<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Moderator
Posts: 42</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Comments -- Comments getting less at last
I have made editorial changes in my original post on the closing part of the "Fall of Gondolin" in light of comments made. I think it may be better for shorter comments to appear in that post rather than scattered about. I also comment here on some of the remarks and note where I have made changes in the original postings. If I don't comment it is because I am more or less in agreement, as least for today.
C05**I agree, Lindil, on the literary effect of Turgon shouting "Great is the Fall of Gondolin" and added below a possible way of saving it. Probably too fan fictional.
C06**Glingal, the tree of gold is "{withered} <melted> to the stock". Since the tree is a metal image, I thought "melted" to be the best word. "Destroyed" would do per Lindil's suggestion if others find "melted" awkward. I don't see the problem myself. I don't think "burnt" works with gold metal at all. Continue discussion?
C08**On replacing "monsters" with "Orcs and trolls": I'm not sure Tolkien uses "drake" either, or a number of other words outside of
FG. But no other story deals with dragons of any kind to nearly this extent so we should expect find more dragon synonyms here. We really can't introduce "trolls". I personally see no problem with "monsters". If replaced with anything it should be "dragons" or "serpents" since that is what JRRT means by the word here and we have no reason or right to change that
C10**On mist in the valley. The original worked alright, but
Q30 contains the same material rewritten in full, and so takes priority, and it also shows signs of careful and literary rewriting, e.g. "mounful mists". I see I missed some angle brackets here, and have added them. That was probably confusing things.
C20**On the wording of the "removal" from Nan-tathren.
FG has "all that host" while the later
Q30 has "the most part of the people", so that
must take priority. JRRT has both changed the phrasing and decided that not all the people left Nan-tathren to follow Huor to Sirion. This last makes good sense, considering the beauty of Nan-tathren as described. As to "journeyed" for "removed", since JRRT uses "removed" we should keep it. The word "journeyed" does not occur here at all.
We should use JRRT's own writing as much as possible, not a paraphrase of it.
JRRT seems to have a purposely Biblical touch to it here as in KJV Numbers 33:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> 6*And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness. 7*And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol. 8*And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days'journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. 9*And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they pitched there. 10*And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea. 11*And they removed from the Red sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin. 12*And they took their journey out of the wilderness of Sin, and encamped in Dophkah. 13*And they departed from Dophkah, and encamped in Alush. 14*And they removed from Alush, and encamped at Rephidim, where was no water for the people to drink.<hr></blockquote> and so forth.
C22**I have changed the positioning of the mention of springtime from C27 to C22 and explained it in those entries.
C23**I have ommitted here the song fragment, moving its position to a new entry C21.1 with comments. This is tentative only of course.
C28**On the anachronistic cities: I post below the research I've done on the possibility of including Ælfwine and my conclusions. In any case, should a later marginal note be included in the main text, regardless of its source?
C29**On when the tale ends: Aiwendil created his breakdown of the tale to cover all the material in the
Q77 "Fall of Gondolin" so might as well keep this for now, considering the material not covered by
FG as a sort of epilogue. As Lindil says, we will see what emerges as to where it is best to break.
C30**The explanation of a name should probably be inserted usually when the person who bears it first appears, or first appears prominently. I would imagine in the Nargothrond material Ereinion would be simply mentioned by name, and probably without the epithet Gil-galad, as he plays no part in the tale as told. So this is really his first appearance on stage, though a very short one!
This account of Gil-galad's name and armor could be used again in the Second Age material, probably when he first appears there rather than late in the War of the Last Alliance. It's such a magnificent introduction!
I have removed from C30 the word "high" before "king" as I think this may be invalid CT or Guy Kay supposition. It doesn't occur in a source that I can find before Second Age material, and I doubt that anyone would want to claim the title of "High King" at this time in the First Age?
C34 Departure of Tuor: Haven't gotten around to trying stylistic changes on this. Anyone else is welcome to do so. Possibly a little juggling of personal names and pronouns and some reweaving with a few ands and thens may fix it up.
Again on the historical present ... yes, I don't see it at all in the later writings, but have only done a very cursory search. Possibly this might justify omitting it in BoLT material. But the problem I see with any stylistic changes is what is most annoying to one person is likely to be particular liked by another, especially in the matter if archaisms.
The Prophecy of the Fall of Gondolin
"Great is the fall of Gondolin!", and men shudder.
In
BoLT*1 the story of the Prophecy of the North is given, ending with:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> ... and he foretold to them many of the evil adventures that after came to them, warning them against Melko, and at last he said: 'Great is the fall of Gondolin', and none there understood for Turondo son of Nólemë was not yet upon Earth.<hr></blockquote>Lindil mentions the powerful effect of Turgon's cry here and wishes to retain it.
In no later account is there any mention of a prophecy of the fall of Gondolin in either the giving of the Prophecy of the North or the story of the fall of Gondolin. The tale of the prophecy in
QS77 only relates:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Much it foretold in dark words, which the Noldor understood not until the woes indeed after befell them;<hr></blockquote> but no actual words of this prophecy are given at all. Then follows the curse laid on the Noldor which Tolkien added to the prophecy, and that is given in full.
Is the omission of the mention of Gondolin here purposeful, or the result of compression? The difficulty is to understand how Turgon and his people could have named his city Gondolin if this prophecy was well known. Normally in tales of the coming of a prophecied doom something happens, then someone recalls an obscure prophecy, and then for the first time the dread meaning of the prophecy is understood.
This could be brought in here allowing a little fan fiction.
I will postulate that the prophecy, spoken in Quenya, actually ended with "Great is the fall of the hidden rock!" Tolkien does tell us in "The Later
Quenta Silmarillion", 12, that Turgon really named his city in Quenya as
Ondolindë 'Singing Stone' (a metaphor for carved stone), but this was translated into Sindarin as
Gondolin, and then interpreted by a kind of pun as
Gond dolen 'Hidden Rock'.
So during the sack, Turgon remembers suddenly the Quenya words of the prophecy and calls out in Sindarin, "Great is the fall of Gondolin!" Those who hear him now understand: their city is the hidden rock of the Prophecy of the North!
Let me try this:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Then said the king: [']Great is the fall of Gondolin['], and men shuddered, for such were the words of {Amnon the prophet of old} [the Prophecy of the North], <u>saying:</u> <
BoLT 1 'Great is the fall of the <u>hidden rock</u>!">; but Tuor speaking wildly ...<hr></blockquote>Too creative to be allowed? Can anyone come up with anything better?
Ælfwine
Lindil suggests we might keep Ælfwine who at least in the 1950's in a large number of texts was still the medium through which Elvish tradition was preserved for Tolkien to translate. Can we keep Ælfwine?
In the second edition to LR (1966) a "Note on Shire Records" was inserted following the Prologue, in which it was stated of the Red Book of Westmarch:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> But annexed to it and preserved with it, probably in a single red case, were three large volumes, bound in red leather, that Bilbo gave him as a parting gift.<hr></blockquote>Somewhat later:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> But the chief importance of Findegil's copy is that it alone contains the whole of Bilbo's 'Translations from the Elvish'. These three volumes were found to be a work of great skill and learning in which, between 1403 and 1418, he had used all the sources available to him in Rivendell, both living and written. But since they were little used by Frodo, being almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days, no more is said of them here.<hr></blockquote>It has been largely assumed that this was now JRRT's purported source for
The Silmarillion and any other tales of Elvish or Mannish tradition of the first Three Ages he wished to present.
In
The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME 12), near the end of chapter I, "The Prologue", CT notes:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> ****The
Note on the Shire Records entered in the Second Edition. In one of his copies of the First Edition my father noted: 'Here should be inserted Note on the Shire Records'; but he wrote against this later: 'I have decided against this. It belongs to Preface to
The Silmarillion.'<hr></blockquote>That JRRT would have placed this as part of the front matter to
The Silmarillion is proof that the volumes annexed to the Red Book are indeed now put forward by him as the major source, and probably the sole source, of the tales of
The Silmarillion. I believe no trace of Ælfwine can be found in any document later than the 1950's.
Conclusion: Ælfwine in Tol Eressëa has been discarded, being replaced by Bilbo Baggins in Rivendell.
One could keep Ælfwine for certain particular Elvish traditions I suppose, but which ones? It would be rather a comedown if the tale of his coming to Eressëa is told, and then all that follows are a few technical dialogues with that garulous bore Pengolodh.
We could postulate that Sam brought a copy of the Red Book, including the Elvish translations, to Tol Eressëa, and that Ælfwine copied them all there, and so the Red Book comes through Ælfwine. I think this improbable.
At most Æflwine is a sailor of whom a tale is told that he reached the Lonely Island and walked and talked with Elves.
</p>
Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 7/14/01 12:46:46 am