Quote:
|
The Second Map, in 'The War of the Ring', doesn't get that far north, so it seems the northern First Map was adapted directly for the final version. I think the only reason the islands don't appear is that they would have needed a whole bunch of sea to their south.
|
But surely not to portray "Himling" at least, which, if I recall correctly, some newer editions of
The Lord of the Rings have done.
Also, the first edition Lord of the Rings map is a large fold-out, with plenty of room for both islands in my opinion (Himling easily). Or even if not, there's plenty of open space, or blank "water", below where further details too far out to sea/see could be placed in a separate "box" (I don't know if those things have a name).
I'm not saying Tolkien had necessarily rejected these Islands in 1954, 1955, but for whatever reason, they do not appear on the map published at this time, and thus could easily be rejected later, without readers scratching their heads and toes.
Quote:
|
As it happens, I saw the Tolkien-annotated original of the Baynes map while it was on display in Oxford, and put together a photo-composite. Here it is. There is actually something going on off the Lindon coast - a big black blob right where Himling should be, and a couple of illegible notes. Feel free to try your hand at interpreting them.
|
Yes but it's a blob
It doesn't look like Tol Fuin or Himling with respect to shape. And (looking at Tolkien's own map in
The Treason of Isengard anyway) in my opinion it's too far off the coast for Himling; and if it's meant to be Tol Fuin, then there's no Himling blob.
Plus, why a filled-in black shape without any added "shore line" lines to match the rest of the existing map, as with Tolfalas below? That would have made things clear at least. And this would seemingly mean that the artist chose to put a drawing in this corner of her map, instead of an Island Tolkien had added.
In addition to Treebeard "drowning" Tol Fuin (well, not really) Tolkien's Unfinished Index to
The Lord of the Rings makes no mention of the Isle of Himling:
"Beleriand -- The 'lost land of [the] Elder Days (of which Lindon was all that remained in the Third Age)" Hammond And Scull's Reader's Companion.
But what about Tol Morwen, if all means all (and if we press this "all" in the first place, which might be pressing too much, admittedly)?
I can't recall (if I ever did know) the dates involved with respect to the index versus the conception of Tol Morwen, but anyway if we allow Tolkien one exception to "all" (instead of three), I suggest that by removing explicit mentions of Tol Fuin and 'Himling' (or simply not mentiong them again, as they had not been published anyway), arguably lends Tol Morwen a more unique place in the legendarium.
'For this there can be no simple explanation, but it seems to me that an important element was the centrality that my father accorded to the story of Húrin and Morwen and their children (...) This became for him, I believe, the dominant and absorbing story of the end of the Elder Days, in which complexity of motive and character, trapped in the mysterious workings of Morgoth's curse, sets it altogether apart.' Christopher Tolkien, Foreword, The War of the Jewels
And the description:
"... nor ever thrown down, not though the Sea should drown all the land. As indeed after befell, and still the Tol Morwen stands alone in the water beyond the new coasts that were made in the days of the wrath of the Valar. But Húrin does not lie there, for his doom drove him on, ..." JRRT, The Wanderings of Húrin
That is, I feel if Tol Morwen were truly more 'alone' (more than merely being lonely or 'alone' in the place where it stood), the surviving Isle becoming more singular surrounds it with more mythic importance.
Just my opinion anyway.