Elven Characteristics

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I think you are making too much of an effort to make the statements contradict each other. As things stand the later works are all in agreement.

Well I could say something similar concerning your opinions For example...

Elendil's height is not reduced in anyway. In the Unfinished Tales he gave us an accurate exact height for Elendil being around 7'10. In notes elsewhere he generalised that Isildur and Elendil had been 7ft. The statements once more are not contradictory unless you want them to be.

... why assume the 7 foot reference is not accurate? I could say the statements are not in accord unless you want Tolkien to be speaking so generally that when he writes 7 feet for both Isildur and Elendil he really imagines Elendil 10 inches taller [!], with the reason to think so being some description he may not have even remembered at the time, or may have been purposely revising.

There is no indication in the passage concerned that Elendil is taller than 7 feet. And I note Hammond and Scull's presentation of the two accounts in their Reader's Companion to The Lord of the Rings [see Numenoreans in the index, the first reference here is to the 'rangar account' published posthumously in Unfinished Tales]:

'Thus Elendil, by this account, was apparently almost eight feet tall. But in another late, unpublished note Tolkien wrote that...'

And then they quote the seven feet tall description. Well, when I note a given idea and then plan to introduce a seeming contradiction, or at least a reasonably arguable one, I use 'but, however' as well.

When I say a rugby team was full of 6 footers, I don't mean that everyone in the team was exactly 6 ft. I mean that everyone was at least 6ft.

And in my interpretation of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes I do not say, of course, that Tolkien meant every Elda was exactly 6 foot 6.

Unless the information contradicts itself I see no reason to not accept the harmonious version.

(...) 'Some' of the great kings were taller than the average, which is not noted here. In other passages we learn that the average height was 7ft.

That's not what Tolkien wrote in any case, in the passage I interpreted above.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well I could say something similar concerning your opinions For example...



... why assume the 7 foot reference is not accurate? I could say the statements are not in accord unless you want Tolkien to be speaking so generally that when he writes 7 feet for both Isildur and Elendil he really imagines Elendil 10 inches taller [!], with the reason to think so being some description he may not have even remembered at the time, or may have been purposely revising.

There is no indication in the passage concerned that Elendil is taller than 7 feet. And I note Hammond and Scull's presentation of the two accounts in their Reader's Companion to The Lord of the Rings [see Numenoreans in the index, the first reference here is to the 'rangar account' published posthumously in Unfinished Tales]:

My first point is that when people use a generic 6ft and in this case 7ft it is rarely to be taken as an accurate reference, especially when talking about two people. In this very case we know Isildur and Elendil were different heights, because Elendil is mentioned as the tallest man to have survived the downfall of Numenor. Secondly we know the Hobbits are called Halflings, because they were roughly half the size of Numenoreans. If the average height of the Nuemnoreans was 7ft then how could Elendil gain the nickname the Elendil the tall if he was 7ft too?

In one place he makes a rough note about a picture on general height. In the other he gives an exact height, supported by other published material.

And then they quote the seven feet tall description. Well, when I note a given idea and then plan to introduce a seeming contradiction, or at least a reasonably arguable one, I use 'but, however' as well.

And in my interpretation of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes I do not say, of course, that Tolkien meant every Elda was exactly 6 foot 6.

I was talking about Elendil and Isildur both being 7ft, when the context and evidence we have from other sources shows this must be a general description.

Tolkien never in that paragraph describes 6'6 as being a standard or even an average height. It's a general minimum height.

That's not what Tolkien wrote in any case, in the passage I interpreted above.

In the paragraph quoted, Tolkien is not talking about an average height for Eldar men and women.

He first gives the general minimum height for women, which is 6'0. No where is it indicated that the average for a male is 6'6.

In more than one account Tolkien goes into detail about the Numenoreans being around 7ft tall on average.

the Hobbits of the Shire were in height between three and four feet, never less and seldom more. They did not of course call themselves Halflings; this was a Numenorean name for them. It evidently referred to their height in comparison with Numenorean men and was approximately accurate when given.-UT


but he (Elendil) was said to be 'more than man-high' by nearly half a ranga; but he was accounted the tallest of all the Numenoreans who escaped the downfall [and indeed was generally known as the tall]

Earlier he tells us that 6'4 was not really an average height for Numenoreans, but a general term and even this was after they had declined in height.

We have a lot of accurate measurements of height given and I don't see why we should dismiss it all for an ambiguous note, which can be read in different ways.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

My first point is that when people use a generic 6ft and in this case 7ft it is rarely to be taken as an accurate reference, especially when talking about two people.

If it's generic in the first place

Your choice of words above, a rugby team 'full of 6 footers', is not exactly the phrasing Tolkien employs for the Eldar in any case [whether or not they played rugby aside]; and not that you said otherwise, but I see no reason why Elendil's own son could not match him in height.

In this very case we know Isildur and Elendil were different heights, because Elendil is mentioned as the tallest man to have survived the downfall of Numenor.

Did Tolkien himself publish this however? If not it's easily altered to reflect a new idea.

Secondly we know the Hobbits are called Halflings, because they were roughly half the size of Numenoreans. If the average height of the Nuemnoreans was 7ft then how could Elendil gain the nickname the Elendil the tall if he was 7ft too?

Tolkien did actually publish this nickname for Elendil, so yes, even he might explain it somewhow with respect to a given idea. Above you made the statement 'supported by other published material' but we must remember very little of any of this was published by JRRT himself, and thus was quite open to change.

In more than one account Tolkien goes into detail about the Numenoreans being around 7ft tall on average.

the Hobbits of the Shire were in height between three and four feet, never less and seldom more. They did not of course call themselves Halflings; this was a Numenorean name for them. It evidently referred to their height in comparison with Numenorean men and was approximately accurate when given.-UT

Thanks again to the scholarship of Hammond and Scull, with respect to the 'halfling' idea as it relates to the Numenoreans, we now have: 'three variant statements, written c. 1969, with some repetition as Tolkien develops the text' (only part of which was printed in Unfinished Tales).

In the third section [the more developed section?] as printed in the Reader's Companion, Tolkien writes:

'But the name 'Halfling' must have originated circa T[third] A[ge] 1150, getting on for 2,000 years (1868) before the War of the Ring, during which the dwindling of the Numenoreans had shown itself in stature as well as in life span. So that it referred to a height of full grown males of an average of, say, 3 ft. 5.'

So that's an average of 6 foot 10 inches at this time for the Numenoreans. This actully seems to agree well enough with the other text, as this is well after the Downfall of Numenor, if still well before Aragorn's time.

But again, is Tolkien being consistent in any case?

Hammond and Scull also point out that in The Hobbit [thus published by JRRT himself of course] it is noted that Hobbits were 'about half our height' and in a letter Tolkien referred to Bilbo as about 3 feet tall or 3 feet 6 inches. Well, which is it? Three feet tall would explain 'halfling' well enough in a world where Men were reaching 6 feet tall [and half 'our' height hardly refers to Numeoreans I would say], but 3 foot 6 would mean we should be talking about a much taller people.

Anyway, Elendil is a notable person here, historically. He need not be the only person to ever reach this height to acquire such a nickname...

... I note Maedhros the Tall wasn't the tallest Elf ever [Thingol was taller], nor even the tallest Elf in Aman if we allow that 'Turgon himself would appear 'tallest of all the Children of the World, save Thingol' (Of Tuor And His Coming to Gondolin). That is, if we forget the later account, or explain it in some way, where Argon is seemingly said to be taller than Turgon in The Shibboleth of Feanor.

That's if all these descriptions were made with each other in mind too, which I tend to doubt with respect to Argon and Turgon actually, although there is a way to explain how these two statements can both be true, since Argon was slain relatively early.

Moreover, if Tolkien wants to retain a given concept about 'Halfling' being a Numenorean term, and thus retain 'taller' Hobbits in the past for instance, but feels that he must explain 'Elendil the Tall' as notably tall among the Numenoreans of his time, or among those with whom he escaped the fall of Numenor at least, he can in turn make Elendil not 'merely' 7 feet tall but, say, 7 feet 2 or 3 inches...

... and doing so I think he could still retain the general idea about the Eldar expressed in reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes. Yes that would mean tinkering with the 'artwork quote' itself, or making it more general than accurate -- I'm not actually against the notion that Tolkien might be speaking a bit generally here when he describes both Isildur and Elendil as 7 feet tall -- what I think is too strained however is that he really imagines a nearly 8 foot Elendil whe he wrote the 'artwork description'.

That's too significant a difference in my opinion, even if Tolkien is not being specifically accurate.

We have a lot of accurate measurements of height given and I don't see why we should dismiss it all for an ambiguous note, which can be read in different ways.

If we take the 'artwork description' as true we don't need to dismiss every other quote in my opinion. But even if we have to then we have to. I dismiss any earlier references to the Eldar being reborn as children because Tolkien changed his mind about this, for example. Of course again, if we have different ideas [one in which both the Eldar and Elendil are arguably shorter than the other notion], we still don't know which idea was later than the other!



And you're not necessarily wrong as far as Tolkien's intent, but I see a difference with respect to interpreting the 'artwork quote' as it stands, alone an unaffected by another idea: again, interpret A without mixing in B to see if you find the two statements in accord.

Maybe I'm crazy but 'some' of the Kings and leaders being taller naturally begs the question 'taller than what'? And to answer that you are seemingly employing another citation [normally 7 feet from Of Dwarves And Men] instead of using the context of the description in which the statement is found.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

If it's generic in the first place

Your choice of words above, a rugby team 'full of 6 footers', is not exactly the phrasing Tolkien employs for the Eldar in any case [whether or not they played rugby aside]; and not that you said otherwise, but I see no reason why Elendil's own son could not match him in height.



Did Tolkien himself publish this however? If not it's easily altered to reflect a new idea.

No, but it is published in the UT and Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is cannon. A right he usually does not choose to use, but anything what he publishes should have a fair amount of weight behind it.

Isildur was undoubtedly very tall himself, but his incredible height was never a distinguishing feature for him as it was his father.

Tolkien did actually publish this nickname for Elendil, so yes, even he might explain it somewhow with respect to a given idea. Above you made the statement 'supported by other published material' but we must remember very little of any of this was published by JRRT himself, and thus was quite open to change.

Tolkien published the prologue of the Hobbits where he listed them as being between 2ft and 4ft. However in a later note he cleared the ambiguity by pointing out he was talking about the present shrunken Hobbits of today. The clarification supports the way I read the text in the prologue.

'Their height is variable ranging between two and four feet of our measure. They seldom now reach three feet; but they have dwindled they say, and in ancient days they were taller.'-Prologue LOTR

The note that clarifies this is found in UT.

'The remarks [on the stature of Hobbits] in the prologue to LOTR are unnecessarily vague and complicated, owing to the inclusions of of references to survivals of the race in later times; but as LOTR is concerned they boil down to this: the Hobbits of the Shire were in height between three and four feet, never less and seldom more.'

Then in the Peoples of Middle Earth further information is given about the height of the Hobbits. I won't quote it, but it has the quote about Numenoreans being about 7ft and then says Hobbits were rarely over 3'6.

Thanks again to the scholarship of Hammond and Scull, with respect to the 'halfling' idea as it relates to the Numenoreans, we now have: 'three variant statements, written c. 1969, with some repetition as Tolkien develops the text' (only part of which was printed in Unfinished Tales).

In the third section [the more developed section?] as printed in the Reader's Companion, Tolkien writes:

I think you are giving too much credit to Hammond and Scull. I don't see three variant statements at all. I see a consistency that Tolkien has stuck with. Things like the question of Turin of Galadriel's true history are problematic.

Through out several different notes Tolkien has maintained or hinted (by the very use of Halflings in LOTR) that the Numenoreans were twice their height. He then in multiple sources writes that Hobbits were between 3ft and 4ft.


Even in the description of Aragorn and Boromir as 6'6 and 6'4 respectively we know that the Numenoreans have decreased in height. Even from that one rough note, the Numenoreans must have been close to 7ft.

So that's an average of 6 foot 10 inches at this time for the Numenoreans. This actully seems to agree well enough with the other text, as this is well after the Downfall of Numenor, if still well before Aragorn's time.

But again, is Tolkien being consistent in any case?

Hammond and Scull also point out that in The Hobbit [thus published by JRRT himself of course] it is noted that Hobbits were 'about half our height' and in a letter Tolkien referred to Bilbo as about 3 feet tall or 3 feet 6 inches. Well, which is it? Three feet tall would explain 'halfling' well enough in a world where Men were reaching 6 feet tall [and half 'our' height hardly refers to Numeoreans I would say], but 3 foot 6 would mean we should be talking about a much taller people.[/QUOTE]
I have addressed this point with Tolkien clarifying that Hobbits at the time of LOTR were between 3ft and 4ft. It is only in this 'present' day that Hobbits have shrunk to under 3ft.

Anyway, Elendil is a notable person here, historically. He need not be the only person to ever reach this height to acquire such a nickname...

... I note Maedhros the Tall wasn't the tallest Elf ever [Thingol was taller], nor even the tallest Elf in Aman if we allow that 'Turgon himself would appear 'tallest of all the Children of the World, save Thingol' (Of Tuor And His Coming to Gondolin). That is, if we forget the later account, or explain it in some way, where Argon is seemingly said to be taller than Turgon in The Shibboleth of Feanor.

That's if all these descriptions were made with each other in mind too, which I tend to doubt with respect to Argon and Turgon actually, although there is a way to explain how these two statements can both be true, since Argon was slain relatively early

Being named as Tall does not mean you are the tallest, but it certainly means you are taller than the average person. We must also take into account that Maedhros, Turgon and Argon are all different ages. There may well have been a time that Maedhros was the tallest of the elves in Aman, before Turgon and Argon surpassed him.

This though is really not that important, because being a couple of inches taller than the average is unlikely to get you a nickname as Tall.

Moreover, if Tolkien wants to retain a given concept about 'Halfling' being a Numenorean term, and thus retain 'taller' Hobbits in the past for instance, but feels that he must explain 'Elendil the Tall' as notably tall among the Numenoreans of his time, or among those with whom he escaped the fall of Numenor at least, he can in turn make Elendil not 'merely' 7 feet tall but, say, 7 feet 2 or 3 inches...

Being a couple of inches taller than average as I said is really not a great distinction. To put it into context the average height for a British Male is about 5'10. Somebody, who is 6'2 is not going to get the nickname Tall.

... and doing so I think he could still retain the general idea about the Eldar expressed in reaction to the artwork of Pauline Baynes. Yes that would mean tinkering with the 'artwork quote' itself, or making it more general than accurate -- I'm not actually against the notion that Tolkien might be speaking a bit generally here when he describes both Isildur and Elendil as 7 feet tall -- what I think is too strained however is that he really imagines a nearly 8 foot Elendil whe he wrote the 'artwork description'.

That's too significant a difference in my opinion, even if Tolkien is not being specifically accurate.

There is not a significant difference if Isildur was say 7'3 or even 7'4. Their average height would be around 7'6 and so it would be correct to roughly pin them as 7ft.

If we take the 'artwork description' as true we don't need to dismiss every other quote in my opinion. But even if we have to then we have to. I dismiss any earlier references to the Eldar being reborn as children because Tolkien changed his mind about this, for example. Of course again, if we have different ideas [one in which both the Eldar and Elendil are arguably shorter than the other notion], we still don't know which idea was later than the other!



And you're not necessarily wrong as far as Tolkien's intent, but I see a difference with respect to interpreting the 'artwork quote' as it stands, alone an unaffected by another idea: again, interpret A without mixing in B to see if you find the two statements in accord.

Maybe I'm crazy but 'some' of the Kings and leaders being taller naturally begs the question 'taller than what'? And to answer that you are seemingly employing another citation [normally 7 feet from Of Dwarves And Men] instead of using the context of the description in which the statement is found.

Taking the artwork statement as true and literal creates a problem on several things as we have been through. These were some of Tolkiens latest writings on the subject and not brief notes which accompanied the artwork. He wrote entire essays such as Of Dwarves of Men or Numeanorean Linear Measure. Even if you want to insist that there is a contradiction in the sources, which is more likely to be correct: the short brief note about a picture or two separate essays he wrote on the subject?

Lastly about your interpretation 'some of the kings' being taller. If the minimum height was 6'6 for an Elvish male then what would the average height be? It would obviously be greater than the minimum. There is an assumption that the 'kings' are taller than the average which he has given elsewhere.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Being a couple of inches taller than average as I said is really not a great distinction. To put it into context the average height for a British Male is about 5'10. Somebody, who is 6'2 is not going to get the nickname Tall.

But somebody who is 5'10, like the aforementioned average British male, is not going to be described as "five foot tall".

There is not a significant difference if Isildur were 7'3 or even 7'4. Their average height would be around 7'6 and so it would be correct to roughly pin them as 7 ft.

I fear not. Again, think of it in terms of the heights more commonly encountered in the real world.

[cellurdur]

[QUOTE=Nerwen;689023]But somebody who is 5'10, like the aforementioned average British male, is not going to be described as "five foot tall".

[QUOTE]There is not a significant difference if Isildur were 7'3 or even 7'4. Their average height would be around 7'6 and so it would be correct to roughly pin them as 7 ft.

I fear not. Again, think of it in terms of the heights more commonly encountered in the real world.

That's a lot to do with 5ft being considered short. The difference between a man, who is 5'10 and another who is 5'3 is huge. If Elendil walked past you at 7'10 and then later Isildur walked past you at 7'2 the comparative difference is much smaller.

Or even in real life if you saw two men one being 6'6 and the other 6'1 you are likely to refer to both as 6ft.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

That's a lot to do with 5ft being considered short. The difference between a man, who is 5'10 and another who is 5'3 is huge. If Elendil walked past you at 7'10 and then later Isildur walked past you at 7'2 the comparative difference is much smaller.

Or even in real life if you saw two men one being 6'6 and the other 6'1 you are likely to refer to both as 6ft.

Well, no, I actually wouldn't, as 6'6 is in fact noticeably taller. And for me, I think you can probably substitute most people; I really don't think I've ever heard anyone describe height the way you're doing here. Come on, are you sure you're not just, well, stretching things?

I'm not saying either version is the "right" one, understand, just that they do seem to me to be clearly contradictory. I don't see why this should be a problem- authors always do rewrite things, and play with different ideas, and so on.

Also- I guess I read your post in a hurry, because the first time I missed where you said "Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is canon". As far as I know, this isn't the case, at least not in a way that would apply here. I mean, yes, he could have chosen not to publish, or make available, any of this. Again, I don't think that's relevant.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

No, but it is published in the UT and Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is cannon. A right he usually does not choose to use, but anything what he publishes should have a fair amount of weight behind it.

A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else?

If so I can't agree. It's all posthumously published material, including the material published by the Linguistic Editorial Team for instance [Vinyar Tengwar, Parma Eldalamberon] which contains more than pure linguistic information about Middle-earth.

Isildur was undoubtedly very tall himself, but his incredible height was never a distinguishing feature for him as it was his father. (...) Tolkien published the prologue of the Hobbits (...) Even from that one rough note, the Numenoreans must have been close to 7ft.

I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

This though is really not that important, because being a couple of inches taller than the average is unlikely to get you a nickname as Tall. (...) Being a couple of inches taller than average as I said is really not a great distinction. To put it into context the average height for a British Male is about 5'10. Somebody, who is 6'2 is not going to get the nickname Tall.

Is it unlikely? I'm not so sure, especially when dealing with an already tall folk in general, with the 'tallest' of the already tall being a fairly prominent person in history.

In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

Taking the artwork statement as true and literal creates a problem on several things as we have been through. These were some of Tolkiens latest writings on the subject and not brief notes which accompanied the artwork. He wrote entire essays such as Of Dwarves of Men or Numeanorean Linear Measure. Even if you want to insist that there is a contradiction in the sources, which is more likely to be correct: the short brief note about a picture or two separate essays he wrote on the subject?

Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet.

But for a different example we have a relatively brief marginal note where Tolkien appears to toss away decades of thinking that there were very many Balrogs, in favour of 3 or at most 7 ever existing. Which idea is more likely to be correct in this case?

One can gather up a number of quotes to illustrate hosts of Balrogs existing, or Balrogs 'one thousand' even, and together they might seem quite a strong case by comparison to one marginal note, and one revision to a text which itself [the revision] yet mentions no certain number. Of course the 'older' quotes will be consistent with each other as to number, but JRRT kows that his readership only knows so much about Durin's Bane, and he is thus free to radically alter the conception, making all the earlier descriptions part of a discarded notion.

I'm not saying I know this to be true with respect to the artwork description, but I feel it's a reasonable possibility given the phrasing employed.

And yes Of Dwarves And Men is an 'entire essay' but the remark on Eldarin height compared to Numenoreans [along with the Halfling reference] is one sentence within it if I recall correctly -- or if not one sentence it's brief enough, and obviously the essay is about much more. And Christopher Tolkien characterizes Numenorean Linear Measures [NLM] as: 'A note associated with the passage in 'The Disaster of the Gladden Fields'...'


Incidentally, when writing NLM I wonder if Tolkien had remembered what he had already published about Eomer [and Eowyn] in Appendix A! I won't go into it here but in my opinion this is another [at least] arguable glitch of some measure, even though in the tale proper [The Lord of the Rings] Eomer does seem to be tall, generally speaking.

[Lissë]

I'd like to come back to the hair problem. Galin, what did you find on hairstyles? The thread 'hairy-pottering' does not really exist, does it? Could you tell us the passage where Tolkien describes elven hair as black?

[Galin]

Hi again Lisse. Here it is, but it's not very long (pun intended)

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ight=pottering

And about the matter of black hair, Tolkien wrote in 'Words, Phrases, Passages' (p. 155): 'The Noldor were generally hróva or morna' [these Elvish words are noted] 'morna black of hair: hróva 'dark, dark brown'

In another entry JRRT seemed to think absolute black was not the case (same source): 'The predominant colour of Noldorin hair was very dark brown (no Elf had absolute black hair: morna)' I note here that Tolkien used morna, the word used in the previous citation.

But even if this entry is later than the first, it appears possible that JRRT revised that no Elf was black of hair, as in The Shibboleth of Feanor (dated 1968 or later), for example, Finwe has 'black' hair (note 19). Or concerning Urundil (note 61): 'His hair was not as dark or black as was that of most of the Noldor, but brown, and had glints of coppery red in it.'

Hmm

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else?

If so I can't agree. It's all posthumously published material, including the material published by the Linguistic Editorial Team for instance [Vinyar Tengwar, Parma Eldalamberon] which contains more than pure linguistic information about Middle-earth.

Yes I am suggesting that anything published by Christopher Tolkien has more weight, because he has full authority to write or delete anything he wants. The quote provided is in the post above.

I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

The essays were written in 1969 and were more detailed than the breif notes.

Is it unlikely? I'm not so sure, especially when dealing with an already tall folk in general, with the 'tallest' of the already tall being a fairly prominent person in history.

In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

The thing is Elendil did not hang out with a relatively small group of friends. He was around the nobility of Numenor and they were actually taller than average. Ar-pharazon himself may have been the tallest man alive at the time.

When we look at English kings like Edward I, Edward II, Edward IV or Henry VIII they had to be over 6 inches taller than the average man for their height to be noted.

Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet.

But for a different example we have a relatively brief marginal note where Tolkien appears to toss away decades of thinking that there were very many Balrogs, in favour of 3 or at most 7 ever existing. Which idea is more likely to be correct in this case?

One can gather up a number of quotes to illustrate hosts of Balrogs existing, or Balrogs 'one thousand' even, and together they might seem quite a strong case by comparison to one marginal note, and one revision to a text which itself [the revision] yet mentions no certain number. Of course the 'older' quotes will be consistent with each other as to number, but JRRT kows that his readership only knows so much about Durin's Bane, and he is thus free to radically alter the conception, making all the earlier descriptions part of a discarded notion.

I'm not saying I know this to be true with respect to the artwork description, but I feel it's a reasonable possibility given the phrasing employed.

This is true, but we can look at the dates when these articles were written. The comments supporting the great height of the Eldar are written in the late 60s. As I pointed out before, Christopher Tolkien was left in charge with sorting and editing what was to be published. I will always take what he has published over any artwork descriptions.

And yes Of Dwarves And Men is an 'entire essay' but the remark on Eldarin height compared to Numenoreans [along with the Halfling reference] is one sentence within it if I recall correctly -- or if not one sentence it's brief enough, and obviously the essay is about much more. And Christopher Tolkien characterizes Numenorean Linear Measures [NLM] as: 'A note associated with the passage in 'The Disaster of the Gladden Fields'...'

We can argue semantics, but Numenorean Linear Measures is at least 500 words long and there are other notes written detailing the decline of Numenoreans and Hobbits at the end.

Incidentally, when writing NLM I wonder if Tolkien had remembered what he had already published about Eomer [and Eowyn] in Appendix A! I won't go into it here but in my opinion this is another [at least] arguable glitch of some measure, even though in the tale proper [The Lord of the Rings] Eomer does seem to be tall, generally speaking.

I am unaware of any contradiction, but if there is once more we should follow the precedent that Christopher Tolkien has set. Unless the matter was of great importance, then J.R.R. Tolkien would usually bow to what was published.

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, it seems you have now shifted your goalposts regarding height descriptions. No doubt not a deliberate tactic, but whatever. You're not actually supporting your original contention anymore, as far as I can see.

Now, about Christopher Tolkien: yes, I know he has the legal right to publish (or not publish) and edit his father's writings. I already said that, remember? Again, I don't see what that has to do with it.

If you were to argue that Christopher Tolkien's familiarity with his father (rather than any legal position) makes him a better judge of what the man really intended than an outsider... okay. But even that is very problematic.

And, of course, it can't make a contradiction not a contradiction. That's the thing: it appears you're trying to argue simultaneously that the two versions agree with each other and that one should be considered wrong. I don't get it.

[Galin]

Galin wrote: A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else? (...)

Cellurdur responded: Yes I am suggesting that anything published by Christopher Tolkien has more weight, because he has full authority to write or delete anything he wants. The quote provided is in the post above.

I'm aware of the wording of Tolkien's will, but don't see what this necessarily has to do with what Christopher Tolkien actually did. Do you have something from Christopher Tolkien himself, anywhere, where he states or even suggests that something he himself published has 'more weight' than something he authorized, say, the Linguistic Editorial Team to publish, like Ósanwe-kenta for example?

Christopher Tolkien is not 'deleting' any text that I'm aware of because it has less weight than something else. And even if he did, to my mind that doesn't change that JRR Tolkien is the creator of Middle-earth in the end.

I'm sorry I don't follow this argument at all, and I agree with Nerwen here.

Galin wrote: I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

Cellurdur responded: The essays were written in 1969 and were more detailed than the breif notes.

Well the artwork descripton I cited is itself a 'late text' too, and as I say, how brief is all the artwork commentary combined? It hasn't all been published yet. Not that I would necessarily be swayed about relative brevity in any case.


Incidentally I asked Hammond and Scull if the artwork commentary possibly included the note concerning Celeborn on p. 286 in Unfinished Tales. I asked: 'The note on Hobbit stature must be meant, and Celeborn isn't in the artwork of course, but I wonder if the bit about Celeborn could be part of, or connected to, the description noted on p. 107 (a tall Elf) in the Reader's Companion.' They responded:

Galin wrote: Hmm, does this possibly include the note concerning Celeborn on p. 286?

No, that note is from some other source - none that we recall seeing.

Wayne & Christina

Galin wrote: In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

Cellurdur responded: The thing is Elendil did not hang out with a relatively small group of friends. He was around the nobility of Numenor and they were actually taller than average. Ar-pharazon himself may have been the tallest man alive at the time.

My point here was that nicknames can be funny things in general, and thus there are arguably ways for Tolkien to explain 'Elendil the Tall' without making him 7 foot 10.

Galin wrote: Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet. (...)

Cellurdur responded This is true, but we can look at the dates when these articles were written. The comments supporting the great height of the Eldar are written in the late 60s. As I pointed out before, Christopher Tolkien was left in charge with sorting and editing what was to be published. I will always take what he has published over any artwork descriptions.

Christopher Tolkien actually published a bit of the 'artwork descriptions' [see my next post] [ edit note: I edited this section to be more precise, but I did so before realizing that Cellurdur had already quoted the unedited version below. That explains the two versions now]. Now more of these descriptions, but still not all, are in print, thanks to Christopher Tolkien allowing both Hammond and Scull and J. Rateliff to publish them.

We can argue semantics, but Numenorean Linear Measures is at least 500 words long and there are other notes written detailing the decline of Numenoreans and Hobbits at the end.

Well, it was you who called NLM 'an entire essay'. CJRT called it a note. Are we going to count words now, or words that actually deal with height within a given text compared to another?

I'm not. I've only got so many fingers and toes



In any case the 'artwork descriptions' represent Tolkien's thinking at the time. They appear to be considered enough for me, and we don't have 'merely' 5 foot 10 or 11 for the Eldar for instance, nor even 6 feet to 6 feet 3 or 4 for most Eldar, for example, which if we did, we would then have the Numenoreans at their height towering over them by a full foot or nearly so in some cases.

In short [no pun intended] the Eldar are still notably tall here, especially the great kings and leaders; and we read often enough about the Noldorin kings and leaders too.

And yes we don't know the external chronology of a number of 'late texts' dealing with heights, which I acknowledged from the start.