The Kings of the Noldor and Canon

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 513</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
a bit from 'aragorn's anscestors'



Michael Martinez
Animated Skeleton
posts: 27
(3/22/01 10:52:24 am)
Reply
Re: the debate turns canonical


Quote:

I think the use of Peoples of M-E is valid all though
we have to be clear re: dates and the lack of
canonicity at this point for either [well not quite as I
recall a post from a loooong time ago [in barrow
time at least] where the 1977 Silm was seen as
canon] but I think since then the level of education
here at the downs has risen to a level where we can
discuss the alternate versions, and the Silmarillion's
non [or semi?]-canonical status w/out all the apples
spilling from the cart.




Lindil, The Peoples of Middle-earth is useful for dealing with
issues of canon in The Silmarillion but not for dealing with issues
of text in The Silmarillion.

You might as well quote Shakespeare.

Quote:

It seems the final answer to Fingolfin as[claiming
and being folowed as ] King [by the majority] in
Valinor is yes from the PoME ....




No. As I pointed out, there are serious problems with &quot;The
Shibboleth of Feanor&quot; as the passages concerning Fingolfin's
claims to kingship conflict with other traditions. The &quot;Shibboleth&quot;
was an attempt to explain linguistic elements of names. Like &quot;The
Problem of Ros&quot; it was composed independently of the primary
tradition and where it conflicts with the canon (which in a general
sense was &quot;fixed&quot; in Tolkien's work, though not necessarily his
thoughts) then it fails, just as &quot;The Problem of Ros&quot; does.

There is no provision in any other text for the kingships of the
Noldor in Beleriand arising after the fall of Fingolfin. The
&quot;Shibboleth&quot; can only reasonably be accepted as canonical if it A)
provides information which is not provided elsewhere without
conflicting with primary texts or B) provides information which
Christopher Tolkien specifically attributes greater authority to than
to other texts.

So, in the case of determining who had which children, the
&quot;Shibboleth&quot; is useful. But it's not useful for determining who was
king of what.

We can all easily contrive our own versions of The Silmarilion.
We cannot, however, decide for J.R.R. Tolkien (or even
Christopher Tolkien) that the primary texts are wrong.


Edited by: Michael Martinez at: 3/22/01 10:53:19 am
Gilthalion
Wight
posts: 210
(3/22/01 11:11:24 am)
Reply

....Mod. edit. It is fascinating to one
such as myself who does not have the resources you folk cite.

(It also seems to me that constructing a new Silmarillion is not
&quot;easily contrive[d]&quot; however one goes about it!)

My questions for y'all are about the pragmatic issues (not that any
of this has anything to do with the original question of the thread,
which I think is answered):

What size populations are we discussing here, and how far were
they separated? How much communication was there between
them? How much did it really matter on a
day-to-day/year-to-year basis to the elves which &quot;king&quot; or
&quot;chieftain&quot; was named High King, or how long it took to resolve the
issues?

Certainly, a population that had crossed the Helcaraxe, slain their
kin at Aqualonde, and set off after Feanor against the wishes of
the Valar, would have quite an interest in who their leader would
be. But would they be willing to take a longer view of the
settlement of such disputes (especially in light of their Enemy not
so far away)? What was the actual role of the High King of the
Noldor? How much autonomy did the lesser kings/chieftans have?
How deeply was loyalty bestowed and to whom?

These are the things that this discussion makes me wonder...


Animated Skeleton
posts: 28
(3/22/01 11:56:28 am)
Reply
Re: the debate turns canonical

How much the titles mattered would be, I think, mostly an issue of
personal pride. And Tolkien did attribute or imply some stiff necks
to Feanor and Fingolfin in &quot;The Shibboleth of Feanor&quot;. I don't
believe he would have left matters as they were had he started
tying all the threads together, but quite possibly he would have
gone back and changed the primary texts to have Fingolfin
asserting a claim to kingship prior to the departure from Tirion.

Pride makes a great stumbling block, and it would have made the
dispute between Feanor and Fingolfin more poignant, I think, if
they were both running around Aman claiming to be Finwe's heir.


Seeker of the Straight Path
posts: 510
(3/22/01 12:33:59 pm)
Reply / Edit
canon and questions

MM said:&quot;The &quot;Shibboleth&quot; can only reasonably be accepted as
canonical if it A)
provides information which is not provided elsewhere without
conflicting with primary texts or B) provides information which
Christopher Tolkien specifically attributes greater authority to than
to other texts.&quot;
lindil replies: While this is a resonable and arguable position it is
not [I hope ] the only one.
I generally a have a few criteria for deciding the canonicity of a
given point or text and that are similar to yours, but different in a
couple of respects.
1] I don't cosider the Silm to be a 'primary text' [except in cases
like Beren and Luthien where it virtually is the final form or ruin of
doriath where the only other version is from the 30's]. I consider
the versions in MR and WotJ and in some cases Lost Road to be
the primary versions versions [ the non-Myth's Transformed
versions } and while I put a great deal of weight behind CRT 's
opinions and decisions he is since essentially having abandoned
the Silm as a cohesive canon giving us dozens of alt. texts and no
resolution to many matters and having not given us a complete
and final account of just what about the Solm he would and would
not keep, I propose more or less starting over w/ HoME as a base
not the Silm as published.
2] I favor a later conception if it can be harmonized w/ out great
damage to the story [thus MT fails in my and I believe I am
correct in saying your opinion also] and while this Fingolfin as King
conception creates difficulties for the MR and 77 versions , I am
not sure yewt if they are to damaging to the text. They certainly
give Feanor more reason [prideful ones I admit ] to have
abandoned them and in general advances the subtlty and depth of
the story. It is conceivable that since we don't know JRRt's mind as
to wether he would have kept the setting aside of the sword -
drawing by fingolfin and his words&quot; Thou shalt lead and I will
folow.&quot; I think w/ out a deep exploration of the texts and it's
implications
it might be conceivable to keep both. there is need for some
exploration of all this on a closer level and I propose starting a
thread in the Silm forum for the Canonical issues ...

I took th liberty of editing out a few items not relevant to the topic. [11:07 am pst 3/22/01}


lindil




</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000076>lindil</A> at: 3/28/01 8:34:55 pm