Glorfindel reincarnated

[Nerwen]

I believe the Galadriel/Feanor quotation referred to several times, but never posted, is one of these two:

Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Fëanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years.

These two kinsfolk, the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.

(Both from UT, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn.)

And now, a general comment: it’s best not to get too combative over Tolkien’s use of superlatives. Yes, at some points he'll describe a given character as “the wisest”, or “the fairest” or “the greatest”– but at other times he describes other characters the same way. No doubt– writing as he did over a period of decades– he sometimes forgot what he’d said previously– or else he just didn't mean these statements in the spirit of utter literalism in which people often appear to take them.

I know some see ways out of these apparent contradictions, but those seem to me to rely on hair-splitting and not-very-well-founded assumptions. For example, where is the evidence that Tolkien always meant completely different things by “might” and “greatness”? I just feel there’s quite a bit of circular reasoning going on here.

[Nerwen]

Also– the problem with all these power debates and “vs” threads is that the questions they ask are outside the scope of the type of fiction Tolkien wrote. I mean, you’d need him to have written up little character sheets for everyone, with their ability scores and hit points and everything. Okay, well, he didn’t.

And if I sound condescending, well, sorry, but I do think this stuff is pretty silly and it strikes me that some people are taking it all just a bit too seriously.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And now, a general comment: it’s best not to get too combative over Tolkien’s use of superlatives. Yes, at some points he'll describe a given character as “the wisest”, or “the fairest” or “the greatest”– but at other times he describes other characters the same way. No doubt– writing as he did over a period of decades– he sometimes forgot what he’d said previously– or else he just didn't mean these statements in the spirit of utter literalism in which people often appear to take them.

I agree Nerwen. Another possibility [stress possibility] is that Tolkien meant different traditions to clash in this respect, although one can hardly really know, compared to the idea of JRRT just forgetting what he had written elsewhere; or enjoying superlatives.

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' (Quenta Silmarillion)

Then in the early 1950s Tolkien wrote (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this). If Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Is this a matter of authorship and opinion? The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that one author esteemed Feanor so highly, while another rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

Hmm... ahem [cough] or something else

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

[Willemijn]

No it's not, because the statement was before Gil-galad died. Galadriel never had the position that Gil-galad as King. Even after Gil-galad's death the most influential person amongst the elves would be Elrond.

The quote says that she was

"the mightiest and fairest of all the Elves that remained in Middle-Earth" (after the death of Gil-Galad)

So before the death of Gil Galad she wasn´t the mightiest in political power, that was of course the king (the fairest part is strange, cause I don´t think Gil Galad was fairer than her, but who knows).

No she doesn't. Her displays of magic are not above those of Elwing, Feanor, Elrond or arguably her brother Luthien.

Well, the ability to have a magic mirror where she is able to see past, present and future, the fact that she destroyed Dol Goldur

They took Dol Guldur, and Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed.

, that she was able to make the star glass, to keep Lorien safe from danger with her power and to make that land the most beautiful part in ME, without stain, her sending the fog to Eorls troup and so on is for me above that of Elwing turning into a bird (which she only was able to due to Ulmos help I´m sure! I know she learned the language of birds and seeminly transformed herself later on alone, but for me the enchantment from Ulmo still lies upon her) or Elrond making a flood.

With Luthien and Feanor it´s clear that they are magically superiour to her but with Finrod I disagree, sure disguising himself and his companions or singing a song of power and almost winning against Sauron is impressive, but evidence is that Galadriel is greater than him so that puts her above him.

Earedil was called the mightiest of the Half-Elven, which means he was more powerful than Elrond an equal of Galadriel at the very least.

Only because Earendil was mightier than Eldond doesn´t put him above Galadriel, only because you think that Galadriel is only equal or even inferiour to Elrond.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

I agree Nerwen. Another possibility [stress possibility] is that Tolkien meant different traditions to clash in this respect, although one can hardly really know, compared to the idea of JRRT just forgetting what he had written elsewhere; or enjoying superlatives.

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' (Quenta Silmarillion)

Then in the early 1950s Tolkien wrote (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this). If Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Is this a matter of authorship and opinion? The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that one author esteemed Feanor so highly, while another rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

Hmm... ahem [cough] or something else

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

It is Tolkien's style to use a lot of superlatives and Christopher Tolkien himself comments on this. However, like with history we have to work with the information that we have.

When there is conflicting notes about, who is say the mightiest or oldest then at best we can make a iudgement call. For instance both Fangorn and Tom are called the oldest, but we know that the Ents were in some part made by Yavanna.

The Hobbit is definite one work where we have to take into account that the 'author' Bilbo was very biased and probably not aware of what was really going on. We even have evidence that he has already lied in the book deliberately.

Even the LOTR is from the hobbit's POV. Advanced medical treatment would be seen as magic by the Hobbits.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

It is Tolkien's style to use a lot of superlatives and Christopher Tolkien himself comments on this. However, like with history we have to work with the information that we have. (...) The Hobbit is definite one work where we have to take into account that the 'author' Bilbo was very biased and probably not aware of what was really going on. We even have evidence that he has already lied in the book deliberately.

Even the LOTR is from the hobbit's POV. Advanced medical treatment would be seen as magic by the Hobbits.

Well I would agree that 'author's point of view' can become an all too easy explanation for seeming contradictions. I stressed 'possibility' above and am more inclined to agree with Nerwen's post and Tolkien's noted love of superlatives, although I do think -- at the point when the Annals were still meant to be different texts from Quenta Silmarillion -- some 'comparisons of interest' were perhaps intended.

That generally said, I would also agree that that has no real force when it comes to specific examples, unless Tolkien comments directly or makes something 'agreeably obvious' I guess...

... for instance did Maglor drown himself with his Silmaril (poetry, and one of Tolkien's letters) or walk along the shores (prose Silmarillion) after 'drowning' his Silmaril? Despite my opinion that this detail nicely lends itself to the confusion of history, so to speak, which would be nicely represented in the two very different traditions, the matter could simply be external.

Again if forced to guess: more probably external.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well I would agree that 'author's point of view' can become an all too easy explanation for seeming contradictions. I stressed 'possibility' above and am more inclined to agree with Nerwen's post and Tolkien's noted love of superlatives, although I do think -- at the point when the Annals were still meant to be different texts from Quenta Silmarillion -- some 'comparisons of interest' were perhaps intended.

That generally said, I would also agree that that has no real force when it comes to specific examples, unless Tolkien comments directly or makes something 'agreeably obvious' I guess...

... for instance did Maglor drown himself with his Silmaril (poetry, and one of Tolkien's letters) or walk along the shores (prose Silmarillion) after 'drowning' his Silmaril? Despite my opinion that this detail nicely lends itself to the confusion of history, so to speak, which would be nicely represented in the two very different traditions, the matter could simply be external.

Again if forced to guess: more probably external.

When Tolkien started off creating his mythology as we know he intended it to be new mythology for England, since we were sadly lacking in that area. He seemed far more content to go along with the confusion of myth and history.

However, late on his life mostly post LOTR I think there is a quite a change. Instead of being content to allow different interpretations and different stories to stand he seems determined to find a 'true' account of what happened.

An example of this is the question of whether 'Tuor' died or who exactly sent Gandalf back. These are things he either clears up completely or leaves us with very strong implications of what happened.

Since this is about Glorfindel, this is another such case. Tolkien could have left things ambiguous as to whether the two were the same. However, he clarifies this for the readers and there can be no doubt of the truth.

Even in the mythology about the Two Tree's he appears unsatisfied with leaving the account as Mannish myths. He tried very hard to make a translate the solarism myths into a 'true' account. For instance the Morgoth messing with the orbit of the Earth or the intensity of the Sun's heat.

I am inclined to think that he would have liked to clear up as many conflicting tales as he could, except for a very few.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

When Tolkien started off creating his mythology as we know he intended it to be new mythology for England, since we were sadly lacking in that area. He seemed far more content to go along with the confusion of myth and history.

However, late on his life mostly post LOTR I think there is a quite a change. Instead of being content to allow different interpretations and different stories to stand he seems determined to find a 'true' account of what happened.

Hmm. Yes and no in general. Post-lord of the Rings we have examples of variant internal traditions too, and I believe that the notably variant The Drowning of Anadune is a later 'Tolkien-ratified' text, for example.

An example of this is the question of whether 'Tuor' died or who exactly sent Gandalf back. These are things he either clears up completely or leaves us with very strong implications of what happened.

No doubt Tolkien was concerned with consistency, and in my opinion that is the major ingredient -- however to be 'peppered' in measure with a purposed amount of inconsistency or ambiguity, for flavour.

Since this is about Glorfindel, this is another such case. Tolkien could have left things ambiguous as to whether the two were the same. However, he clarifies this for the readers and there can be no doubt of the truth.

Another post-Lord of the Rings internal purposed inconsistency is the history of the Elessar stone. Surely we can find [or arguably find] more examples of Tolkien trying to make things consistent, but that doesn't rule out a measure of purposed ambiguity or purposed [even seeming] inconsistency in his later years.

Glorfindel is a character living in Imladris during Bilbo's lifetime [and Bilbo's stay there]. Not exactly the same scenario as with Maglor however [not that you said it was], as to my mind his ultimate fate seems far more shrouded in mythic-historical mist...

... a good case for the poetry to describe that Maglor cast himself and the Silmaril into the Sea, while another prose text says he cast not himself but the Silmaril into the Sea. Is this the case? I don't know, but I'm not sure that Tolkien would have ruled it out in a post-lord of the Rings phase even if he was naturally, and generally speaking, concerned with consistency.

Even in the mythology about the Two Tree's he appears unsatisfied with leaving the account as Mannish myths. He tried very hard to make a translate the solarism myths into a 'true' account. For instance the Morgoth messing with the orbit of the Earth or the intensity of the Sun's heat.

Tolkien does try to re-write the existing myths, yes, but for whatever reason he never gets very far however, and we can find enough late[er] examples of JRRT characterizing the Silmarillion as a mostly Mannish account.

In my opinion this was the solution JRRT landed on rather than re-write the older, already existing legends -- at least drastically re-write them.

I am inclined to think that he would have liked to clear up as many conflicting tales as he could, except for a very few.

Maybe depends upon what a 'few' is

I myself have never been a proponent of taking Tolkien's extant work as 'all internal' and never mind the inconsistencies because it's like some Primary World example...

... however, again, I would say that The Drowing of Anadune is a great example of purposed inconsistency due to author variation, and I believe Tolkien was happy with this variation in a post-Lord of the Rings phase of his work.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Hmm. Yes and no in general. Post-lord of the Rings we have examples of variant internal traditions too, and I believe that the notably variant The Drowning of Anadune is a later 'Tolkien-ratified' text, for example.



No doubt Tolkien was concerned with consistency, and in my opinion that is the major ingredient -- however to be 'peppered' in measure with a purposed amount of inconsistency or ambiguity, for flavour.



Another post-Lord of the Rings internal purposed inconsistency is the history of the Elessar stone. Surely we can find [or arguably find] more examples of Tolkien trying to make things consistent, but that doesn't rule out a measure of purposed ambiguity or purposed [even seeming] inconsistency in his later years.

Glorfindel is a character living in Imladris during Bilbo's lifetime [and Bilbo's stay there]. Not exactly the same scenario as with Maglor however [not that you said it was], as to my mind his ultimate fate seems far more shrouded in mythic-historical mist...

... a good case for the poetry to describe that Maglor cast himself and the Silmaril into the Sea, while another prose text says he cast not himself but the Silmaril into the Sea. Is this the case? I don't know, but I'm not sure that Tolkien would have ruled it out in a post-lord of the Rings phase even if he was naturally, and generally speaking, concerned with consistency.





Tolkien does try to re-write the existing myths, yes, but for whatever reason he never gets very far however, and we can find enough late[er] examples of JRRT characterizing the Silmarillion as a mostly Mannish account.

In my opinion this was the solution JRRT landed on rather than re-write the older, already existing legends -- at least drastically re-write them.



Maybe depends upon what a 'few' is

I myself have never been a proponent of taking Tolkien's extant work as 'all internal' and never mind the inconsistencies because it's like some Primary World example...

... however, again, I would say that The Drowing of Anadune is a great example of purposed inconsistency due to author variation, and I believe Tolkien was happy with this variation in a post-Lord of the Rings phase of his work.

There are a few examples, as you mentioned with the Elessar, but quite a few of the variants in different stories are simply due to mistakes Tolkien made in later life. For instance when he refers to Celebrimbor making both Elessar's. This cannot really work and it is something that Tolkien probably would have rejected due to it contradicting what is in LOTR

Which contradiction in the variation n the Drowning of Anadune are you talking about?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

For instance both Fangorn and Tom are called the oldest, but we know that the Ents were in some part made by Yavanna

But all the Valar and Maiar predate the entire universe. Tom Bombadil may be equally old. All are much older than the Ents. When Gandalf refers to Treebeard to Théoden as “the oldest of all living things” he seems to forget that he himself is older, as is Saruman and Sauron. Or perhaps Gandalf means only that Treebeard is the oldest of the kelvar who still live in Middle-earth.

You picked a bad example.

When Tolkien started off creating his mythology as we know he intended it to be new mythology for England, since we were sadly lacking in that area.

I don’t know that.

Tolkien’s legendarium was too complex in its origins to be so simply described. Tolkien refers in Letter 131 to his early Silmarillion in which the protagonist was the father of Hengest and Horsa, but admits this stage of his tales has long past away. When he refers to the lack of English mythology he is referring to modern times, surely not to Old English days.

That you think or feel a certain way proves nothing when Tolkien writes otherwise.

Tolkien did try to visualize his stories in one way, for the most part, but he kept changing his mind. One thing he seems to have stuck to in his Post-Lord of the Rings writing was the idea that the Silmarillion material was Mannish legend, which allowed him to retain the Silmarillion material as a flat-world story tradition within a round-world cosmos.

Tolkien sets forth Glorfindel as a powerful Elf, but goes no further. That Tolkien originally intended Glorfindel of Rivendell to identical to Glorfindel of Gondolin, and then forgot that that had been his intention, and later decided that they were the same indicates one case where Tolkien changed his mind, and then changed it again.

Tolkien also decided that Sador would be re-imaged as a Drúadan, but did not have time to carry this out. He also has two differing versions of who the Blue Wizards were.

Your belief that Tolkien suddenly decided following publication of The Lord of the Rings to stabilize on one version of the story only is just your belief, but an unsupported one. Tolkien always thought of his current version of his story as the final version, but he kept changing it.