# Published Silmarillion vs. HoMe



## Elendil3119 (Jun 4, 2003)

What changes to the legendarium did Tolkien make later in his life that should be given preference over the Published Silmarillion? I know about stuff like Gil-galad's parenthood, and the origin of Orcs from HoMe 10, but is there anything else worth noting?


----------



## Beleg (Jun 5, 2003)

The part about Morwen's death should be replaced by the similar event in the Wanderings of Hurin.


----------



## Elendil3119 (Jun 5, 2003)

Anyone else? Inder, Maedhros??


----------



## Maedhros (Jun 7, 2003)

You would have to take the Later Quentas that in _Morgoth's Ring_ with the _ Shibboleth of Fëanor in thePeoples of Middle Earth_ as a more wholesome story.
The enmendation that Míriel did not die when she gave to Fëanor but that she lived up to when he was grown, and the _Stature of Míriel and Finwë_.
Also in the Ainulindalë, which version to use, Version D perhaps, and there is also the fact of what to do with Ælfwine. In _Morgoth's Ring: Ainulindalë_, it is still Ælfwine the one who tells the story. Would you really want to keep him, thought it seems certain that he was later abandoned. Would you keep Pengoloð, the wise of Gondolin too?
Is the Silmarillion supposed to be a Tale of Numenórean Origin, as it is later told?
Can the Second Prophecy of Mandos can be saved, and if it can, which One?
How would one proceed with _Unfinished Tales: Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin_? Does it has a place in the Silmarillion? Does _The Fall of Gondolin of the Book of Lost Tales_, can be used? It is the only place in the legendarium that I know where there is the description of Gondolin.


----------



## Confusticated (Jun 7, 2003)

Even if one throws in the Shibboleth and other writings, I would still see it as Numenorean in origin. This is because it was the Flat Earth and the placing of the Making of the Sun so late that caused Tolkien to discover it was mannish in orgin. To keep that aspect of the story, and add later writings into it, would be to make those later writings of mannish orgin. That is just how I see it.

And even if we take the Sil as being Numenorean in orgin, we know some of the information must be correct, otherwise we may as well say that the entire history of the Elder days could be just some myth made by men having little or no truth. So even if the information in Shibboleth, as the Statute of Miriel could be Eldarin orgin, when placed in The Silmarillion it would become mannish, the way I see it, since men got most of their information from elves... and yet, how did they mess up with the Sun and Moon.

Personally I would rather keep Pengolodh because I like him and what about the Dangweth Pengoldoh? That is beautiful and nothing he actually says in it is unfitting even though it is his answer to Aelfwine.

But all in all, I view most of these tales as being uncertain in orgin, but when I read something, such as the debate of the Valar, or Dangweth and Athrabeth, I like to view them as being Eldarin in orgin.

Things like Gil-galad son of Orodreth, and Turgon and Fingon's brother Argon, are for me, the true story and a real person, just part that did not make it into the tales that we get. So, men will say Gil-Galad was Finrod or Fingon's son, but Eldar will say he is the son of Orodreth... that is just the way I view it right now. Now the Sun and Moon is more tricky, should I say that the narrative for the new idea found in Myth's Transformed is Eldar in orgin. I do not know the works of Tolkien well enough to begin to say really... this is just my current thoughts.

But do people not sort of look past the Sun and Moon idea because it is too much to incorperate into the tales that we have? Yet why not look past Shibboleth too then.


----------



## Elendil3119 (Jun 9, 2003)

Why did Christopher Tolkien choose to use the versions of Ainulindalë and the Quenta Silmarillion that he did in the Published Silmarillion? Maedhros, you said that the Quentas in HoMe 10 and 12 are more complete. These were the last ones that J.R.R. wrote, so why didn't Christopher Tolkien use _these_?? 

Maybe I'm confused here. I guess this is my real question: from what texts do we get the Published Silmarillion?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elendil3119 _
> *Why did Christopher Tolkien choose to use the versions of Ainulindalë and the Quenta Silmarillion that he did in the Published Silmarillion? Maedhros, you said that the Quentas in HoMe 10 and 12 are more complete. These were the last ones that J.R.R. wrote, so why didn't Christopher Tolkien use these?? *



Perhaps CT didn't get the chance to plod through ALL of his late father's notes by 1977, when the Silmarillion was published - Some of the texts may have been in someone else's possession at the time also (e.g. a library or some sort of archive - just like the original LOTR manuscripts were sold to Marquette University in Milwaukee) and later retrieved...

P.S.: The Later Quentas are in HoME 10 & 11.


----------



## Helcaraxë (Jun 11, 2003)

Persnoally, I think Tokien's final views should be taken as fact, as you said ithrynluin.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jun 16, 2003)

Nom, the Numenoreans are credited with making 'mythological' mistakes' i.e. the sun and the moon and they wouldn't have made factual mistakes. The Sun+Moon creation etc are embroiled in Mannish mythology and therefore they would have introduced their own ideas and mythos into this. Gil-Galad was a prominent figure in the S.A and embroiled in Numenorean affairs therefore his parentage would've been well known, especially amongst the learned, who undoubtley compiled the Silmarillion. Or taking the account that Bilbo was also a 'compiler' of the Silmarillion-he would've obtained help from Elrond and other Elven lords and they would've known about his parentage. 

In his final drafts, Tolkien had not intended for Fingon to be Gil-Galad's father no more so then for Gothmog to be son of Morgoth.  C.T didn't introduce Argon etc because they were characters that came from essays. C.T wanted to make a Silmarillion based on the Annals of Aman and Beleriand and the Early/Latter Quenta's to avoid confusion, though he at times adopts saying from certain essays into the _ Published Silmarillion_ 




> Why did Christopher Tolkien choose to use the versions of Ainulindalë and the Quenta Silmarillion that he did in the Published Silmarillion? Maedhros, you said that the Quentas in HoMe 10 and 12 are more complete



There is no Quenta in HoME 12, that is appendices drafting and essay, I think you mean HoME 11-yes? I think the most 'complete' Quenta's are 4 and 5, which are pretty large in contrast. The Quenta in HoME 10 deals with the Eldar in Aman (i.e. a time before they came to M-E) and this is reflected by the _Annals of Aman_. (I'm unsure as to who the heck wrote the Annals of Aman since in _Tale of Years_ Tolkien states Quennar Onotimo as the compiler of the records of time but at the start I'm sure it says Rumil compiled them, so maybe Onotimo compiled the record of time in Beleriand.) 

The Quenta found in HoME 11, which deals with Beleriand is not very big and it is rather incomplete, and C.T had to take a lot from the _ Grey Annals _ as opposed to the prose version of the Quenta, which makes for mistakes and lack of description that could be found in the prose version. 



> from what texts do we get the Published Silmarillion



Early Quenta Silmarillion-HoME 5 (Mainly from the Tale of Earendil, War of Wrath etc since Tolkien didn't get round to doing this again) 

Annals of Aman, Latter Quenta Silmarillion 1 (HoME 10)

Grey Annals, Latter Quenta Silmarillion 2 (HoME 11)

Possibly other essays...



> (e.g. a library or some sort of archive - just like the original LOTR manuscripts were sold to Marquette University in Milwaukee)



Those were early drafts, do you really think C.T would sell/lend final drafts? I dont remember him claiming any Silmarillion related works were sold/lent.


----------



## Confusticated (Jun 16, 2003)

> Nom, the Numenoreans are credited with making 'mythological' mistakes' i.e. the sun and the moon and they wouldn't have made factual mistakes. The Sun+Moon creation etc are embroiled in Mannish mythology and therefore they would have introduced their own ideas and mythos into this. Gil-Galad was a prominent figure in the S.A and embroiled in Numenorean affairs therefore his parentage would've been well known, especially amongst the learned, who undoubtley compiled the Silmarillion. Or taking the account that Bilbo was also a 'compiler' of the Silmarillion-he would've obtained help from Elrond and other Elven lords and they would've known about his parentage.



I don't understand. Men would learn from high elves the truth about the first age, even the details of who was whose father, yet the elves wouldn't have mentioned to them that the world was not flat in the first age? Or if they did, men ignored this and went with their creative fanciful ideas? How about the 'factual' information that the first Sunrise took place after the Noldor reached Middle-earth. So just how did they make this "mistake"?


----------



## Inderjit S (Jun 16, 2003)

> Or if they did, men ignored this and went with their creative fanciful ideas?



Yes.



> It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must actually be a 'Mannish' affair. (Men are really only interested in Men and in Men's ideas and visions.) The High Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic beings must have known, or at least their writers and loremasters must have known, the 'truth' (according to their measure of understanding). What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized, and centred upon actors, such as Feanor) handed on by Men in Numenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back - from the first association of the Dunedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand - blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.


 _Myths Transformed; hoME 10_


----------



## Helcaraxë (Dec 28, 2003)

I don't understand the basis for stating that the Silmarillion is of Numenorean origin. To be perfectly honest, I was under the impression that the Sil was not of any "origin," that it was simply legends compiled by Tolkien himself about the First Age.  I wasn't aware that he gave the Silamillion itself a place in the mythology as a tale compiled by the Numenoreans. A way to make the mythology seem more connected and realistic, perhaps? A book within a book?  

MB


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 28, 2003)

_The Silmarillion_ originates from the _Book of Lost Tales_ in which the mariner Ælfwine sails to Tol Eressea and hears about various stories (Beren and Lúthien; Túrin etc.) from various people.

Later, _The Silmarillion_ was said to have been written by Bilbo, during he stay at Rivendell ('Translations of Elvish') and it was discovered by Findegil the 'Kings Writer'. 

Tolkien in his post-Sil work goes back to the idea of Ælfwine and Pengoloð. (As well as other commentators, Rúmil is said to have composed the Ainulindalë, Quennar Onotimo the records of time) we also see Pengoloð emerge in several essays. ('Quendi and Eldar'; HoME 11, 'Dangweth Pengoloð' HoME 12) as well as Dírhavel’s composition of the Narn i Hin Húrin (Presumably this includes the 'Wanderings of Húrin; HoME 11) and Ælfwine’s translation of the Narn. There are also several 'first person' (i.e. not written by various commentators) essays by Tolkien, such as 'The Shibboleth of Fëanor', 'The Problem of Ros' and 'Of Dwarves and Men' (HoME 12).

But Tolkien's last thoughts seem to favour the theory that it was a Númenórean tale, derived partly from Elvish tales (and about the Elvish history, which intertwines with the Atanic history) though mixed with Mannish myths-hence the discrepancy in regards to the myth of the sun and moon coming from the Two Trees, which Tolkien claims was a Mannish 'myth'. (Tolkien leans more to scientific explanations for Arda rather the mythical ones, towards the end of his life.)


----------



## Helcaraxë (Dec 28, 2003)

So how can we trust the Silmarillion if Tolkien says it was primaily Numenorean in origin?

Also, am I correct in saying that not only did Tolkien write a fictional history for Middle-Earth in the Silmarillion, he also created a fictional history _for_ the Silmarillion in the context of the fictional history of ME? As I said, kind of like a "book within a book"?.

MB


----------



## Arvedui (Apr 20, 2004)

This thread has been moved out of the Guild of Scholar's Hall, and will hopefully be filled with the thoughts of more members.


----------

