The Translator Conceit

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Well if the conceit is so central to our acceptance of Middle Earth as something real, then considering many of us enter Middle Earth with The Hobbit, which does not have that, is it so necessary?

Good question. It depends upon how subtle it is. Is it not in The Hobbit? What of Bilbo's "There and Back Again" adventure story he wrote? Granted, the translator device is not worked out nearly to the depth of LotR, but is it not ther in TH?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This definition doesn't really fit does it? It's more applicable to poetry, particularly to the Metaphysical poets, which was what I had been thinking all along in the back of my mind but couldn't quite place! The idea of there being a translator is certainly elaborate, but it is in no way strained; in fact it is very subtly used.

I just listed the definitions that were most applicable; I don't necessarily agree that they completely apply. In the case of "coceit", it's that definition including "strained" that pulls me away from that word. "Device" is much better, I think.

[davem]

Came across this which may give some insight into the transmission of the legends:http://www.forodrim.org/gobennas/chron_en.html#kings

[littlemanpoet]

It suddenly occurred to me that in recent discussion involving the Translator Conceit, there has been a confounding of ideas that need distinction. The two ideas are:

(1) The translator conceit that Tolkien set up with great care throughout the Legendarium

(2) The choice of the reader to view this translator conceit in terms of a Received Tradition of Venerable Recorders or a Series of Fallable Historians whose interpretations may be called into question.

I'm quite convinced that Tolkien intended the former, but I'm not convinced that he would deplore the latter. The former is a typically pre-Renaissance approach toward ancient documents, the latter a typically post-Renaissance.

However, I think it we would do ourselves a favor to have this confoundment cleared up and realize which view each of us tends to intepret the Legendarium from.

I know that I (with rare exceptions) proceed from the Venerable Recorders framework, and generally prefer to. This also frees me from the rather unpalatable position I have previously taken of making light of the Translator Conceit when it seemingly failed to take me in the direction my thoughts tended. Now I see that that had to do with the confounding of the two distinct approaches.

So I hope this little post helps others in their thinking about Tolkien and the Legendarium as much as it already has mine.

[HerenIstarion]

Newly consecrated young monk has entered into service at a monastery famous for its archive of sacred texts, and has been given a task of copying manuscripts. Despite availability of originals, he found that monks were copying from earlier copies, whilst originals were kept in the basement for safekeeping. Being of inquisitive mind, young monk asked an audience with the prior to learn the reason of such practice.

'Why don't we copy from originals, father?' he asked.
'Why? My son, I'm not sure... it is tradition, I suppose. Besides, if we take them out too often, we may damage them'
'Yes, father, you're right. But, if we never take them out for comparison, we may omit incorrigible errors in our copying. How do you know we are not copying some error, or number of such, for generations already?'
'You know, my son, I believe our copiers, you yourself included, are mostly diligent, so no errors slipped our notice. Yet, to sooth your worries down, I'll check documents you've copied against originals myself. Wait for me here; it must not take more than half an hour.

Prior went off to the basement where originals were kept, yet came not back in half an hour, nor in an hour. In fact, he’s been missing for a day or two. Worried, young monk went after him to the basement, and found him in poor state. Prior's garments were in disorder, hair stood on end, cheeks were feverishly red. He sat on the floor, and all round him original manuscripts were scattered. Monk ran down the stair to him.

‘What happened, father? Why do you sit on the floor? Are you feeling well?’
‘What?... Who?!... Ah, it's you, my son…you were right, we’ve been copying an error for generations… too late now… yet it was written that monks should celebrate in the original, as I’ve just found out… not monks should celibate … too late now….'

Kidding apart, but approaches as you suggest are not alternative. If the story I’ve just provided you with (and do hope all who’ve read it took it as light humor and nothing more) have been true, it would illustrate that even venerable (and diligent) scribes may err sometimes.

So, my own approach would be a mix, something along the lines of Received Tradition of Venerable, yet sometimes Fallible (for records being in contradiction) Recorders

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'm quite convinced that Tolkien intended the former, but I'm not convinced that he would deplore the latter. The former is a typically pre-Renaissance approach toward ancient documents, the latter a typically post-Renaissance.

But surely we have in Bilbo's own story a clear account of a 'false' version of events deliberately concocted by a scribe.

The very existence of one 'false' account of historical events in the Legendarium calls the veracity of the others into question. Plus, which of the many versions of the Sil are the 'correct' one - the many, sometimes Fallible Authors theory allows us all of them, the 'Venerable Recorders' version requires us to through most of them out.

In other words, if we think in terms of FA's we can accept all the writings as part of a vast mythology, constructed by various hands, with different agendas, different kinds of information & differing levels of talent, but if we choose to go down the VR road, we have to reject, say, the Quenta in favour of the 77 Sil, or both of them in favour of the BoLT.

Now, possible Tolkien wanted us to have one final version of the stories after he had rejected all the others, but he never got there, so we can have all the M-e writings together - but only if we reject the VR approach in favour of the FA.

[drigel]

venerable (and diligent) scribes may err sometimes.

There is a parallel to our own history, and the authors passion for learning history. The cycle tends to be that a culture rises, flourishes, falls and is largely forgotton except for some scant archeological evidence. Luckily, we find, occaisionally and fortuitously, an old, worn book that some monk has written (or contributed to as a group), after gathering together various local folklore - usually hundreds of years after the fact. Whether commisioned for a purpose other than an actual transmission of available information, or not, the fact for us is that, other than some morter and bricks, that book is all we have for information. It's rarely (post Roman era) firsthand information, but to me, that deepens the enchantment and enriches the mystery. Who is the author(s)? What was the motivation? What are the differences between two authors covering the same particular subject of history? Its a love of those books, and of a time where all lore, knowledge and enlightenment resided in between book covers. An intentional effect used well by the author.

As to LMP's query - VR or FH? I would have to waffle on that like Heren. For myself, it's more of an appreciation of the creative process. The author had the final say, and unfortunately, the creation in total was never completed.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

But surely we have in Bilbo's own story a clear account of a 'false' version of events deliberately concocted by a scribe.

This is true, but I don't know how heavily one can lean on this in arguing a general point about the Translator Conceit. The 'false version' was after all a very special case - it was in fact a clever trick, a gimmick, used to get around the problem of contradictions between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I very much doubt that Tolkien would have thought of or used such a device had he not been faced with such a situation.

Plus, which of the many versions of the Sil are the 'correct' one - the many, sometimes Fallible Authors theory allows us all of them, the 'Venerable Recorders' version requires us to through most of them out.

There are two issues here that ought not to be conflated. First, there are contradictions between texts in which Tolkien simply changed his mind about the story and re-wrote it. Second, there are contradictions between texts that are purported to come from different 'scribes'. Clear examples of the first would be many places where Tolkien cancelled lines of a manuscript and replaced them with a new version. A clear example of the second would be the 'false story' in the first edition of The Hobbit.

I would argue that the varying versions of the Silmarillion primarily constitute a set of contradictory texts of the first class. There is no indication, for example, that when Tolkien wrote the 'Sketch of the Mythology' and its revisions (including the 'Quenta Silmarillion') he intended them to be merely a 'different tradition' than the Book of Lost Tales. On the contrary, all indications are that he intended the story told therein to replace that from the Book of Lost Tales. This is especially evident in the case of the 'Sketch', which was initially intended merely as a summary of the mythology contained in BoLT and was clearly not supposed to be an alternative tradition - and yet which tells a story that is different in many ways from BoLT.

There are cases where one can make a good case for two versions representing different traditions - perhaps the most obvious example from HoMe is 'The Drowning of Anadune'. But one cannot view all the vast complex of contradictory Silmarillion texts this way. Or rather, if one chooses to do so, that is a creative, "fan fictional" way of viewing things.

[davem]

There are cases where one can make a good case for two versions representing different traditions - perhaps the most obvious example from HoMe is 'The Drowning of Anadune'. But one cannot view all the vast complex of contradictory Silmarillion texts this way. Or rather, if one chooses to do so, that is a creative, "fan fictional" way of viewing things.

Surely one can view the texts in any way one chooses. The texts are simply the texts. Actually this approach would have solved a lot of Tolkien's problems if he had adopted it.