[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by ArcusCalion

However, what about the AAm text is inherently better or worse than the LQ text?

I don't think it's inherently better or worse; I just think that, all else being equal, it's desirable to minimize how often we go back and forth between texts. I took AAm rather than LQ as the basis only because AAm exists in a "second phase" (c. 1958) typescript, while LQ in this section only exists in a "first phase" (c. 1951) version.

On the MT Questions

I'm now coming around on the question of the opening section and the "measureless regions" of Ea. The cosmology in the Ainulindale C and D already matches this conception, which shows that this feature is independent of the changed cosmology of Myths Transformed.


On the other hand, I'm still rather convinced that the Primeval Light and, most especially, the Dome of Varda, are part and parcel of the Myths Transformed cosmology, and that in rejecting the new story of the sun and moon we must reject them as well. I think this is clearest in the case of the Dome of Varda. The Dome is introduced thus in MT III:

What happened in Valinor after the Death of the Trees? Aman was 'unveiled' - it had been covered with a dome (made by Varda) of mist or cloud down through which no sight would pierce nor light. This dome was lit by stars — in imitation of the great Firmament of Eä. This now rendered Valinor dark except for starlight [i.e. after the death of the Trees]. It was removed and Aman was lit by the Sun - its blessing was thus removed. (Melkor's defilement of the Sun must thus precede the Two Trees which had light of Sun and Stars before Melkor [?tainted] it - or the Trees [?could ?would] be lit by light before the [?Turbulence] of Melkor.)

The function of the dome here is clearly to prevent the light of the defiled Sun from shining in Valinor, and thus allow the image of Valinor lit by the Trees to remain part of the mythos despite the change whereby the Sun already exists. Christopher Tolkien states this plainly:

The Dome of Varda must have been contrived after the ravishing of Árië by Melkor, in order to keep out the Sun's polluted light; and Aman was lit beneath the Dome by the Two Trees.

The Dome of Varda arose entirely as a consequence of the decision that the Sun must have existed from the beginning, as a way of preserving a feature of the mythology (i.e. Valinor lit by the Trees) that Tolkien wanted to preserve. Without the new story of the Sun, I can see no justification for retaining the Dome.

The “Primeval Light” also seems to me to have been introduced as a direct consequence of the new story of the Sun. That, at least, would again appear to be Christopher Tolkien’s view:

But on the other hand, it is an essential idea that the light of the Trees was derived from the Sun before it was 'tainted'. A resolution of this conflict may be found (reading 'could', not 'would', in the last phrase) in the idea that the light of the Trees was an unsullied light preserved by Varda from a time before the assaults of Melkor.

That is, the new story, wherein Melkor defiles the Sun, presents the problem of where the unsullied light of the Trees came from. This was solved by inventing the Primeval Light that Varda had kept. Without the new story, that problem does not arise, and so no solution is necessary.

BoT-23, -24: I think the LQ and AAm extracts still slightly contradict each other, as they ascribe the failure to overcome Melkor to different things. If we agree that the explanation from LQ is to be preferred, since it agrees with MT, then I think we need remove the AAm (BoT-24) extract completely.

Names of the Trees: As you have already agreed to use Silpion, I just want to say that I favor Aiwendil's general change of Silpion > Telperion, as Tolkien did himself, but in this and the few other cases in the Sun and Moon story where it is appropriate to use Silpion, I think we should.

After agreeing to use “Silpion” here, I find myself doubting it again. In LT, the names given by the Lorien and Yavanna are afterward the usual names for the Trees (even if they receive other names in addition). If we retain “Silpion”, though, then we are inventing the fact that the original name given by Lorien was later for some reason displaced as the usual name, which seems a bit odd. So I am, after all, still tempted to change “Silpion” to “Telperion” here.

Originally Posted by ArcusCalion

Gathering of the Lights: This seems to be the most controversial point in the chapter, as it is a difficult one. If Kullulin/Silindrin are to be removed, then many of the LT descriptions of Valinor need heavy editing, and the Tale of Sun and Moon as well (but this we already know). I think personally that there is no reason to remove them, as it says that the Maiar removed the light from the wells and watered the friths and fields of Valinor with in in AAm, so why is it contradictory to have the cauldrons and the wells of varda? I agree that they are most likely abandoned, but there is nothing against their inclusion alongside the wells. ALternatively, we could simply say the Wells of Varda are the cauldrons, and have them made after the trees, leaving the part about the lack of light for Aule's building out.

I’ve been thinking about this, and for me it just keeps coming back to the fact that no Tolkien text has two separate sets of receptacles for the light, so that if we include both the cauldrons and the wells, we are inventing a fact about Valinor that is not supported anywhere. I see two options here: 1. leave ambiguous the place where the light is stored when it is gathered to Valinor, or 2. completely replace the cauldrons with the vats and have the light stored there when it is gathered. Looking at LQ and AAm, I don’t see any statement as to when Varda’s vats were made; they are not mentioned until after the Trees are made, but they could well have been originally made to hold the light that was gathered from the ruins of the Lamps. So my inclination is to go with option 2, which also allows us to retain more of LT by changing the cauldrons to wells. One might even wonder if perhaps we could retain the names “Kullulin” and “Silindrin” for them, though that might be a step too far.

BD-12: I’m extremely hesitant to simply alter the math here to get a number close to 144.

Actually, the more I look into this issue, the more confusing it seems to become.

First, in AV and AB (c. 1930), and retained in AV 2 and AB 2 (mid to late 1930s), the Valian year is stated to be equivalent to ten years.

In the drafting for what became Appendix D, given in HoMe XII, the Eldar are said to reckon in yéni, one of which is equivalent to a century, 100 years of the sun. This was written in 1949 or 1950.

Then in AAm as originally written (around 1950-1952), the Valian year was again said to be 10 years (I had not really noted this until now). This was emended such that the Valian Year (based on the waxing and waning of the Trees) was equivalent to 3,500 solar days, or about 9.582 solar years. Another thing I hadn’t noted earlier is that this whole passage on the reckoning of time was marked to be removed from AAm and transferred to the Tale of Years - which indeed it was, being included (with a few minor changes, but nothing affecting the math) in two manuscripts of the Tale of Years.

Then in the text published as Appendix D to The Lord of the Rings in 1955, the yén is stated to be 144 years of the sun rather than 100 that it was in the draft.

I find it very doubtful that the yén/Valian year was changed from 10 years to 100 years then back to 10 years and then to 9.582 years and finally to 144 years. It seems clear to me, instead, that appendix D with its 100 -> 144 figure and the Annals with their 10 -> 9.582 figure are talking about different things. That is, at least up to the mid-1950s, the yén and the “Valian year” were not synonymous. Note that the appendix is speaking only of the Eldarin calendar, while the annals (at least in the elaborate passage in AAm) are talking about the reckoning of the Valar. These two systems need not be assumed to be identical! (And indeed, I think that what we can conclude from the passages mentioned above is that they were not identical).

Now, in MT XI Tolkien gives a different explanation for the Valian year in reference to the rate of change perceived by the Valar, and in a related note on the proposed much-expanded chronology, he wrote “144 Sun Years = 1 Valian Year”. Here, it would seem, the Eldarin yen of Appendix D and the Valian year of the annals have been identified with each other. Christopher Tolkien sees this as directly tied to the new cosmogony:

It will be seen that, as a consequence of the transformation of the 'cosmogonic myth', a wholly new conception of the 'Valian Year' had entered. The elaborate computation of Time in the Annals of Aman (see pp. 49-51, 59-60) was based on the 'cycle' of the Two Trees that had ceased to exist in relation to the diurnal movement of the Sun that had come into being - there was a 'new reckoning'. But the 'Valian Year' is now, as it appears, a 'unit of perception' of the passage of the Time of Arda, derived from the capacity of the Valar to perceive at such intervals the process of the ageing of Arda from its beginning to its end.

I think we must reject this new conception for two reasons. First, because, as Christopher notes, it is a consequence of the new cosmology, and second because the 144 year figure is tied to a projected major revision of the chronology (itself related to the new cosmology), greatly enlarging the time between the awakening of Men and the time of the ‘great tales’ of Beren, Túrin, et al.

My inclination, then, is to either retain the 9.582 figure, on the assumption that Eldarin yéni and Valian years are different units, or to remove the whole passage and leave things ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Findegil

Could you guide me to that AAm passage? I can't identify it in your draft nor in th original AAm text. In your draft the LT descriptions are mixed with passages from Ainulindalë D. But that wouldn't suggest such a late placement.

Sorry, I meant Ainulindalë D, not AAm. In any case, I think we are agreed on putting the descriptions of the Valar’s dwellings from LT here, correct?