The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Michael Martinez · 03-22-2001, 09:52 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 27</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the debate turns canonical

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I think the use of Peoples of M-E is valid all though we have to be clear re: dates and the lack of canonicity at this point for either [well not quite as I recall a post from a loooong time ago [in barrow time at least] where the 1977 Silm was seen as canon] but I think since then the level of education here at the downs has risen to a level where we can discuss the alternate versions, and the Silmarillion's non [or semi?]-canonical status w/out all the apples spilling from the cart.<hr></blockquote>

Lindil, The Peoples of Middle-earth is useful for dealing with issues of canon in The Silmarillion but not for dealing with issues of text in The Silmarillion.

You might as well quote Shakespeare.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It seems the final answer to Fingolfin as[claiming and being folowed as ] King [by the majority] in Valinor is yes from the PoME ....<hr></blockquote>

No. As I pointed out, there are serious problems with "The Shibboleth of Feanor" as the passages concerning Fingolfin's claims to kingship conflict with other traditions. The "Shibboleth" was an attempt to explain linguistic elements of names. Like "The Problem of Ros" it was composed independently of the primary tradition and where it conflicts with the canon (which in a general sense was "fixed" in Tolkien's work, though not necessarily his thoughts) then it fails, just as "The Problem of Ros" does.

There is no provision in any other text for the kingships of the Noldor in Beleriand arising after the fall of Fingolfin. The "Shibboleth" can only reasonably be accepted as canonical if it A) provides information which is not provided elsewhere without conflicting with primary texts or B) provides information which Christopher Tolkien specifically attributes greater authority to than to other texts.

So, in the case of determining who had which children, the "Shibboleth" is useful. But it's not useful for determining who was king of what.

We can all easily contrive our own versions of The Silmarilion. We cannot, however, decide for J.R.R. Tolkien (or even Christopher Tolkien) that the primary texts are wrong.

http://www.xenite.org/Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy</a>
http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movie/Lord of the Rings Movie news</a>
http://www.xenite.org/xor/home.shtml1500+ Hercules/Xena Links</a>
http://www.xenite.org/books/visualiz...dle-earth.htmlVisualizing Middle-earth, a book on Tolkien</a>
http://www.xenite.org/special_events/vicky_shaffer.htmlVicky Shaffer: Monster or mother? Is Brianna in any danger?</a>
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000101>Michael Martinez</A> at: 3/22/01 10:53:19 am

03-22-2001, 09:52 AM	#37
Michael Martinez Animated Skeleton Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 48	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton Posts: 27</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: the debate turns canonical <blockquote>*Quote:<hr> I think the use of Peoples of M-E is valid all though we have to be clear re: dates and the lack of canonicity at this point for either [well not quite as I recall a post from a loooong time ago [in barrow time at least] where the 1977 Silm was seen as canon] but I think since then the level of education here at the downs has risen to a level where we can discuss the alternate versions, and the Silmarillion's non [or semi?]-canonical status w/out all the apples spilling from the cart.<hr></blockquote> Lindil, The Peoples of Middle-earth* is useful for dealing with issues of canon in The Silmarillion but not for dealing with issues of text in The Silmarillion. You might as well quote Shakespeare. <blockquote>*Quote:<hr> It seems the final answer to Fingolfin as[claiming and being folowed as ] King [by the majority] in Valinor is yes from the PoME ....<hr></blockquote> No. As I pointed out, there are serious problems with "The Shibboleth of Feanor" as the passages concerning Fingolfin's claims to kingship conflict with other traditions. The "Shibboleth" was an attempt to explain linguistic elements of names. Like "The Problem of Ros" it was composed independently of the primary tradition and where it conflicts with the canon (which in a general sense was "fixed" in Tolkien's work, though not necessarily his thoughts) then it fails, just as "The Problem of Ros" does. There is no provision in any other text for the kingships of the Noldor in Beleriand arising after the fall of Fingolfin. The "Shibboleth" can only reasonably be accepted as canonical if it A) provides information which is not provided elsewhere without conflicting with primary texts or B) provides information which Christopher Tolkien specifically attributes greater authority to than to other texts. So, in the case of determining who had which children, the "Shibboleth" is useful. But it's not useful for determining who was king of what. We can all easily contrive our own versions of The Silmarilion. We cannot, however, decide for J.R.R. Tolkien (or even Christopher Tolkien) that the primary texts are wrong. http://www.xenite.org/Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy</a> http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movie/Lord of the Rings Movie news</a> http://www.xenite.org/xor/home.shtml1500+ Hercules/Xena Links</a> http://www.xenite.org/books/visualiz...dle-earth.htmlVisualizing Middle-earth, a book on Tolkien</a> http://www.xenite.org/special_events/vicky_shaffer.htmlVicky Shaffer: Monster or mother? Is Brianna in any danger?</a> </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000101>Michael Martinez</A> at: 3/22/01 10:53:19 am*