Transmission theory: what the heck was Tolkien thinking?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The problem with trying to merge the "Numenorean" and "Bilbo" theories is simply this: if we want to postulate Bilbo as the vector for garbled Mannish traditions, it's very difficult to imagine that he would not have been told, or already know, that they were bullsh!t: by Elrond, by Glorfindel, by Gandalf, by who knows who else resident in or visiting Rivendell, house of loremasters.

After all, Glorfindel had walked across the Helcaraxe, at least according to the only version of the mythos we have; certainly he would have been in a position to tell Bilbo whether the world was round or flat in the Elder Days!

This seems to be something you find problematic -- but I don't anyway, and it appears (so far) that at least one other person in this thread doesn't either. Translating ancient materials is one thing, "correcting" them another, the latter being not only unnecessary, but given the arguably "gravity" of the ancientry (and artistry) Bilbo is dealing with, he might be expected not to alter things.

If someone handed you an ancient Greek document to translate, for example, and you knew (or were told) that five things in it were factually inaccurate, would you alter these references? That's very arguably not your job, and likewise not Bilbo's. And even then, it's not like the Hobbit need leave out evidences of the Elvish perspective if the fuller legendarium includes (as I think it would) accurately translated texts that are more Elvish in nature -- more accurately describing the world from a Western Elvish perspective even in the Mannish The Drowning of Anadune, again in which the Western Elves teach the Numenoreans that the world is round (before the fall).

I don't see why you find this problematic. Granted the following example isn't perfect for obvious reasons, but art restoration isn't about correcting the background of the Mona Lisa, for instance, simply because it might be problematic in some (arguable) way. And there's nothing in print (that I recall) that blocks a pathway to keeping Bilbo, despite the re-characterization of the Silmarilliom -- which again, allows those who are minded to find the "old" cosmology problematic (if beautiful), a path to accept it as art if not utter truth in all respects.

Well, I read that passage to mean that material on Gondorian history, as well as the "southern" Gondorian poems, were added by Pippin after Frodo and Bilbo's departure,...

If you mean the first edition Appendix A passage, I agree it could be read like that, though not only that way perhaps, but it still appears that it's possible that "Southern matter" could reach Bilbo through Rivendell. In ATB the narrator notes that though poem 6 is placed next to Bilbo's Man-in-the-Moon rhyme, it must be derived ultimately from Gondor (first suggesting, I think, that 6 couldn't be Bilbo's, but then note what is said again about this matter and Bilbo). Poems 6 and 16 must be...

"... re-handlings of Southern matter, though this may have reached Bilbo by way of Rivendell. No 14 also depends on the lore of Rivendell, Elvish and Numenorean, concerning the Heroic days at the end of the First Age; it seems to contain echoes of the Numenorean tale of Turin and Mim the Dwarf."

(...) One of these was apparently influenced by the "Numenorean tale of Mim and the dragon," apparently a different text than Dirhavel's Narn (which wasn't Numenorean). That could have come either from Gondor by way of Pippin or Arnor by way of Bilbo, there's no way to tell.

Dirhaval's original wasn't Numenorean, yes. So what were Tolkien's thoughts in ATB about this tale of Turin and Mim referred to? Hard to know, but later...

As is seen in The Silmarillion. This is not an Eldarin title or work. It is a compilation, probably made in Numenor, which includes (in prose) the four great tales or lays of the heroes of the Atani, of which "The Children of Hurin" was probably composed already in Beleriand in the First Age, but necessarily is preceded by an account of Feanor and his making of the Silmarils. All however are "Mannish" works.

JRRT, The Shibboleth of Feanor, note 17, The Peoples of Middle-Earth

If a Mannish poet Dirhaval is still in play within the late idea, he's not only a Man but had his work translated into prose even in the old Elfwine scenario (as Elfwine did not think himself up to a verse translation). A prose version written by a Numenorean could be referred to as a Numenorean tale, which could (at least) agree with the reference in ATB.

And as said, Dirhaval is a Man (keeping in mind the earlier MT statement) "... but already far back -- from the first association of the Dunedain with the Eldar in Beleriand -- blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas." And then we can have his work be rendered into prose by other hands and minds in Numenor, then on to Middle-earth, ultimately to Bilbo.

[gondowe]

Originally Posted by Galin

This seems to be something you find problematic -- but I don't anyway, and it appears (so far) that at least one other person in this thread doesn't either. Translating ancient materials is one thing, "correcting" them another, the latter being not only unnecessary, but given the arguably "gravity" of the ancientry (and artistry) Bilbo is dealing with, he might be expected not to alter things.

If someone handed you an ancient Greek document to translate, for example, and you knew (or were told) that five things in it were factually inaccurate, would you alter these references? That's very arguably not your job, and likewise not Bilbo's. And even then, it's not like the Hobbit need leave out evidences of the Elvish perspective if the fuller legendarium includes (as I think it would) accurately translated texts that are more Elvish in nature -- more accurately describing the world from a Western Elvish perspective even in the Mannish The Drowning of Anadune, again in which the Western Elves teach the Numenoreans that the world is round (before the fall).

I don't see why you find this problematic. Granted the following example isn't perfect for obvious reasons, but art restoration isn't about correcting the background of the Mona Lisa, for instance, simply because it might be problematic in some (arguable) way. And there's nothing in print (that I recall) that blocks a pathway to keeping Bilbo, despite the re-characterization of the Silmarilliom -- which again, allows those who are minded to find the "old" cosmology problematic (if beautiful), a path to accept it as art if not utter truth in all respects.

I agree. It´s the same again. We have a "subcreated" world, and we have to assume that as subcreated it has the same rules that the "created" at least in the way Tolkien devised and explained in his essays.
We know that the world was not, to say, a piece of one god or derived from the semen of another one, even that one god create the world in six days and the seventh rested.
But we keep on reading these myths "Translated": Greeks, Nordic, Egyptian, Jude-Christian etc, because they are beautiful.

But we are moving in the speculation. And as I say before in other parts of this forum we can complicate our thoughts as far as we want. It could be easier.

Perhaps Glorfindel didn't want to talk about the First Age. Perhaps even Bilbo never asked Elrond about the creation. He only was interested in dramatic, epic tales. Perhaps....

Greetings

[Galin]

I begin to think that The Adventures of Tom Bombdil becomes notably important here, as Tolkien chooses to characterize the lore of Rivendell as Elvish and Numenorean, and characterizes a First Age tale as Numenorean.

We can't discount that Bilbo used living sources in Rivendell, as well as written, as this information is then also published a few years later in the Note On The Shire Records. There were other Exiled Noldor in Rivendell besides Glorfindel, but we can use him for examples -- the question is: what kind of help did the living sources provide?

I would say why not imagine that Glorfindel is a living source for an Elvish-perspective tale, or an Elvish linguistic document, or details about Gondolin, for example. Again, would it even be Glorfindel's part to correct a Mannish compliation called The Silmarillion, or any of the ancient Numenorean works that have already been sitting in the vaults of Rivendell long before Bilbo Baggins came along? Maybe Glorfindel told Bilbo the "true" tale of Ambarussa for example, in which it is said that: "In the night Feanor, filled with malice, aroused Curufin, and with him and a few of those most close to Feanor in obedience he went to the ships and set them all aflame; and the dark sky was red as with a terrible dawn."

Maybe Bilbo asks Glorfindel: is it true that the First Elves awoke before the Sun existed? And for answer Glorfindel says "no"[*] and digs out a document called the Cuivienyarna, which is noted as being "preserved in almost identical form among both the Elves of Aman and the Sindar." Again, represent the Elvish point of view, don't correct the Mannish Silmarillion -- and in any case, if Glorfindel has read this Mannish compilation, he knows that:

"A note should say that the Wise of Numenor recorded that the making of stars was not so, nor of Sun and Moon. For Sun and stars were all older than Arda. But the placing of Arda amidst stars and under the [?guard] of the Sun was due to Manwe and Varda before the assault of Melkor"

JRRT Myths Transformed, note to text I

Christopher Tolkien took this to mean: "that the making of the Sun, Moon and stars were not derived from Elven lore."

*perhaps Glorfindel would say something like CJRT here,... rather than "No"

As late as 1971 [Letter 325] as I read the following, Tolkien even had the Sindar as possibly contributing some material that might not be quite as informed as that of the Exiles: "But the Legends are manly of "Mannish" origin blended with those of the Sindar (Grey-elves) and others who had never left Middle-earth." (actually the letter reads "Gray-elves" in my copy)

Not leaving Middle-earth arguably equates to another level of separation from the teachings of the Valar, in my opinion (despite contact with the Exiles), but again, if even some of the Wise of Numenor have already noted the "truth" about the Sun and Stars, I see little need to alter the Silmarillion proper (that tale itself) to reflect the Elvish perspective in all matters.


Edit: Ah, didn't see Zigur's last post before I blathered on.

Nice and concise! What Zigur said, then

[Galin]

I stumbled across the following from JRRT (letter 276 to Richard Plotz), to mix into Hammond and Scull's Chronology. But first, I can't recall any reference to Elfwine dating to after the later 1950s early 1960s "phase". The fact that some sort of Elfwine scenario was in the mix even after the first edition Lord of the Rings was published brings up its own questions, but anyway I emphasize the first edition here because Bilbo's translations are said to be some books of lore that he gave to Frodo, while two notable Elder Days references come along in the second, revised edition of the 1960s.

As noted already, in 1962 ATB is published, which reveals that Rivendell holds Elvish and Numenorean Lore, and a Tale of Turin and Mim is referred to as Numenorean.

1965, 25 July Tolkien sends his new text, Note On The shire Records, to Houghton Mifflin Company, for insertion after the Prologue to the revised edition. So now the reader learns that Bilbo's Translations From The Elvish were "almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days". And JRRT ultimately added in Appendix A (revised edition) that the ancient legends of the First Age were Bilbo's chief interest.


1965, 12 September Tolkien replies to Mr. Plotz, in which he mentions the Numenorean Tale The Mariner's Wife, adding:

"This is supposed to have been preserved in the Downfall, when most of Numenorean lore was lost except that that dealt with the First Age, because it tells how Numenor became involved in the politics of Middle-earth."

So as I read this, less that two months after the new Note On The Shire Records is sent to publishers, JRRT explains to Richard Plotz that First Age Numenorean Lore was not lost, when much else Numenorean lore was lost at the Downfall.

I'm wondering if I can get a date (if known), with respect to the month, for the letter that gave rise to this thread? The excerpt being...

"Is there going to be another book? Professor Tolkien is hoping to complete for publication another work, called the Silmarillion, an account of the history and mythology of the First and Second Ages and the early part of the Third Age as it has come down through the Numenoreans, but he is kept from it by other matters..."

__________

For anyone interested, Tolkien did meet with Mr. Plotz later.

1966, I November Tolkien meets with Richard Plotz, who is quoted at least twice referring to Bilbo's possible involvement with respect to the Silmarillion material (that is, a report by Dick Plotz referring to when he visited Tolkien on 1 November, 1966):

Tolkien tells him that one of the snags delaying publication of The Silmarillion is its quasi-biblical style, which Tolkien considers "his best, but his publishers disagree. Another problem is that of finding a story line to connect all the parts. "At the moment, Professor Tolkien is considering making use of Bilbo again ... perhaps the Silmarillion will appear as his research in Rivendell."

Hammond And Scull, Chronology

Here Mr. Plotz puts it another way...

"he, half-heartedly I suppose, was thinking up schemes for rendering the Silmarillion publishable. So far, I think what he is doing is relating it to Bilbo's stay in Rivendell, which is what he said to me.

Now there is a hint of this somewhere in The Lord of the Rings.... But apparently when Bilbo went to Rivendell he was surrounded by Elves and all Elven records for seventeen years. Here was living history and he attempted to write it down, and this is what became the Silmarillion ["An Edited Transcript of Remarks at the December 1966 TSA [Tolkien Society of America] Meeting"; Niekas 19 (Spring 1967), p. 40]
Hammond and Scull, Reader's Guide

I wish we had Tolkien's exact words here, in any event.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Hmmmmm- well, it's always possible that Tolkien was, characteristically, vacillating!

------------------------

Actually, I think I'm coming around to the "uncritical translation of old legends" view of Bilbo's work especially in light of T's description of Quenta Silmarillion as a compilation made in Numenor, focused around the Great Tales (all of them about Edain). This is especially appealing in that we know that Bilbo was quite fond of Aragorn and very interested in his lineage. The only (minor) problem there is that "Translations from Numenor" or some such might have been a more accurate title, even though the given one isn't inaccurate (presumably the Numenorean QS was written in Sindarin).

I had something of a small epiphany in this regard brought on by analogies made here to classical mythology. We have all read collections of "Greek" mythology-- except that many of those stories and several of the best known in fact come from Ovid, a Roman; further confusing matters is the fact that often these collections, especially the older ones, use the Latin rather than Greek names of deities (even that reflects Roman "garbling;" with the exception of Apollo, the Roman pantheon were native Latin gods who were subsequently syncretized with the Greek and appropriated their legends).

--------------

As for the Numenorean Turin- it certainly is the case that various poems get made about the same story, or pieces of the same story--how many poems and tales have been made about Arthur and his knights, including by Tolkien? See also the fight at Finnsburg, known both from its own fragmentary poem and as an episode recited in Beowulf, and the three extant medieval versions of the Sigurd/Siegfried tale. One in-universe example is the poem of Beren and Luthien's meeting sung by Aragorn at Weathertop, which is clearly distinct from the Lay of Leithian.

[Rhun charioteer]

This has the rather uncomfortable implication that the Silmarillion didn't actually "happen" but was numenorian embellishment.

So I am inclined to view it as Tolkien's quixotic but ultimately pointless effort later in life to have mythos conform with science.

If you ask me that isn't necessary and is more damaging to the story than redeeming so I'll say the Silmarillion was an "accurate" description of things that took place.

[Galin]

I think that plenty already in The Silmarillion can still happen (in a sense of reader participation as it concerns what "really" happened), on a round earth and under a pre-existing sun. And there are plenty of magical or fantastic things that remain.

And if folks allow (and enjoy) a flat earth idea to be true, despite that part of the mind can still conjure up "well, that's impossible" without given a choice from the story itself, can't the same folk, side, in a sense, with Mannish legends?

Admittedly, an "in story undermining", being part of the reader experience, arguably makes it easier for questions to intrude, and sway the reader to choose a more likely opinion, but within the reader experience, one is still allowing (if the writer does his job well) the fantastic to be true. Then maybe it's about individual measures.

What version of Pi's (Life of Pi) story is true? Or which do you prefer? And then again both versions are fiction.