The New Shadow

[gandalf85]

I like the addition of the bit about Gandalf. If my username doesn't give it away, he's my favorite character from any work of fiction, so I'm absolutely on board with ending the entire mythology with a discussion of Gandalf. But I think Fin's placement of it breaks the flow of the discussion about the ending of the New Shadow. I would place it after the discussion, like so:

NS-SL-05 <End Comment of The New Shadow Here{, both in A and B, The New Shadow}the source we have ends...the end of the reign of Eldarion{ about 100 years after the death of Aragorn}.>
NS-SL-05.5 <UT, Istari It is said that in {later}these days ...But of Olórin we shall never know more than he revealed in Gandalf.>
NS-SL-08 <Appendix A Here ends this tale, as it has come to us {from the South}; and {with the passing of Evenstar} no more is said in this book of the days of old.>

[ArcusCalion]

I agree with gandalf's placement much more. it flows better.

[Findegil]

Okay, I agree to the placement. My placement was based only on the one important statement that I wanted to include, that there was again a fraction of the people calle “Faithful”. And that would have fit probabaly better before the end of Eldarions regin is mentioned. But it is okay at the end as well, since I agree that the part about Gandalf feels out of sequence at the earlier placement.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

I have severe reservations about the 200+ year old Borlas, and I think this thread is giving way too much weight to the statement of Borlas' presence at the time of the fall of Barad-dur.

Not only is there no indication that Borlas or Beregond were of "pure" Numenorean ancestry, but even if they were, it would still make Borlas older than Aragorn! And Aragorn's longevity was in itself an exception to the rule (as Findegil has already mentioned), given that in Aragorn a bit of old Dunadan majesty was restored.

So why would some (frankly) random Gondorian have a lifespan longer than Aragorn (or even Eldarion)? Nothing about this makes a lick of sense - not to mention that in the 1972 letter in which the c. FO 220 date appears, nothing whatsoever is said about Borlas or any character in the story for that matter.


Which makes me think that we should remove the statement about Borlas being Beregond's son, as well as the mention of Borlas being alive during the fall of Barad-dur.

Perhaps we could say that he was a descendant of Beregond?

He could (and should) still be very old - old enough to at least be a child during the final years of Aragorn's reign.

[Arvegil145]

Also, what do you think about the possible inclusion of a c. 2,700 year Fourth Age?

I posted this in another forum, but here it is again:

Of Eldarion son of Elessar it was foretold that he should rule a great realm, and that it should endure for a hundred generations of Men after him, that is until a new age brought in again new things; and from him should come the kings of many realms in long days after. But if this foretelling spoke truly, none now can say, for Gondor and Arnor are no more; and even the chronicles of the House of Elessar and all their deeds and glory are lost.

- The Peoples of Middle-earth, 'The Tale of Years of the Third Age', pp. 244-5

So, if we take a normal human 'generation' to mean something like, say, 25 years - that would equate to c. 2,500 years.

And if we take Eldarion's death to be c. FO 200, that means that the Fourth Age lasted for about 2,700 years - which checks out with Tolkien's hastening Ages.

[Findegil]

See my posting from 07-25-2018: Our working assuomptiun was that Borlas is 148 years old when he speaks to Saelon in FA 138. Thus our interpretation of the text was an intro that links it back to LotR many years before the 'real action' would start. Some what like The Long expected Party in LotR, but with a much longer time gap to come.

About the 2,700 year Fourth Age: we actually used the qoute you provided from TY 4 in the chapter The End of the Third Age. But clearly the project will not give the assumption that these means the Fourth Age was 2,700 years long. At least not here. And I think even in the proposed 'Tale of the Years'-like part, one of the biggest issues will be such caclulations based un assumptions. In this special case you assume a generation would in average last 25 years. But we know that Tolkien was more familiar with the tarditional 30 years per generation, and that at least the first view generations would be longlasting Númenoreans. With such uncertainties fixing any date would mean to create a fact in Middle-earth. And that is exactly the one thing this project tries to avoid.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Findegil

See my posting from 07-25-2018: Our working assuomptiun was that Borlas is 148 years old when he speaks to Saelon in FA 138. Thus our interpretation of the text was an intro that links it back to LotR many years before the 'real action' would start. Some what like The Long expected Party in LotR, but with a much longer time gap to come.

About the 2,700 year Fourth Age: we actually used the qoute you provided from TY 4 in the chapter The End of the Third Age. But clearly the project will not give the assumption that these means the Fourth Age was 2,700 years long. At least not here. And I think even in the proposed 'Tale of the Years'-like part, one of the biggest issues will be such caclulations based un assumptions. In this special case you assume a generation would in average last 25 years. But we know that Tolkien was more familiar with the tarditional 30 years per generation, and that at least the first view generations would be longlasting Númenoreans. With such uncertainties fixing any date would mean to create a fact in Middle-earth. And that is exactly the one thing this project tries to avoid.

Respectfully
Findegil

1) As to Borlas: even 'only' 148 years is still too much (since not even the Stewards, who were also descendants of Anarion, lived to such an age since the days of Hador, the 7th ruling Steward - who was also the last Gondorian to live to the age of 150, until Aragorn and his descendants).

Not only that, but do we actually have any strong evidence that your idea of a 'prologue Borlas' was ever Tolkien's intention?

IMO, the most probable interpretation of the 1972 letter was Tolkien misremembering what he wrote more than 15 years prior to his writing the letter, and conflated 'c. 100 years after the fall of Barad-dur' with 'c. 100 years after Aragorn's death'.

However, IF we're going to keep the far later date of FoA 220 (as per the above letter), the most logical and painless choice would be to simply change 'Borlas, son of Beregond' to 'Borlas, a descendant of Beregond' - and remove any reference to Borlas being alive during the end of the Third Age, as stated in my previous reply.


2) As to the 'c. 2,700 long Fourth Age': I agree - it's too speculative, especially since we already have the 'hundred generations of Men after Eldarion' included in the 'End of the Third Age' text. No need to make explicit what can (and should) be up to the reader's interpretation.

I would like to point out one thing, though - the '30 years per generation' doesn't work, since that would make the Fourth Age last c. 3,200 years (i.e. it would be longer than the Third Age); and since Tolkien decided that each successive Age should be shorter (as was already evident before: First Age lasted c. 4,900 years, the Second lasted 3,441 years, and the Third lasted 3,021 years), I still think the c. 2,700 years is the most likely duration.

But that's neither here nor there, and should belong to some other forum discussions.