# Silmarillion - To be taken as authority?



## Thorin (Jan 10, 2002)

In the movie forum, there was a huge discussion concerning taking only LoTr and The Hobbit as standard. Some felt that only these writings could be trusted and that all post-Tolkien works were interesting at best....

I did read somewhere that before Tolkien did LoTR he tried to get Silmarillion published, but to no avail, so he set it aside and started LoTR. After LoTR was published he turned his eyes to the Elder days of ME.

My point is, is that I think (though edited by Christopher Tolkien) the Silmarillion was pretty definitive on what Tolkien felt and agreed on concerning other matters. I think that Sil can be trusted as a definitive source along side Hobbit and LoTR.

Any comments?


----------



## Grond (Jan 10, 2002)

The Silmarillion is a complete work. There is virtually no Christopher Tolkien narrative in it. It is almost totally the 1st and 2nd age as portrayed by the author. I'm not sure if it is exactly as JRRT would have presented it (we'll never know for sure) but I feel assured that he would approve of its content.

For that reason I think is a definitive reference and can in many instances supercede inferences in the Hobbit and TLotR simply because he did amplify his thoughts that were only referenced in the other books. (ie. Luthien is only mentioned casually in the other two books. I would hold the Silmarillion as more sacrosanct concerning her. The Rings of Power is another segment that if in conflict with the other two works would hold precedent.) Of course, these are just my humble opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em.

I will say that I have less faith in UT and HoMe, simply because CT does interject an enormous amount of interpretation or which example would have been his father's definitive word on a subject aka origins of Elves. I think that only the author could have unconditionally told us what his final thoughts are.... and, alas, he never will now.


----------



## Curufinwe (Jan 11, 2002)

I'm not quite catching you here, are you saying that the hobbit and lotr are the only real pieces of writing done by Tolkien and the rest are just pieces of writing that you can't trust?


----------



## aragil (Jan 11, 2002)

Curufinwe:
I think that this thread is meant to be a debate on whether post-humously published material should be regarded as having equal (or greater or lesser) authority in terms of what they say about Middle-Earth. I don't want to put words into the mouths of Grond and Thorin, but I wouldn't characterize their opinions on the post-humous material as "_pieces of writing that you can't trust_".
As for my opinion, I'm mostly in agreement with Greenwood on this one. I *do* think that we can look to UT and HoME when we need clarification- there is a much greater level of detail here for certain aspects of Middle-Earth that Tolkien didn't address in the earlier publications. It's where there is conflicts that I have problems. First off, I can't really think of any points in Silmarillion that conflict with LotR- there's a remarkable level of consistency between the two, especially considering the scope of both writings. But, as Grond has stated, Tolkien was a lot closer to being finished with the material in the Silmarillion than he was for the bulk of HoME and UT. These works just never had the chance for Tolkien to give them that last look through to make sure that everything was exactly as he wanted it. LotR did have that opportunity, plus several extra editions in publication for Tolkien to bring it to perfection.

ps. Thorin- the arm of the movie forum has grown long.


----------



## Thorin (Jan 11, 2002)

Leave me alone! 'sob' Why can't you just leave me alone???

 That's okay, aragil. You can come and debate with me anytime....just leave a few certain friends at the movie forum... Though I'm sure there will be much less that we disagree on or need to insult each other about on these forums....And on here you all can't call me a NPW fundmentalist, because now we are on Tolkien's turf.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jan 11, 2002)

The important thing to remember about the Silmarillion is that, the Appendicies at the end of LotR were a concession on the part of Tolkien, he originally wanted to publish all of the Silmarillion WITH LotR, but when Unwin balked at the idea Tolkien went with the Appendicies instead. Ergo the Silmarillion was in what Tolkien considered a publishable state since the original publication of LotR.

Any work that Christopher did was not to add to it, but rather to insert text from notation made by the professor changing text in his original final version. Unlike certain Movie Directors, Christopher did not Invent anything to stick into his father's work...


----------



## ¤-Elessar-¤ (Jan 12, 2002)

plus, wasnt the Sil actually pre-LoTR? I thought that it was what he orriginally started with, and then put it on afterburners for a while. I really think I remember hearing that somewhere...any comments?


----------



## Walter (Jan 12, 2002)

The first origins of _The Silmarillion_ reach back as far as 1914 - Eärendil's starship episode - and by 1923 the book was more or less finished (for the first time), long before he started working on the Hobbit or the LotR. But rather than finishing the book and offering it for publication, Tolkien started to rewrite it, partly for he might have been afraid no one would want to publish it, partly because he didn't like the idea of having finished his "process of creation" on this book that after all meant something like a "lifetime passion" for Prof. Tolkien...

So - if anything at all - I would consider _The Silmarillion_ as _the authoritative source_...


----------



## Curufinwe (Jan 12, 2002)

here here.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 12, 2002)

> In the movie forum, there was a huge discussion concerning taking only LoTr and The Hobbit as standard. Some felt that only these writings could be trusted and that all post-Tolkien works were interesting at best....



Hi Thorin!  

I am afraid you have misunderstood the "huge discussion". The question was in the case of a conflict between LOTR and Tolkien's posthumously published work which should be given more weight concerning the conflict as regards LOTR. The answer based on standard principles of research is LOTR. It is the primary source, all other sources are secondary. As Aragil has said Tolkien had the opportunity to review and approve The Hobbit and LOTR in final form before publication and even to make changes in later editions, a chance he never had for The Silmarillion and all works published later. Remember, we are dealing with works of fiction, not actual history. Things mean only what Tolkien wanted them to mean.

The debate, in fact, was started because someone who claimed to be a purist insisted on accepting a definition found in a reference book by another author over Tolkien's own clear meaning in LOTR.

Good to see you again.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 15, 2002)

The basis for all the information in the Silmarillion is pretty clearly laid out in Christopher Tolkien's forward:

1. 'A complete consistency (either within the Silmarillion or between it & my father's other published works) is not to be looked for'. 

2. 'My father came to conceive of The Silmarillion as a compillation,.... made long after by sources of great diversity (poems & annals, & oral tales). These, in Tolkien's 'explanation' of this being a real world, were finally put to writing by Bilbo & Frodo & included in The Red Book.....


Some other points:

3. This was not a finished work when Tolkien died. This can clearly be seen in Unfinished Tales, where 2 stories, 'Of Tour & His Coming To Gondolin' & 'Narn I Hin Hurin' are partially expanded on to a level similar to The Hobbit & TLOR. 
Myself, when I read the book, I switch to the longer tales in UT at the parts where they appear in The Silmarillion.

4. I don't know where he says it, but Christopher Tolkien comments somewhere (UT I think) about 'The end of the world, when Melkor is unchained & returns for the final battle' (paraphrase), that this has to do with the 3rd (or is it 2nd?) prophecy of Mandos, & 'it would need some explanation & development in regards to the published form'.

5. I personally also find no major historical inconsistencies with The Silmarillion & The Hobbit & TLOR.

6. I also take it as 'fact' as it pertains to the history of Middle Earth.....


----------



## lilhobo (Jan 15, 2002)

i dont think its the historical/chronological facts we are worried about......

it the more fundamental issues like immortality, what form can sauron take etc,


----------



## Eonwe (Jan 15, 2002)

Bucky said:

"I personally also find no major historical inconsistencies with The Silmarillion & The Hobbit & TLOR"

I never have seen anything either, right down to the song Aragorn sings about Luthien. Anybody else know of anything in the Sil that is inconsistent with TLOR?


----------



## Bucky (Jan 16, 2002)

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that in Appendix B, prior to 'The Tale of the Years', a different name or 2 is used for Elves. Finarfin & Finrod seem to come to mind.
It could be a typo though.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 16, 2002)

Bucky and Eonwe

The dispute that Thorin refers to on the movie forum in the opening of this thread was over the meaning of the words uruk vs. Uruk-hai. Several people said that the two words were interchangeable. I and others pointed out that in LOTR they are not used interchangeably and that Tolkien seemed to consistently use Uruk-hai to refer to Saurman's elite troops who were apparently a blending of humans and orcs and who could tolerate daylight. In contrast uruks seemed to be a perhaps more general term for the large soldier orcs in Sauron's employ who gave little evidence of light tolerence. Those of us holding this view gave a number of direct quotations from LOTR demonstrating the use of the words in LOTR. Other people claimed that the two terms were interchangeable and gave as their evidence the fact that a number of Tolkien scholars and compendiums, as well as the appendix in Unfinished Tales, claimed the terms were interchangeable. It was at that point that I pointed out, with backing from Aragil and others, that as a general rule of research when discussing the meaning of things in The Hobbit and LOTR, or conflicts between The Hobbit and LOTR and posthumously published Tolkien works, the latter works are secondary sources and cannot refute the clear meaning in The Hobbit or LOTR. This of course applies even more strongly for the works and opinions of other authors, including Tolkien's son Christopher. 

This is just a matter of basic principles of research applicable to many fields beyond Tolkien. To further elaborate on the question, it has been pointed out many times that Tolkien was an author who nearly constantly rethought and rewrote his work. Obviously one result of this is that the meaning of words that Tolkien invented might change over time in the reworking. The Hobbit and LOTR are the only major Middle Earth works to be published during Tolkien's lifetime with his approval. He even changed things between editions, which is certainly his right as an author. Having died before The Silmarillion and all later books were published, these books clearly do not have the same kind of "seal of approval" from Tolkien. As Bucky has quoted, Christopher Tolkien says in his foreward to The Slmarillion "A complete consistency (either within the Silmarillion or between it & my father's other published works) is not to be looked for."

The question was never one of "trust" as Thorin phrased it, but of which works were published in a final form by Tolkien himself and which were in essence still drafts.


----------



## Tar-Palantir (Jan 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Bucky _
> *The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that in Appendix B, prior to 'The Tale of the Years', a different name or 2 is used for Elves. Finarfin & Finrod seem to come to mind.
> It could be a typo though. *



I think there's a note on this in UT (the chapter on Galadriel, maybe?) where CT states that in the first edition of LOTR, Finrod was named as the person who eventually became Finarfin and the son was named Felagund. JRRT amended this in all subsequent versions of LOTR.


----------



## Grond (Feb 3, 2003)

LOL Tar-Elenion, after a year at the back of the pack, I'm glad you brought this thread to forward again. After doing another year's worth of reading and research, I'm not sure I'm willing to call anything in Tolkien's writings canon anymore. You find things in so many of the HoMe that are seeking to bring his First and Second Age writings in line with his published works. His attempts were great but I don't think I give the Silmarillion canon status. There are two many alternative writings that have been revealed in UT and HoMe for us to know which were his "final" views.


----------



## GuardianRanger (Feb 6, 2003)

I'm looking into getting HoME....I'd really like to get a box set where I can get all the books at once.

I know there has been some talk as whether or not these books can be referred to as canon. My question is, were these books actually _written_ by JRRT, or are they mostly extrapolation by his son. I always see his son's name on the covers of the books. How much of the writing is JRRT's and how much belongs to his son?

As for the Silmarillion, I think I fall into the camp of those who believe that book to be part of the canon.


Thanks.


----------



## Grond (Feb 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GuardianRanger _
> *I'm looking into getting HoME....I'd really like to get a box set where I can get all the books at once.
> 
> I know there has been some talk as whether or not these books can be referred to as canon. My question is, were these books actually written by JRRT, or are they mostly extrapolation by his son. I always see his son's name on the covers of the books. How much of the writing is JRRT's and how much belongs to his son?
> ...


The Silmarillion was never a finished work. Christopher Tolkien actually edited the Silmarillion and it was he, who decided which versions of the histories to put forward. Knowing that, we can hardly assign any more credence to the Silmarilliion as a work of J. R. R. T. than we can the HoMe. 

GuardianRanger, the HoMe is completely filled with writings of J. R. R. T. These represent many of the alternative versions/history that Christopher culled through and "rejected" for the published Simlarillion. These texts do have significant additional narrative from Christopher (who should know his father's mind better than anyone currently living, although he is surely not infallible.) I find many of the alternative stories in the HoMe series to have just as much merit as the published Silmarillion. For that reason, I give the Silmarillion no more authority than U. T. or HoMe. The only authoritative works we know for sure are the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings with the Appendices which were written and edited by the writer himself.


----------



## Maedhros (Feb 6, 2003)

> The Silmarillion was never a finished work. Christopher Tolkien actually edited the Silmarillion and it was he, who decided which versions of the histories to put forward. Knowing that, we can hardly assign any more credence to the Silmarilliion as a work of J. R. R. T. than we can the HoMe.


I think that Christopher decided to put the stories that were completed and not necessarily his father's latest ideas. And Christopher has stated that if he would do the Sil again, he would change certain things. Ex. the parentage of Gil-Galad. I agree with Grond that the _Published Silmarillion_ cannot be considered canon.


----------



## GuardianRanger (Feb 6, 2003)

I went to Miriam-Webster to look up canon:



> [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>



(There were other definitions, but this was the best, I think, for this thread.)

Going by what's been discussed so far, we could say that:

canon = The Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

non-canon = The Silmarillion, the History of Middle Earth, and anything else I have unintentionally ommitted.

It seems there is no denying that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are universally accepted as definitive.

However, to a varying degree, The Silmarillion and the History of Middle Earth have a high degree of validity. It's just that JRRT passed before they could be published. His passing is where we draw the line on canon. Would they have been published had he lived longer? Did he even want them published? Maybe that's where the differing of opinions comes into play.

According to the definition, we could surmise that all of the works (where they have not been added to by Tolkien's son) are canon because they were at one time written by him.

I hope this isn't off topic.....I'm just trying to explore the realm of Middle Earth and see it from the big picture of JRRT's mind. Personally, I accept his son's editing and writing; as if it were not for him, I never would have read any of the other books.

My initial querey was because I saw the HoME boxed set listed as JRRT and Christopher Tolkien. I didn't know _how much_ of the writing was JRRT and how much was Christopher Tolkien.


----------



## Grond (Feb 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GuardianRanger _
> *I went to Miriam-Webster to look up canon:
> 
> (There were other definitions, but this was the best, I think, for this thread.)
> ...


 Welcome GuardianRanger!! I haven't run into you here before but welcome your insightful input. One large problem with the published works (all of them) is the conflicting accounts of many different events of which the author wrote. We cannot consider all of them canon because there are so many different versions and we (and Christopher Tolkien) cannot be absolutely certain as to which idea (writing) was the final one.

A perfect example of this it he story of the Sun and the Moon. The Silmarillion account is described as the "Flat World Version". It describes the original Ea, as flat and that it was first illuminated by the Lamps and then the Two Trees. After the Darkening of Valinor, the two fruits of the Two Trees become the Sun and the Moon. Ea is not converted into a "round world" until the Drowning of the Adunie (Numenor). 

In Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien completely rewrites the Ainulindale to incorporate a Round World Ea "from its inception". CT explains that this is done in an attempt to bring the world of Middle-earth out of a "mystical realm" and to try and place it in our own world aka real world Physics. (Last sentence is my words and not CT). Who knows what J. R. R. T. would have finally decided had he lived to publish the text. I would hope, he would have left the "Flat World version" because it is so much more beautiful to me. 

I encourage you to get the last 3 books of HoMe first. They are the one's that give you the most radical changes (IMHO) from the published Sil. There are instances of three and at times even four different versions of the Ainulindale. All three are well worth the read.


----------



## Walter (Feb 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> After doing another year's worth of reading and research, I'm not sure I'm willing to call anything in Tolkien's writings canon anymore. You find things in so many of the HoMe that are seeking to bring his First and Second Age writings in line with his published works. His attempts were great but I don't think I give the Silmarillion canon status. There are two many alternative writings that have been revealed in UT and HoMe for us to know which were his "final" views.


 I could not agree more...


> _Originally posted by GuardianRanger _
> My initial querey was because I saw the HoME boxed set listed as JRRT and Christopher Tolkien. I didn't know _how much_ of the writing was JRRT and how much was Christopher Tolkien.


 Christopher only comments his father's writings and in the text different font-sizes are used for J.R.R.'s and Christopher's parts.


----------



## Gil-Galad (Feb 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Thorin _
> *. I think that Sil can be trusted as a definitive source along side Hobbit and LoTR.
> 
> Any comments? *


 I doubt about that.There are some things which Tolkien changed later and the question of my parentega is one of them.
I think it can't be the best source because it wasn't published while Tolkien was alive.If he had been alive,he would have changed lots of facts,things etc. and that would have been made in the process of the development of the book.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Feb 7, 2003)

Canon:
The Lord of the Rings, The Road Goes Ever On, A Guide to the Names in LotR, along with The Hobbit and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (both of which need to be looked at in the context of how they were written).



> _Originally posted by Grond _
> A perfect example of this it he story of the Sun and the Moon. The Silmarillion account is described as the "Flat World Version". It describes the original Ea, as flat and that it was first illuminated by the Lamps and then the Two Trees. After the Darkening of Valinor, the two fruits of the Two Trees become the Sun and the Moon. Ea is not converted into a "round world" until the Drowning of the Adunie (Numenor).



It is interesting that a pre-existing Sun and Moon are 'presumed' by LotR and The Hobbit.


----------



## Walter (Feb 8, 2003)

Declaring - ex cathedra - which ones of the published works are "Canon" and which not, is one thing. Comprehending the enormous complexity and the various aspects of the tasks Tolkien commited himself to, when he was creating his "Mythology" another. 

IMHO the whole "Canon" - issue makes not much sense. To me it seems much more important and interesting, to gain some more insight from the various different approaches Tolkien took on a certain issue, than to learn - from a third party - which statements, out of several, represent "the final word" or "the ultimative truth" on that matter and which ones not...


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Feb 8, 2003)

Hmmm. _canon_, you say is / is not the Silmarillion! 

I am not even 1/3 -rd as close to Tolkien as you are, for Tolkien is new to me.
Yet, I don't think that a mind like his should be chained in terms as _canon_! And neither of his books, too!

If he wanted to write a canon, I am sure he could do it perfectly well!
BUT! I doubt whether .... NO! I'm sure that it wouldn't have been "Tolkien-style" any more!

All that I have been able to read so far from the HoME-series and the UT, has proved to me that yes, the Silmarillion could have been much more complete and could have had much more information included... But I can't say that it isn't a book one should not take into consideration JUST and ONLY for the fact that it had not been published when J.R.R.T died! 

It happened to me that I first read LOTR and after I had read it three times in three successive months, I knew I loved the story, but I could feel some information missing or/and unclear, information that was in another book.... So I found the Silmarillion... and there I found those pieces I needed to get the "picture" of the LOTR-events.

Even the LOTR Appendices cannot give all the necessary information about things hinted at or said about - things dating back to the First and Second Age and much more before... things that had influence on some events, described in the LOTR.... 
So, if one is to understand better the events in the Hobbit and the LOTR, s/he must have even before that read the Simarillion!

BUT!!!! IF one wants to better understand the Simarillion, s/he MUST read the HoME series. The more I go deeper into them, the more I'm convinced in this. 
For me, personally, the HoME is the source where one can discover the magic, called Tolkien! 

And what if there are diferences! The important thing is to understand this imaginary world better.
Can the Silmarillion be considered a "canon" without the Athrabeth then? 
Or, how could one understand Elrond-Arwen conflict and grief without the Silmarillion...?

So, IMHO, every work by J.R.R.Tolkien should be taken in all its importance and all the works - as one whole large story, 
WHICH, perhaps could be called a "canon" (although I hate thinking of Tolkien as a canon-writer!).

P.S. I understand that the people who started this thread as a continuation from another discussion will say that when one needs to be sure about the reference needed in a discussion, debate, in an essay etc... one needs to accept this or another book as canon, as the ultimate source... 
In occasions like those, I'd just take any of his works as equally valid.


----------



## Confusticated (Sep 7, 2003)

Any new opinions here?

Do you always go with Tolkien's latest word, or only do so when it seems to fit in best with earlier stuff? Or do you pick whichever you like best in your imagination?

Do you take it as fact that the Sun was in the sky when the elves woke up?

Did Ambarto burn on the ship?

Is Orodreth Finarfin's son? 

Did Avari creep into Beleriand in the First age, and merge with Nandor in Eriador?

Does everything published after Tolkien's death have equal validity? 

This is all still overwhelming sometimes. Right now I am starting to give more thought to the information in Myth's Transformed. My first inclination is to go with the making of the sun and the moon as presented in the published Silmarillion, but is this because it makes most sense to do so or because it is what I knew for several months before reading otherwise? 

I view the published Silmarillion as a incentive to get people to read HoME. I know it does not have this fuction for everyone. But for me it is a starting point, and a thing that may be of little use once someone has read HoME for a few years and formed their own version as they see fit.

All of this can be so complicated I sometimes wonder if I'll ever have a good enough understanding of it all to have a Silmarillion in my mind that seems to be the most authoritive version to me. I've met people here at TTF who have been reading this stuff for years (and the HoME as it was published) and still don't seem to know much of the history of the writings of the First Age or if they do they never speak of it, and maybe some even less so than new readers like myself or Inderjit. I wonder, for those who are long time readers... what stopped you? Is it just too much for most people to take in and process? If so, does that leave you just going with the Silmarillion that CT put together for lack of being able to do otherwise?

I guess everyone has to find their own way with something like this. I find it frustrating at times, and am interesting in how others view HoME and The Silmarillion.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 8, 2003)

Nom, The funny thing with two of the things you mentioned (The Burnings of Losgar and Orodreth's parentage) two were mentioned in the writing of the Annals of Aman/Beleriand or Quenta Silmarillion of HoME 10 and or 11, though of course Orodreth’s parentage didn't reach it's final form for until 1965. There is a reference to the burning of one of the twin brothers in the Annals of Aman. (HoME 10). Why didn't C.T makes these changes? Well because Tolkien never tells us for certain which son of Feanor's sons is burnt, though he says it is one of the twins, and more probable that C.T didn't want to introduce such a radical story change when in all previous Quenta's none died. (An interesting point in 'Of Maeglin', (HoME 11) a 'late' essay is that only five sons of Feanor are mentioned, maybe he later conceived that both were killed, but I really doubt this). Why not include the story of Galadriel and Celeborn coming from Aman? He alludes to it in several letters, several essays (Of Dwarves and Men, Shibboleth of Feanor, Of Galadriel and Celeborn, which is a series of essays put together, like Myths Transformed) though all are later ideas. But this contradicts with the principal story of Maeglin that Elves didn't marry with such close kin and the info give in Laws and Customs (HoME 10) but more importantly information given in the Appendix about Celeborn being a Sindarin Elf, or one native to M-E. LoTR, is canon, and even though Tolkien was certain on a change in their story, he never gets the chance to alter it. Which you wish to believe is, of course, entirely up to you. What about the inclusion (or non-inclusion) of several Finweans, such as Argon, Findis and Lalwende? Including them would not contradict the text (except to alter things like 'Fingolfin had three sons' etc) but I think that C.T didn't include them because of the lateness with which they entered the text (Finwe's daughters didn't enter until the Annals of Aman) and they appear to be more fully treated until the Shibboleth of Feanor, and here Argon first appears to. (Though his existence somewhat contradicts the statement that Fingolfin and Finarfin's host met no Ork's here they were attacked by Lammoth and Argon played a heroic part in repelling them and that Turgon was the tallest of the Noldor, since Argon is named as being the tallest of his brothers, but both of these esp. the later could be easily altered)

But for me, such discrepancies as mentioned above can be considered as 'true' and can be included in a revision of the Silmarillion (And also other things like the Gil Galad being son of Orodreth.) Plus other info. can be gleamed such as more info on the house of Beor (Grey Annals (HoME 11) and Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth (HoME 10) Hador and many other things in other essays. Of course the only idea I have mentioned that is exempt from this is the one of Galadriel and Celeborn. 

We then get to the ultimate problem, the whole problem with the Sun and Moon. Well, as Tar-Elenion hints in a post down the page, there are references to a 'pre-existing' Sun and Moon in canonical works. (i.e. in Gimli's song about Durin 'No stain yet on the moon was seen') and though the changes in terms of Sun+Moon's pre-existence were not yet of 'Myths Transformed' Level, it still shows the existence of a pre-existing Sun+Moon in canonical works, plus the fact that Tolkien attributed the 'Sun+Moon coming from the Two Trees as being Numenorean myths. Men are said to awoke much further back in most of Tolkien's later works. But i think clinging to such a idea would be suitable since if the Quenta Silmarillion was a Numenorean work it would have to include the Mannish mistakes, though maybe it could be mentioned somewhere that this was a mistake on the part of the Numenoreans. 

So to conclude, the 'Published Silmarillion' IMO doesn't take precedence over U.T/HoME, the Silmarillion is a jotting of C.T's take on what was sensible to include or not include everyone has different verdicts, on what they choose to take, personally I'm for Tolkien's last word on matters, and though others aren't for this, I wish TO GOD that they don't use the weak argument that 'Tolkien could have changed it again' WELL HE DIDN'T! (not that this a snipe aimed at anyone in particular) but IMO, there is lots of info. in the latter three HoME volumes that can give new, non-contradictory info. and also several mistakes made by C.T that need to be altered.

Thank you.  



> and still don't seem to know much of the history of the writings of the First Age or if they do they never speak of it, and maybe some even less so than new readers like myself or Inderjit


Not to be arrogant, Nom but I think me and you are two of the most knowledgeable (Not 'best' there is a difference between being a good scholar and knowledgeable one and even if we may be, or may be considered by some as the former I really don't want to discuss that) people on matters of Tolkien in this forum, in that we know more then a lot of people. As I said I'm not showing off or whatever (But how you choose to interpret this is up to you, of course) I'm just stating what I believe in what many may attest to be as being the 'truth' we DO know a lot. If anyone wants to contest that or state that I am coming off here as a arrogant fool then do so, I don't mind your opinion is your own) and I think as 'new' readers we do know a lot and we can be on par, maybe with some more experience readers, I don't know, but remember our opinions count as much as theirs or anyone’s who has enough knowledge on Tolkien to comment (Not that I'm trying to put anyone down, or say people who don't know intricate facts about Tolkien aren't real fans etc or opinions are futile just that you should get hold of all or a lot of the facts before commenting, because then your opinion will be more of worth in terms of forwarding the discussion. No disrespect to anyone, I am just stating what I view would constitute what I think would be a good discussion. Thank you.


----------



## Confusticated (Sep 9, 2003)

I agree The Silmarillion is not authoritve, but until someone knows better, what are they to do?

And Inderjit, I'm not saying we don't know anything, but we have much yet to learn, and it looks to me like you have a pretty good idea of what you think The Silmarillion could be instead of what CT published. Maybe I should go visit the project over at BD... surely I'll learn from it as you have. But what I find odd is that people who've read all the stuff in HoME still take The Silmarillion. I am not sure why they do it. 

But who can blame people for taking The Silmarillion as authoritive in their mind? It is all fiction afterall (or is it? ), and it was mostly what JRRT did write. It is also much easier thing to do than figure it out yourself. For example I probably do not have the intelligence or memory to form my own idea of a Silmarillion based on Tolkiens last words about tings. That and it was published way before the later writings and people already loved the tales before they read differently.

But there will never be an authoritive Silmarillion  because what Tolkien wrote was always changing and he did not leave us a final form. No one else can make an authoritve Silmarillion, only one that is deemed closer to what authoritive might have been. But The Silmarillion must be more authoritive on some points than others. How could not be authoritive that Beren and Luthien rescued a silmaril? That Gondolin fell? That the Noldor rebelled and fought against Morgoth? Earendil reached Valinor with a silmaril? All the things mentioned in LotR and The Hobbit about the first age are authoritive, and we can trust that in the published Silmarillion is a very good general idea of what did happen in the First Age because it shares so much in common with all other versions. It is a matter of us not knowing the smaller details I think.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 9, 2003)

> The Silmarillion. I am not sure why they do it.



Becasue the Silmarillion is the book they grew up with? Personal opinion? Or obeying the much more widespread view that the Published Silmarillion took precdence over HoME. Maybe a little bit of all three. 



> It is all fiction afterall (or is it?



That is a opinion and therfore problematic and questionable. 
  

Here are a few good essays or discussions on canon you may like:

These are articles by Micheal Martinez. 

Is Your Canon on the Loose? 

A Funny Thing That Happened on The Way to the Canon 

In Feanor's Footsteps 

And these discussions from the B-D:

A Funny Thing That Happened on The Way to the Canon: B-D Discussion 

And;

What Should Be Changed in a New silmarillion?


----------



## Melko Belcha (Sep 11, 2003)

In the Forward to the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien says that there are mistakes in the book. In Letters Tolkien talks about things he wish he could have changed in The Hobbit if it had been planned to be a part of his larger mythology.

So if the author himself says that there are errors then can you take The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings as being completely correct? I say no because Tolkien never says what the mistakes in LotR are. Are they in the story itself? Is it in the history that is put into the story? Is it in the Appendixes? Just as with The Silmarillion we never fully know what Tolkien would have abandoned, reworked, or completely re-written.

I don't think anyone could say what is canon and what is not, not even Tolkien himself.


----------



## Mimzy (Jun 11, 2011)

Hmmm I would say it's probably 85% canonical. Most of the history and stuff is probably mostly how Tolkien would have written it, and aside from a couple chapters, none of it is stuff Chris made up, but what a tragedy that Tolkien didn't live long enough to finish it himself!

I would say it's imperfect but close enough to be considered reliable.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 9, 2019)

Tar-Palantir said:


> I think there's a note on this in UT (the chapter on Galadriel, maybe?) where CT states that in the first edition of LOTR, Finrod was named as the person who eventually became Finarfin and the son was named Felagund. JRRT amended this in all subsequent versions of LOTR.



It's a neat tale. To add a bit.

Tolkien published that Finrod was the father of (Inglor) Felagund and Galadriel > although the name Inglor does not appear in the First Edition of _The Lord of the Rings_ as the name of Felagund, Inglor was Felagund's name in the early 1950s Silmarillion "phase" (noting that Gildor Inglorion of the House of Finrod interestingly remains in the author-revised, second edition).

When the linguistic history/scenario changed and Tolkien came to review his nomenclature, at one point he thought that Finrod should not have a Sindarin name, as he had remained in Aman. So Tolkien changed his name to Finarfin and changed Inglor to Finrod.

Yet Tolkien ultimately considered *Finarfin a "Sindarization" anyway!

*his Quenya name was Finwe Arafinwe . . . son of Finwe.

🐾


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 9, 2019)

Just to add my point of view, The Silmarillion _was_ the definitive Canonical history of Middle-earth when it was first published as it was the Only history. Then came HoME and the Sil moved from being Canon to being the best Starting point for a journey through the history or a discussion about it. The reason that I say it is the best starting point is that I doubt that any who have read through HoME have not read the Sil and there are many who have read the Sil but not HoME.


----------



## Grond (Sep 9, 2019)

Gothmog said:


> Just to add my point of view, The Silmarillion _was_ the definitive Canonical history of Middle-earth when it was first published as it was the Only history. Then came HoME and the Sil moved from being Canon to being the best Starting point for a journey through the history or a discussion about it. The reason that I say it is the best starting point is that I doubt that any who have read through HoME have not read the Sil and there are many who have read the Sil but not HoME.


Oh no!!! I disagree. The Sil could never be canon because it was edited and "best guesses' were made by Christopher Tolkien. I love the narrative from Sil over any of JRRT's other works, including LOTR but, since it was not published with JRRT's seal of approval, it is not Canon.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 9, 2019)

Grond said:


> Oh no!!! I disagree. The Sil could never be canon because it was edited and "best guesses' were made by Christopher Tolkien. I love the narrative from Sil over any of JRRT's other works, including LOTR but, since it was not published with JRRT's seal of approval, it is not Canon.


When it was first published, it was the only source of information about the creation and earlier ages of Arda and therefore most considered it canon. I remember a number of discussions and debates on this very forum about this matter as I am sure you do also. However, with the publishing of the HoME it became clear that The Sil. was not the clear history that many thought it to be and so became the best starting point for discussions concerning the History of Arda in the light of all the extra information available.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 10, 2019)

Tar-Elenion said:


> Canon: The Lord of the Rings, The Road Goes Ever On, A Guide to the Names in LotR, along with The Hobbit and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (both of which need to be looked at in the context of how they were written).



We are of like minds on this issue. In short, author-published works. I would only add the Pauline Baynes map, as Tolkien worked on it (as I know you know, even though you haven't posted here in a while).

And in my admittable madness, I take out "Guide To Names/Nomenclature", only because it was not intended (unless I've missed something here), by Tolkien himself, to be widely published, if intended for the minds of translators. A fine distinction I admit. And perhaps even Tolkien would have had no problem with wide publication of these notes as they stand -- I doubt he would have, actually.

But even if so, I like to draw a line between "Tolkien-published" with respect to his general readership. 

🐾


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 10, 2019)

I think some of JRRT‘s later writings must be taken as being those of an increasingly exhausted and frustrated writer. Even after he had retired from his Oxford professorship – a chair, not many at the university at the time! – he was kept from his “heart’s desire”, the Silmarillion, by quite a few obligations to several publishers of “professional” texts, as I believe I remember. Added to that the increasing infirmities of being between his late sixties and early eighties (and Edith was three years older than he was, as we all know), he just wasn’t making headway. And he had quite severely cut down his own “niggle room” with LoTR especially (which he my have resented subconsciously, as I suggested elsewhere).

So, he did some relatively isolated revisions to some texts, but either did not consider their chain reactions down countless strands of storytelling yet – or if he did, it may have frustrated him even more. Let’s not forget that there is a severe break between the two BoLT volumes and the rest of HoME. Some of the late revisions he had written down would have come close to this earlier break, I would assume they might even have affected LoTR, leading to a third edition at some point (and an additionally revision to TH? Weren’t there different versions of later Harry Potter books for children and adults? So, an adult TH as a new version?).

As a conclusion I would think that any revision, no matter how “young” and thus latest-writings it may be, that would clearly lead to a massive upheaval in the mythology (we suddenly have BoLT volumes one though – what – ten? eleven? Even twelve?) ought be considered as dissatisfied musings about isolated events or constellations that are definitely square pegs not fitting thousands of pages of round holes, and the writing of the square holes … oh dear, here I go again about him being granted Elros’s lifespan … 😬

(That would make the publishing date for a definitive Silmarillion, with correctly revised Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit, 2392 …)


----------



## Grond (Sep 10, 2019)

Gothmog said:


> When it was first published, it was the only source of information about the creation and earlier ages of Arda and therefore most considered it canon. I remember a number of discussions and debates on this very forum about this matter as I am sure you do also. However, with the publishing of the HoME it became clear that The Sil. was not the clear history that many thought it to be and so became the best starting point for discussions concerning the History of Arda in the light of all the extra information available.


I think we are agreeing. 🤩


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 11, 2019)

I have to work: I can’t stay and comment, though I’d love to chime in on “Who would win between Olorin and Sauron?” at this point to post on the Barrow-blade: I think Tolkien made the unique nature of the Dúnedain blades and their similarity to the Morgul-blades clear; but I don’t have time for it.

On _The Silmarillion_: _Silmarillion_ is by far a vaster, more comprehensive tale than _The Lord of the Rings_. Any one of the long stories – _The Children of Húrin_, _Beren and Lúthien_, _The Fall of Gondolin_ – deserves treatment as in-depth and voluminous as _The Lord of the Rings_, and besides these “Three Great Stories” in _Silmarillion_, there are many more (such as the Rebellion of the Noldor, the tale of Nargothrond, the tale of Húrin after his release by Morgoth, the Ruin of Doriath, the Voyage of Eärendil, and still many others) not just the one in _The Lord of the Rings_, which by itself took twelve years. Tolkien simply did not have the time to beat these stories into shape for publication. 

Christopher Tolkien makes this clear in his work on the corpus of his father’s writings. No doubt he knows the stories as well as anyone alive, as well as anyone other than his father himself. Now in his mid-nineties and finally retired, he labored decades to read and study and notate all his father’s notes and jottings, travelling frequently between Oxford and Marquette to compare the various stores of materials. At the end of his labors he has produced, as best as he is able, comprehensive retellings of the “Three Great Stories” of _The Silmarillion_: _The Children of Húrin_, _Beren and Lúthien_, and _The Fall of Gondolin_. Even so, with all his effort and after all his study and work, he is still unable to remove all the contradictions between the three tales, and the contradictions that must also arise between _The Silmarillion_ and _The Lord of the Rings_; nor is he able to completely tell the stories in their fullness, but only as he knows them, however intimately: he is repeating for the rest of us the stories he learned from his father. _Dangweth_ Pengoloð, who quoted Rúmil the Sage of the Noldor for the Númenóreans so that they learned the tales of the Noldor; _dangweth_ Christopher Tolkien, who quotes JRR Tolkien so that we learn the tales he heard from his father. 

There was no way that JRR Tolkien could, in what remained of the last twenty years of his life, hammer _The Silmarillion_ into a format as smooth and accessible as his masterpiece, _The Lord of the Rings_. Christopher, his son and heir, has carefully pieced together as much as he has been able over the past 46 years, and that is what we have. 

The “canon”, if you want to call it that, is what JRR Tolkien published during his lifetime. His son’s work is near unto it, but Christopher Tolkien often concedes there are discrepancies and contradictions. It is literature, a story: the shortcomings of mortal story-tellers are unavoidable. But the tales are beautiful all the same.

And now I must return to my labors in the salt mines.


----------



## Miguel (Sep 11, 2019)

There are things from previous versions of TS that i just like too much to ignore them so for me they're still canon in a blurry/dreamy way.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 12, 2019)

Miguel said:


> There are things from previous versions of TS that i just like too much to ignore them so for me they're still canon in a blurry/dreamy way.


I think I know some cat-owners (a contradiction in terms) on another site who may have been sad that Tevildo got replaced by some jewelry-obsessed Maia.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 13, 2019)

OK -- you've done it now!


----------



## Lych92 (Sep 15, 2019)

Thorin said:


> In the movie forum, there was a huge discussion concerning taking only LoTr and The Hobbit as standard. Some felt that only these writings could be trusted and that all post-Tolkien works were interesting at best....
> 
> I did read somewhere that before Tolkien did LoTR he tried to get Silmarillion published, but to no avail, so he set it aside and started LoTR. After LoTR was published he turned his eyes to the Elder days of ME.
> 
> ...



I always refer to Silmarillion if I ever need any background reading and understanding of all things ME 😆


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 15, 2019)

Lych92 said:


> I always refer to Silmarillion if I ever need any background reading and understanding of all things ME 😆


To repeat an opinion - perhaps "heretical"  - that I dared to post elsewhere (not on this site yet, I believe), everything Christopher has published since his father's death has been an enormous expansion of the appendices found in RoTK: Silmarillion, UT, twelve HoMe volumes, Children of Húrin, Beren and Lúthien, Fall of Gondolin … and never mind his The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, The Fall of Arthur, and Beowulf, or for that matter Verlyn Flieger's The Story of Kullervo and The Lay of Aotrou and Itroun. JRRT would certainly seriously rebel against my downgrading the Sil in this way, but with LoTR outselling the Sil by a factor of about 100 (and zillions of authors would just love to reach the at least 2 million sales of the difficult Sil!!!), he might very grudgingly concede. "The Hobbit" was a children's book; the Sil is - well, the Sil; but the combination of the two was the book of the 20th century, end of message!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 15, 2019)

Alcuin said:


> : I think Tolkien made the unique nature of the Dúnedain blades and their similarity to the Morgul-blades clear;


Please come back soon, and expand on this! I hadn't considered it before, but the possible symmetries are tantalizing:

_'There are evil things written on this hilt,' he said; 'though maybe your eyes cannot see them.'_


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 16, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Please come back soon, and expand on this! I hadn't considered it before, but the possible symmetries are tantalizing:
> 
> _'There are evil things written on this hilt,' he said; 'though maybe your eyes cannot see them.'_


Working backwards, the first pertinent passage is in _Reader’s Companion_ at the end of the chapter for “Knife in the Dark”. Hammond and Scull recite Tolkien’s notes on the chapter:


> It is a strange thing that the camp was not watched while darkness lasted of the night Oct. 6-7, … so that [the Witch-king] … lost track of the Ring. … [The Witch-king] … had been shaken by the fire of Gandalf, and began to perceive that the mission on which Sauron had sent him was one of great peril to himself both by the way, and on his return to his Master (if unsuccessful);… [A]bove all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it – save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the B[arrow]-wight…
> 
> Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew and hid for a while…


So from this passage we learn that 
(1) the barrow-blade is indeed an “enchanted sword made by [the Dúnedain] for [the Witch-king’s] destruction,” and
(2) “a wound [from] that [sword] would have been as deadly [to the Witch-king] as the Mordor-knife was to Frodo (as was proved at the end).”​
Hold onto those two ideas and consider what Gandalf told Frodo when he awoke in Rivendell.


> You were beginning to fade. … The wound was overcoming you at last. A few more hours and you would have been beyond our aid. … [T]here was some fragment of the blade still in the closed wound. But it could not be found until last night. Then Elrond removed a splinter. … It has been melted. [I]t seems that Hobbits fade very reluctantly. I have known strong warriors of the Big People who would quickly have been overcome by that splinter… They tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife which remains in the wound. If they had succeeded, you would have become like they are, only weaker and under their command. You would have become a wraith…


So here are some more ideas to hold onto.
(3) The Morgul-knife is meant to cause regular people to _fade_, to enter into the Unseen world. In other words, it’s necromancy, sorcery.(_Necromancy_ is magic concerning the dead. _Sorcery_ is what we call commonly “Black magic,” what Tolkien calls Morgul in Sindarin.) Remember, Sauron is the Necromancer, and the Witch-king his chief servant was “a great king and sorcerer … of old.” 
(4) At the end of the _fading_ process, mortals become wraiths.
(5) Hobbits resist _fading_.​
Now let’s go back further to Gandalf’s first discussion with Frodo about the Ring.


> A mortal … who keeps one of the Great Rings does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him.


So here’s another idea: 
(6) The Great Rings do the same thing to mortals as the Morgul-knife: it makes them _fade_.​
Let’s gather another important point:
(7) Aragorn tells the Hobbits that “all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.”​
Now let’s jump ahead to the Witch-king’s confrontation with Éowyn and Merry and examine the oft-quoted passage of much interest:


> [G]lad would he have been to know [the] fate [of the sword of the Barrow-downs] who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.


So here’s the last little tidbit: 
(8) The Barrow-blade undid the _fading_ process by “breaking the spell”, making the Witch-king vulnerable to a blow by Éowyn’s sword, _which doesn’t seem to be magic_, just a normal sword.​
One of the primary original purposes of the Great Rings, from point of view of the Elves who forged them, was at least in part to prevent their _fading_ while they remained in Middle-earth. The effect on Men, however, was to make them _fade_. The Witch-king used a Morgul-knife on Boromir I, Steward of Gondor, and though he mostly recovered from the wound, he died young for a Dúnadan of that time. There can be little doubt that the Witch-king also used Morgul-knives in his long war to destroy what remained of Arnor: hence Elrond’s and Aragorn’s knowledge of the blades, as well as Aragorn’s knowledge that “all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.” In the Second Age, Elrond led the surviving Mírdain, the Elven-smiths, of Eregion to safety in the Mountains and founded Rivendell. It seems that at least one of the Dúnedain learned what was happening to his fellows because of the dreadful weapons, and he fashioned a counter-weapon: something that would undo the necromantic spells of the Great Rings sufficient to render a Ringwraith vulnerable to normal weaponry, to _unfade_ it; that may or may not have required the assistance of or knowledge from the surviving Mírdain in Rivendell: it is probably inconsequential to the story, but they were available. (These are probably the same Elven-smiths who reforged Narsil into Andúril.) The Witch-king could not unmake these weapons, so he gathered them together and put them in a great barrow (the tomb of the last Prince of Cardolan) guarded by a barrow-wight. But he either never knew about or forgot about Tom Bombadil, who did know about the swords (or daggers), opened the barrow, and drove out the barrow-wight. So when Merry struck the Witch-king with his barrow-blade, the effect of the blade was to _unfade_ him sufficiently that Éowyn could kill him: just the opposite of the effect of the Morgul-knife on Frodo. 

A few loose ends. Bilbo felt _all thin and stretched_: Gandalf said that was a sign the Ring was getting control of him. Gollum was altogether _thin and stretched_ even down to his cackling laugh, but he had never yet become a wraith. Another loose end: “all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.” That seems to be an effect of either the Witch-king’s Ring or his sorcery, or some combination of the two. It was still in effect even after Merry stabbed him: Éowyn’s sword disintegrated when she struck him, but only after delivering a “mortal” wound to his _faded_ body. And Nazgûl were exceedingly tough: Legolas shot one out of the sky along the Anduin, and though it fell quite a distance, it wasn’t killed. (Nazgûl didn’t like fire, but that might be because it was not only painful, but it may have taken them some time to recover from the effects of burns.) And finally, Frodo used one of these blades on the barrow-wight, severing its hand, breaking the blade up to the hilt, but its effect on the barrow-wight seems to have been to injure it and make it angry (it snarled at him): the effect on the Witch-king was rather more dramatic. 

At the end, I think we can definitely say that 
the barrow-blade was made by Dúnedain, and
the barrow-blade was, in fact, “enchanted”.
If we take Tolkien’s word for it, the effect on the Witch-king was very like the effect of his Morgul-knife on Frodo.
The _fading_/_unfading_ is obviously speculative on my part, but if we want to speculate on a mechanism for how this might happen, it fits with what we know from the story. 

That leaves the question of how the Dúnadan smith learned how to accomplish this. To answer that, I propose that 
the Dúnedain of Arnor had unfortunately experienced Morgul-knives and their effects, possibly obtaining one or more examples.
They had access to any surviving Mírdain in Rivendell.
Saruman was not always an enemy. Like Sauron, he was one of the folk of Aulë the Smith, and might have lent the Dúnedain some assistance.
And finally, let’s face it: the Dúnedain were pretty smart on their own account.
I’ve really got to get back to the salt mines.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 16, 2019)

Thanks, Alcuin. I'd seen most of these points elsewhere, but scattered; it's good to have them clearly set out in one place.

On one point, I'd offer, not a quibble, exactly, but a possible alternate idea: that the Dunedain of Cardolan, facing utter defeat, and what looked like extinction, but knowing the Witch-King and other Ringwraiths would "live" on, interred the Barrow-blades themselves, in fear of their being lost or destroyed, and in hopes that they would someday be recovered by enemies of Mordor. It would then make sense for the Witch-King to send the wights to guard against this.

And he would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 16, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> ...
> And he would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!


50, 38, 36, and 28 years old (OK, Pippin has not come of age by Hobbit standards), and one called Oldest and Fatherless - some kids! 🤨


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 16, 2019)

Sorry, O -- American pop culture reference!


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 16, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Sorry, O -- American pop culture reference!
> View attachment 6028


Ah yes, dear ol' Scooby Doo. Started back in 1969, when my family and I moved into the house on Long Island.
And more to the point, it was the end of two years of my spending Saturday mornings at the Goethe Institute in Manhattan to get my German beyond the fourth-grade level.
I always got back just as the Saturday morning cartoons were over! 😭
But from 1969 Saturday mornings were cartoon time! 😛


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 16, 2019)

Aha -- so you should have caught the reference!


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 16, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Aha -- so you should have caught the reference!


Erm - so this makes Tom Bombadil Scooby Doo? Or the other way around? In one way it does not fit at all: Tom was fearless, Scooby a pretty big chicken! 🐔


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 16, 2019)

I wasn't suggesting an exact match!

The attempt might make for an interesting exercise, though. . .


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 16, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> The attempt might make for an interesting exercise, though. . .


Scooby threatening to take a pee on Old Man Willow - might work … 🤣


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 16, 2019)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> On one point, I'd offer, not a quibble, exactly, but a possible alternate idea: that the Dunedain of Cardolan, facing utter defeat, and what looked like extinction, but knowing the Witch-King and other Ringwraiths would "live" on, interred the Barrow-blades themselves, in fear of their being lost or destroyed, and in hopes that they would someday be recovered by enemies of Mordor. It would then make sense for the Witch-King to send the wights to guard against this.


That’s an interesting notion. I had always assumed the wights were there to prevent the Dúnedain of Cardolan from using the barrows as defensive positions, as they did during Angmar’s first invasion in Third Age 1409. And I assumed the Witch-king had gathered and deposited the blades in the tomb himself. I wonder if there’s any way to clarify matters?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 16, 2019)

Possibly -- although it would take some digging I can't spare time for, at the moment.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 16, 2019)

I'm aware of that note as well ("deadly") through H&S's Companion, and not that Alcuin claimed otherwise, but to my mind, Tolkien doesn't really explain much there.

I think any theory has to go beyond that a spell was broken, and incorporate the description that Merry's blade broke the spell that knit WK's unseen sinews to his will. Also, a few more words on fading: Gandalf explains to Frodo (The Shadow of the Past): "A mortal Frodo ( . . .) And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the Dark Power that rules the Rings."

Ring-wraiths. This is a translation of the Black Speech Nazgûl, from nazg 'ring' and gûl, any one of the major invisible servants of Sauron dominated entirely by his will. A compound must be made out of suitable elements in the language of translation that has the sense of 'ring-wraith' as nearly as possible. JRRT, Nomenclature

I note also the description of the Nine in _Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age_, basically they could walk unseen, could see things invisible to men (but too often were shown phantoms and delusions), but one by one they fell under the domination of Sauron, and became forever invisible save to him that wore the One. And Merry's blade hit "unseen" sinews.

I would say that the wraiths were already faded well before they met Frodo and Merry: permanently invisible and under Sauron's will. We see that they fear fire, or water* takes them out. Of course Gandalf says that their cloaks give shape to their "nothingness", but they can't truly be_ nothing_ in any case, and to my mind they are like ghosts in notable enough ways to be called "wraiths" (again, in that they are invisible and instill fear). I think Tolkien makes an interesting statement concerning the Dead who followed Aragorn, that it was not known if their weapons would "bite", or touch anything. They were ghosts, invisible, instilling fear was all they needed. 

And Boromir: why should the Witch-king fear him. Did WK know that Boromir had an unfading blade? I think it's simpler, and explained in the very next sentence: he was a man "strong of body and in will"_ And in will_. I'll bet there were plenty of strong bodies in Gondor, but this Boromir would not lose his wits to unreasoning fear, and thus was a man to be feared in battle. Tolkien must have known how valuable it was in war to have a strong will. To not give into fear before the enemy even strikes.

__________

*I find it interesting that Gandalf makes so little of legolas' shot, as when Tolkien arrived at the point in which the Nazgul Lord was to be taken out by Eowyn, at one point he imagines that the wraith was "killed" not by swords but by being smashed in a fall! Possibly some external detail helps explain things here (at least for me), but I can't recall at the moment, and am too lazy to check in any case.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 16, 2019)

On that last bit, Galin -- is that in one of the drafts? I must have forgotten it. I'd appreciate a reference, if and when you have time -- and energy. Away from my library again, so can't look.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 16, 2019)

No problem SeS, although it seems I either misremembered, or "interpreted" the draft scene in a way I now disagree with -- or at least, it doesn't seem as simple as I worded it above.

"It fell, its vast wings outspread crumpled and helpless on the earth ( . . . ) and over the ground a headless thing crawled away, snarling and sniveling, tearing at the cloak. Soon the black cloak too lay formless and still, and a long thin wail rent the air and vanished into the distance."
(JRRT draft text, The War of the Ring, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields). Even Christopher Tolkien comments: " . . . it was the beheading of the great bird that in itself caused the defeat and flight of the Lord of the Nazgul, deprived of its steed."

There are other brief, outline descriptions of this defeat, but I couldn't find one that appears to say that the falling_ wreck-of-the-bird_ "smashed" the WK into defeat. Problem is: _I remember thinking it a bit odd, since the "bird" couldn't have been that high!_

In any case I disagree with the way I worded things above 

I could have sworn at least one description was that simple, but unless I stumble across something further . . . which is unlikely, as I don't plan to keep looking any time soon, especially for something that might not exist!

I mean, the bird was low enough to be beheaded . . . but violent enough in its "fall"? At least today's version of me thinks this seems to be pushing things a bit. On the other hand, I'm not sure why beheading the bird would "defeat" the Witch-king. 

Yes it was "unhorsed" (unbirded), but it wasn't by tons of water this time 💫

On the third hand it's draft text 

Hmm, "vast wings".


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 17, 2019)

Galin said:


> ...
> Hmm, "vast wings".


I just can't resist taking a pot-shot at one of the favorite points for heated discussions (together with Tom Bombadil).
Are these possibly some more Balrogs after retraining, paid for by the Mordor unemployment agency to get them "off the streets" and into "gainful employment" again?
😄😆🤣🤪


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 27, 2019)

Alcuin said:


> And Nazgûl were exceedingly tough: Legolas shot one out of the sky along the Anduin, and though it fell quite a distance, it wasn’t killed. (Nazgûl didn’t like fire, but that might be because it was not only painful, but it may have taken them some time to recover from the effects of burns.)


In reviewing this thread in the course of looking for something else, two of your statements here made me want to add:

1-- I didn't get the impression that the Winged Messenger fell quite so far; in fact it seemed to be flying directly overhead and low -- it was apparently about to land on the opposite bank, after all. A minor point, really, as we'd already seen them washed away by the great flood, without damage.

2 -- As to the fear of fire: I have to wonder if the Nazgul could be "burned"; it's true that Strider says "they do not love it, and fear those who wield it", but is this from fear of the fire itself, or because of the light it brings? Their power of fear being greatly increased in darkness is mentioned several times; they sometimes seem to be slightly weakened or disoriented by the light of the sun.

On the other hand, their robes are real robes, as Gandalf tells Frodo, and apparently not "magical" in any way, so vulnerable to burning. That might not seem very important, except for Gandalf's admittedly ambiguous, yet tantalizing, references to them, that they wear them to "give shape to their nothingness", that after losing them in the flood, they were forced to return to Mordor "empty and shapeless", and that their power to cause fear is increased when not wearing them. That last, and other statements regarding them, would indicate that they needed them as a sort of control over the fear they instill; their loss would hamper their effectiveness -- especially on a "stealth mission".

As for Gandalf's fire, referenced in the note, that was clearly of a different kind altogether; "like lightning that leaps from the hilltops" is the way Strider describes it, and "lightning" is echoed by Gandalf himself, in describing how people would have seen his fight with the Balrog. His "fire", whatever it is, is "magical" -- or "holy", depending on your viewpoint.


----------



## Northman (Feb 22, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> On one point, I'd offer, not a quibble, exactly, but a possible alternate idea: that the Dunedain of Cardolan, facing utter defeat, and what looked like extinction, but knowing the Witch-King and other Ringwraiths would "live" on, interred the Barrow-blades themselves, in fear of their being lost or destroyed, and in hopes that they would someday be recovered by enemies of Mordor. It would then make sense for the Witch-King to send the wights to guard against this.



I think in terms of the Dunedain interring the Barrow-blades for that purpose is almost certainly the truth, and Appendix A to LotR contains a suggestion that the mound the Hobbits enter is actually the resting place of the last prince of Cardolan line, slain in 1409 by the hosts out of Angmar. The section: _Eriador, Arnor, and the Heirs of Isildur_, in that appendix, tells us:



> 'It is said that the mounds of Tyrn Gorthad, as the Barrow-downs were called of old, are very ancient, and that many were built in the days of the old world of the First Age by the forefathers of the Edain, before they crossed the Blue Mountains into Beleriand, of which Lindon is all that now remains. Those hills were therefore revered by the Dunedain after their return; and there many of their lords and kings were buried. [Some say that the mound in which the Ring-bearer was imprisoned had been the grave of the last prince of Cardolan, who fell in the war of 1409.]'



Given this, and the the entry in _The Peoples of Middle-earth_ p194 which states: 



> In Rhudaur an evil folk build dark forts out in the hills, while the remaining Dunedain out of Cardolan hold out in the Barrow Downs and the Forest



to me it paints the exact picture you're describing. The Witch-king may or may not have known about the weapons, I could go either way on that, since it might also have simply been a move made from spite, but it seems entirely clear to me that the Dunedain buried these blades for the purpose of future struggles against the same foe.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 29, 2021)

I take it as authority. It’s the closest we’re ever going to get in terms of purity, and the DNA of what Tolkien wanted is still all there.


----------



## Aukwrist (Aug 30, 2021)

Thorin said:


> In the movie forum, there was a huge discussion concerning taking only LoTr and The Hobbit as standard. Some felt that only these writings could be trusted and that all post-Tolkien works were interesting at best....
> 
> I did read somewhere that before Tolkien did LoTR he tried to get Silmarillion published, but to no avail, so he set it aside and started LoTR. After LoTR was published he turned his eyes to the Elder days of ME.
> 
> ...


As a purist with strong opinions on canonicity, I think the Sil counts as canonical, as it stands.


----------



## Elthir (Aug 31, 2021)

My quick answer is no.

Not only was the Silmarillion not intended to be taken as official canon (that I'm aware of), but we
can get one step closer to the "authority" of the Elder Days (if still not arriving at definitive canon) --
the authority here being Tolkien himself.

And Christopher Tolkien went to great pains to make that possible. He also constructed _The Children of Hurin_ for example, but again, as I see things, not to create an official canon version of the tale, but to create a version for the Reader Experience.

And as a reader, I thank him greatly!


----------

