Elves and Ringwraiths

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

So you mean the 'Myths Transformed' phase? This is where my confusion arises, as for me Tolkien abandoned these new attempts at a 'more accurate' cosmology -- more accurate because the Elves of the West should know better...

... but his solution was [as can be illlustrated by various late notes and commentary in my opinion]: retain the Two Trees [at least in Quenta Silmarillion], as JRRT recharacterizes Quenta Silmarillion as a largely Mannish affair. Christopher Tolkien even comments [Myths Transformed] that his father seems to have found his answer, but didn't employ it at once in any case, with the writing of these transformed versions [Manwe blowing away the smoke and so on]...

... but it is the ultimate acceptance that the Silmarillion is mostly a Mannish affair that allows Tolkien to retain the less accurate but more beautiful tales, without transformation. And to employ the idea means no need to rewrite: the Elves of the West are no longer telling their version of Cosmology direct to Elfwine.

In short don't make the myths more accurate, keep them and make certain sources hail from a folk who are less informed than the Elves of the West, some of whom had been in contact with the Powers or Maiar.

But this is all about transmission in any case, and speaks to a general scenario in which [again in my opinion] opens up the door to more variation, and actually I think it is relatively late that Tolkien 'ratifies' The Drowning of Anadune [DA] as a viable text in his legendarium, exactly because he now accepts that there need not be merely one version of the Drowning of Numenor, and that DA nicely contained Mannish confusions.

I don't think Tolkien ever did 'abandon' trying to translate the myths. He simply found the task very difficult and moved onto stories he did not have to 'translate' like the Children of Hurin.

He used the Mannish myths as an excuse to keep the prior cosmology and stories like the return of Turin. However, in his later works like the Children of Hurin, there is no mention of Turin returning. If he was still writing the as from a Mannish Numenorean perspective then he would have kept the Turin prophecies in. The fact that he now disregards them in his new story, supports the idea he is trying to write a more 'accurate' version of events.

Anyway I'm not sure the idea you are suggesting [if I still understand it properly that is] can be proven objectively, at least easily. For instance you brought up orcs, but to my mind Tolkien only 'needed' [I'm not sure he really 'needed'] to hammer out the origin of Orcs because of a notable shift in thinking --

-- but that shift was that Evil could not create souls, or true living beings.

And the note published in Unfinished Tales might possibly be Tolkien's latest remark about Orc-origins, yet -- as he had done with the Orcs from Elves theory, putting the idea in the mouths of the Eressean Wise -- JRRT puts the matter [Orcs from Men] as something the Eldar said or believed.

His last word on the topic seems t be orcs from corrupted spirits and men, bred by Sauron during Morgoth's captivity. It seems for this reason that orcs are not to be treated like mere beast and are under the 'Law' which beast are not.

On the possible other hand I have posted before that Tolkien as Subcreator 'should' be, and was, greatly concerned with consistency, and that the purposed inconsistencies should be like pepper in the soup -- some measure will actually help make the Subcreated World more believable, but too much will, or at least might, serve to help 'ruin' the taste. That measure is Tolkien's of course, but I am here speaking of a potential, ultimate legendarium published by the author himself [which is different from various draft texts when Tolkien is trying to work out the version of a given text]...

... but yet seemingly contrary to this [arguably] I also maintain that Tolkien was, in later life, more open to publishing textual variations like The Drowning of Anadune, a text that presents some drastic variations compared to earlier ideas [the shape of the world in origin being round, for example], and a text which was to be as much a part of the Legendarium as was Akallabeth; and again a text [DA] which also contained purposed confusion, like the Mannish authors confusing the Eldar with the Powers for instance.

And with respect to the Silmarillion related writings, Tolkien got more caught up in 'philosophical' issues, or with trying to explain the nature of the Elvish fea for example, or why Men could not live in Aman due to their inherent gift and so on... and maybe that's what you mean by more accurate and less mistranslation, I don't know.

But I'm guessing we might be mostly talking past each other here? Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but I'm still not wholly sure we are going to place the same subjective characterizations upon a given example of Tolkien seemingly doing X at a given phase in in his life.

At least not in every case

I think the chief difference is that I believe Tolkien still wanted to keep the discarded stories, but only as Mannish myths. Not for everything of course, but for things like the Arda existing before the Sun we should take the story with a pinch of salt and realise they are mistakes.

However, for things he tried to edit later like Glorfindel's identity or Turin's story he wants to hand down a more accurate version.

As you said I don't think we will have to discuss this point on every topic, because you don't believe he left contrary stories deliberately on every story and I don't believe he left only one clear version on every story.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I don't think Tolkien ever did 'abandon' trying to translate the myths. He simply found the task very difficult and moved onto stories he did not have to 'translate' like the Children of Hurin.

I don't know what you mean by 'translate' here. All the tales have been translated in theory. Do you mean into Old English? If so I'm not sure how that fits into your argument.

He used the Mannish myths as an excuse to keep the prior cosmology and stories like the return of Turin. However, in his later works like the Children of Hurin, there is no mention of Turin returning. If he was still writing the as from a Mannish Numenorean perspective then he would have kept the Turin prophecies in. The fact that he now disregards them in his new story, supports the idea he is trying to write a more 'accurate' version of events.

Rather in a later text concerning the Second Prophecy, Andreth foretells of Turin's return at the War of Wrath. And in Morgoth's Ring Tolkien clearly recharacterizes the Second Prophecy as a Mannish myth.

His last word on the topic seems t be orcs from corrupted spirits and men, bred by Sauron during Morgoth's captivity. It seems for this reason that orcs are not to be treated like mere beast and are under the 'Law' which beast are not.

My point was that Tolkien, in my opinion was originally being 'accurate' in that Morgoth made Orcs [granted, merely in the sense that this is the version of the tale he wants imparted to readers]. This was the tale given to Elfwine. Later this could not be so, so JRRT looks for another idea. Not because of accuracy in general in my opinion, but because of a shift in thinking that Evil could not create in this way. I'm not sure how this examples illustrates Tolkien trying to be more accurate, in some sense, in his later life.

And in the late text I mentioned JRRT isn't giving us an objective fact, but an Elvish belief. That's not necessarily accurate in another sense, at least it's not necessarily objectively true -- while on the other hand it would still [arguably] be the version if no other variant opinions are given, in the sense of what is presented to the reader about the matter].

I think the chief difference is that I believe Tolkien still wanted to keep the discarded stories, but only as Mannish myths. Not for everything of course, but for things like the Arda existing before the Sun we should take the story with a pinch of salt and realise they are mistakes.

Why is this a difference? It's what I've been saying too

However, for things he tried to edit later like Glorfindel's identity or Turin's story he wants to hand down a more accurate version.

Again I don't get why you use these as examples of accurate. In my opinion Tolkien merely decided to answer the question of 'two Glorfindels'. I'm guessing you mean Tolkien wants to clear up this mystery, but from his perspective this was not a mystery to his readers in any case, as there was only ever one Glorfindel as far as many fans knew.

In any case there are different ways to be accurate and maybe that's part of why we are talking past each other at times.

As you said I don't think we will have to discuss this point on every topic, because you don't believe he left contrary stories deliberately on every story and I don't believe he left only one clear version on every story.

Very well but who does believe that Tolkien meant to have variations for every tale, and who does believe that he only left one clear version of every story.

I would guess no one

[Ivriniel]

On the possible other hand I have posted before that Tolkien as Subcreator 'should' be, and was, greatly concerned with consistency, and that the purposed inconsistencies should be like pepper in the soup -- some measure will actually help make the Subcreated World more believable, but too much will, or at least might, serve to help 'ruin' the taste.

Materials imputing inferential significance to Tolkien's intentions are steeped in the tradition of analysis that compares and contrasts the various excerpts in a deeply inconsistent set of materials that evidenced, not just one evolutionary trajectory, but various evolutionary trajectories. Moreover, the vast masses of materials sometimes do, and sometimes do not restore an original idea. How long did Aragorn live? Twice or thrice the lifespan of men--he actually says 'twice' somewhere in one of his letters! But decided upon 190 years in the Appendices.

Methodologies for interpretation vary. My preferred mode--only because of personal preference and certainly not because it's the most efficient (whatever that means) way of approaching the Tolienien cosmology, is to explore what is revealed, in narrative text, between characters.

LotR, as we know, post dates the mythological foundation (not publication) of the Silmarilien. He wrote (no scrawled) many of his ideas down, on paper, well ahead of the eventual first publication of the Hobbit.

Consistency, was also sometimes deliberately avoided. His positioning of the anomalous responses of Bombadil to the Ring and Bombadil's obscure misalignment of existential themes surrounding Tom, was done on purpose. I read in that in Letters (and for the life of me I can't find it right now).

So, with all that in mind, and, methodological analyses aside, and how to adapt ideas about Tolkien's intention aside--what do we know about the topic at hand from in-text citations in the published story narratives?

[Ivriniel]

Elves and Ringwraiths.

In terms of the existential transformation that Men succumbed to after bearing a Ring of Power--a key feature, unclearly noted in the narrative--whether or not Sauronic influence extended the power of Men, or whether some other fundament was being implied about the relative potency of Elves and Men.....

Not quite as easy as it seems on the surface. Tuor versus Legolas? Hurin versus Feanor? Gil Galad versus Boromir? The juxtapositions imply instance variance.

We don't know much about the head ringwraith. Probably Numenorean. The Witchking. We actually know a little more about Khamil, the second most powerful Ringwraith......

[Ivriniel]

Khamul -- now he is very interesting for a number of particular reasons. I will provide textual analysis at the end of the post.

Khamul was the only Ringwraith Tolkien spoke about. Khamul was known as The Black Easterling and Shadow of the East--before he became a Ringwraith. He is implicated in the alliance between the land of Rhun and Mordor. He was second in power, but one of the six Ringwraiths not of Numenorean descent. Interesting, that, isn't it. He was the Ringwraith who pursued the Hobbits to the Buckleberry Ferry. He spoke to Maggot asking about "Baggins", was present killing Gondor-ian soldiers on the Pelenor and present at the Battle of Moranon.

Analysis

1. non-numenoreans can achieve a greatness that rivals them. Implying.
2. A capacity for potency in Men of normal lifespan, not of the Elder Days, not exposed to the Noldorin influence in Beleriand--not connected, in any way, to the Light of Aman. With intrinsically evil/dark personality attributes.
3. Why did Tolkien *only* speak about this particular Ringwraith. Interesting isn't it. This is one of those times that we need to make inferences by, not only presence (the one he spoke about), but what that means by way of inferences by absence (why did he choose to note Easterling Ringwraiths, but not the Numenorean ones?)

This is particularly noteworthy because of the prominence of the Witchking in the mythology, don't you think. How is it that the Witchking--responsible for the destruction of Arnor, the inadvertent loss of Arnor-ean artefacts (Palantiri in the Ice Bay of Forochel, when Arvedui was lost), and who also slew Earnil, last King of Gondor. Who sacked Minas Ithil. Who occupied Dol Guldur after Sauron reoccupied Mordor.

We don't know who the *bleep* The Witchking was, but we do the Easterling of Rhun.

The Easterling's potency is materials *deeply* discordant with the mythology as it much more typically caste ideas about the 'lesser' and 'fading' races. *And* the particular Easterling noted for his history.

I, truly, do not know what this means about what the capacities for power and potency are in the Mortal Races.

On an interesting addendum, the Pukel Men, had a particular resilience to Evil (this cuts the opposite way to Khamul) and who also had particular magical powers of their own. This legacy of magic is well noted in supplementary materials Christopher Tolkien wrote (I can quote citations if people seek those. But I read a story about a stone that a Pukel men charged with magic that protected, I think it was a Numenorean home, from an Orc assault).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

was present killing Gondor-ian soldiers on the Pele[n]nor

Really?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

was present killing Gondor-ian soldiers on the Pele[n]nor

Really?

Hi there WCH,

Materials can only be as reliable as the citations drawn from. You can never be really sure. See here