*Feanor,Turin and the Second Prophecy of Mandos*

[Aiwendil]

As I now see it, the only two good arguments against including the second prophecy of Mandos are:

1. It contradicts the passage at the end of the Valaquenta
2. It is no longer workable once the Change of the World element is worked in (because the world is then no longer flat).

Findegil wrote:

And if we have such contradictions, we know that these could be caused be differend traditions.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. I am wary of taking the easy way out and ascribing all contradictions to "different traditions" - especially since what we are constructing, at least for the Quenta Silmarillion portion, is not supposed to be an actual document but rather a pure narrative - a true account of events.

However, there does seem to be good reason in this case to explain away problem 1 with the "different traditions" bit, since in the Athrabeth note Tolkien sets that precedent. I'd say this allows us to append a second prophecy, as long as we preface it by saying that it is a Mannish myth (otherwise we are saying that it is "canonical" - i.e., true within Arda).

But I still have trouble with problem 2. In the old version, it was essential that the Silmarils were recovered and used to restore the Trees, and the mountains of Valinor were levelled so that their light shown out across Middle-earth. I don't see how this can be retained if the world is now round, and Valinor is not on it.