View Single Post
Old 05-27-2004, 09:25 AM   #55
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,141
Aiwendil has been trapped in the Barrow!
But that doth only mean that Earendil had notkilled her. The storyline I have in mind is as follows: After Ungoliant was driven away from Lammoth, she established for a time on the south slopes of the Ered Gorgoroth and produced there some foul offspring. (Like Shelob about which it is told in The Lord of the Ring that she had fought Beren when he crossed the Gorgorth.) In my view she must have left Beleriand fairly early since we get no record of that event. This could only mean that she left before the Noldor settled in East-Beleriand or even before the rising of the moon and sun as will be explained later. But this detail does not matter here. She wandered to the south of Middle-Earth and dwelt their at first in a (for her) hohlesome area at the coast. As was her habbit, she produce a darkness around her home. (That darkness even lasted after the sun and moon were lifted, thus it can be said that Eärendils victory over Ungoliant brought light to many places that had been dark. That is the reason why I think she left Beleriand even before the rising of the sun.) When Eärendil came on his voyages to the south of Middle-Earth he encountered Ungoliant and both fought with each other. Eärendil was victorius and drove her from the coast into the more dessert like innlands of south Middle-Earth. There "in her uttermost famine she devoured herself at last." Thus both statements are more or less true: Eärendil killed her but not directly, and she devoured her self.
But this is my picture and clearly not "cannon".
That's plausible. But I think that particularly the uncertainty found in QS demands that she be removed from "Earendil". At any rate, since retaining Earendil's encounter with her requires a more or less fan-fictional justification, we ought to leave it out.

In FoG we did use nearly any bit of writing we could find to update a very old basic text. In The Ainulindale and The Valaquenta we did nearly the opposite: we did consider the texts as they stood as a final version and did restrict our editing to very minor points much more often resulting in passages taken out than in additions to the text. The difference was in part caused by the kind of text we used as basic. For the later two texts the basis was a version of the narrative prepared by Tolkien for a planed publication together with LotR. In the case of FoG it was text prepared for a public reading early in the 1920th. We have as jet not discussed FoD, but Maedhros and I did use a wide range of texts to create our versions of that chapter and we didn't heard as jet any comment that would suggest that we shouldn't do so in the end. For FoD and for The Tale of Eärendil (and also for the later part of FoG) the LQ2 typescript is the last textual version Tolkien "produced", that we have. Now we are dealing with a text based on a dull copy made when Tolkien thought to secure any written stuff and looked over by him in a very curios way. If the project way back when dealing with the transition from the later Tour to the battle about Gondolin decided not to take LQ2 as the ultima ratio, than I can't see any good reason why we should do in this chapter! It is one thing to restrict our self when dealing with a text that Tolkien himself sought of as part of a more or less updated version of his planed Silmarillion, but does anybody think he regarded the last chapters of the LQ2 series as such?
I think you are right, but there is more to be said. That LQ2 is not a finished text in the way that Ainulindale D (for example) is does not mean that LQ2 should be classed with FoG. You're right that we didn't use LQ2 for the transition from the later "Tuor" to FoG; but that was largely because the necessary material was all either in FoG already or found in the Tuor outline, which was certainly to be preferred to LQ.

Note that in cases in FoG where we inserted pieces from secondary sources, those secondary sources were invariably later and were almost always used for the express purpose of correcting obselete elements of the story.

Now in this section, LQ2 is the final text. But as far as LQ2 is uncertain (which is a matter to be dealt with in its own right), the final authoritative text must be QS. But even if we were to consider LQ wholly spurious, QS is still (apparently) later than AB2. So if we make additions from AB2, they are additions of a fundamentally different kind from the FoG additions - they are not from a later text, serving to correct obselete points. They are in fact from an earlier text.

However - I'm still unsure. One other point is that in the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta, part of the reason for not making additions was that we seemed to be considering these the veritable "Ainulindale" and "Valaquenta". Clearly, we are not doing the same for the "Quenta Silmarillion".

As for Bilbo's poem: I must say that I am against using pieces of it, for two reasons (aside from the general concern discussed above). First, I'm not so sure about using text from a complete and distinct work, like The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Second, we have no assurance at all of the accuracy of Bilbo's poem.

As for the sleeper in the Tower of Pearl: it's certainly plausible to retain this element, though I think we need to carefully consider whether we are entirely justified in doing so.

"The Happy Mariners" has some problems, I think. First, the "orient fire in many a hoarded spark" found in the "waters of the rumoured sun" doesn't seem to make any sense with respect to the established geography/cosmology. The other major problem is "Gondobar". It is difficult to understand why the name is used here, but in any case it is certain that for our purposes it refers to Gondolin.

Concerning the War of Wrath: I must disagree about Noldorin and Tulkas. Noldorin is, as far as I can tell, only present in the Book of Lost Tales. There is no later account of his adventure in the Land of Willows . This in itself is sufficient to give us pause - but consider also the nature of that adventure. The geography then was such that one seeking to come to Dor-Lomin might well begin at Nan-Tathren, but the later geography is completely different, placing Nan-Tathren far in the south. It seems quite unlikely in the context of the later material that a Maia and a part of the host would simply forget their mission and lounge about in the Land of Willows. Also, the enslaved Noldor element was later significantly down-played. I think it is safest by far to lose the Noldorin story.

As for Tulkas - I don't see why we should include him. All mention of his involvement disappear in the latest texts. The old story taht the Valar were directly involved was clearly rejected - why should Tulkas alone survive? Again, I think it is possible that he could have been there, but that based on the material we have we cannot include him.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote