interpretation of that ending of the Valaquenta on which he is commenting there is contradicted to some degree by the things Tolkien wrote after that, but I do agree (if I'm understanding you correctly) that the "Prophecy" and the "prophecy" can be distinguished - in the sense that you could have the content without it coming from Mandos. It's the content that I think Tolkien certainly would have wanted - even if it were to come from another (Numenorean) source.

Hope you have a great day!

KM


----------



## Elthir (Jun 25, 2020)

Yes *Keith*, MR page 204, HMC hardback edition 

And I think you do understand me correctly, in that I'm putting forward that the "Second Prophecy of Mandos" -- as a thing in itself, as a saying of Mandos regarding the Marring and so forth -- was abandoned (not declared in the dooms of Mandos). And I add this to Tolkien's characterization of the "prophecy" as a Numenorean myth.

I'll try to add the rest of my lost post at some later time, if possible 🐾


----------



## Halasían (Jun 26, 2020)

I will note here that The Silmarillion was published in 1977. Had Christopher waited until he had gone through and compiled every note his father left to make a more complete book, it wouldn't have been published until much later.


----------



## Elthir (Jun 26, 2020)

Take two part two 

At one point Tolkien made cursory emendations to the end section of Quenta Silmarillion:
for example: _Turin Turambar . . . coming from the halls of Mandos_ revised to _Turin Turambar . . . returning from the Doom of Men at the ending of the World._ "In the margin of the manuscript my father wrote *"and Beren Camlost"* without direction for its insertion."

At this stage, Feanor breaks the Silmarils, Yavanna rekindles the Trees. And Tolkien put a large X against this section: "In that light the Gods will grow young again, and the Elves awake and all their dead arise, and the purpose of Iluvatar be fulfilled concerning them. But of Men in that day the prophecy of Mandos doth not speak, and no Man it names, save Turin only, and to him a place is given among the sons of the Valar."

In any case, I can see why this was rejected, as the X appears to indicate. Here too, Christopher Tolkien "warns" however, that his father's mode of revision could be perfunctory " . . . and it may be that such later emendations as he made in this case are to be regarded in that light than as implying any sort of final approval of the content."

Next, in _Morgoth's Ring,_ we have Author's note 7 to the commentary to the _Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth,_ where JRRT says that the "myth" that appears at the end of the Silmarillion "is of Numenorean origin; it is clearly made by Men, though Men acquainted with Elvish tradition."

This appears to be in line with the Valaquenta: no longer a prophecy from Mandos himself, but a Mannish myth. And then comes the late text *The Problem of Ros* (The Peoples of Middle-Earth), and here we have, once again, a prophecy, but now hailing from a Mannish source, Andreth the Wise-woman.

"The language of the folk of Haleth was not used, for they had perished and would not rise again, unless the prophecy of Andreth the Wise-Woman should prove true, that Turin in the Last Battle would return from the dead, and before he left the Circles of the World forever should challenge the Great Dragon of Morgoth, Ancalagon the Black, and deal him the death-stroke."

And here in note 17 Christopher Tolkien recounts much of the external origins of the prophecy in general, starting back with Book II of HOME, and concludes: "In this last reappearance of the mysterious and fluctuating idea, the prophecy is put into the mouth of Andreth, the Wise-woman of the House of Beor ( . . . ) Andreth prophesies of the Last Battle of the Elder Days (the sense in which the term "Last Battle" is used shortly afterwards in the text, p. 371)."

So (generally speaking) early versions > 1930s prophecy of Mandos (possibly approved later) > later 1950s Numenorean myth > 1968 or later, Mannish prophecy.

____________________

And not that I've given my full argument, but: did Christopher Tolkien make the right decision?

I can see both sides of the argument. For example, how do we know for sure that the last incarnation of Turin's return, in a Mannish prophecy, automatically knocks out the Numenorean myth of a "Last Battle"? I've heard that before anyway.

At the moment I can't recall CJRT ever regretting this particular decision. He included brief references to the Last Battle in both QS and AK, and would be aware of the references in _The Lord of the Rings_ itself, but I'm guessing that he saw this matter as "questionable enough" given other extant writings.

I'd say CJRT set his own bounds as editor and son, and due to HOME, today we can be editors to some extent, but not son (obviously, but still, he's in a different position by being both Tolkien's son and the man making the version "everyone" will read).

His first intuition was to produce a mini-HOME, and after a one-volume internal version was decided upon, I think he was very reluctant to go beyond certain lines. But problems arose, and at least back in the 1970s, it seemed to him that the best course with respect to_ The Fall of Doriath_ (one example that CJRT later regretted), was to invent an unauthorized solution to the problems he believed to exist.

I'm guessing he was very reluctant to do this, yet even this decision alone could open the flood gates for readers -- that is, I can imagine the argument being something like: if CJRT was willing to invent something "over here", why not include some form of end-scenario for QS that speaks to Arda Healed? And not everything he chose for the constructed version represents Tolkien's last known idea about a given matter. It's complicated, no doubt.

Each decision is its own case, so to speak; and I'm reminded of Tolkien scholar Michael Drout, who wished Christopher Tolkien allowed himself to be "freer" with respect to the constructed _Children of Hurin _for example -- whereas others might criticize from the other side; something like: where did Tolkien himself write that?

CJRT, between a rock and a stone 

🐾


----------

