'Time and Ageing' Sequence of Composition

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by gondowe

A question. Could IV postdate III, due to the word Onnalúmë included in IV against Onnarië included in III?

Greetings

Uh-oh.

There are three texts which seem to be heavily based on each other: IV (manuscript), III (typescript), and XII (manuscript). Our interpretation has been that Tolkien originally wrote IV, V, and VIII as separate texts. He then began to assemble them into a single typescript, as III (almost entirely based on IV), giving them their titles and numbers. Then, abandoning III, he switched to a synthesis manuscript, XII.

It's not entirely clear that III had a title typed on it - it may be a separate title page attached to the "Time in Arda" collection. If it didn't, we could theoretically have a sequence of [lost manuscript] > III > IV > XII.

There are some indications this might be true. A change of "100" to "90-96" in IV was not reflected in III, and of course there's onnarië . The first at least indicates that some of Tolkien's red-pen amendments post-date the typescript, which doesn't fit easily with the idea that they were amendments for the typescript.

And... IV feels "later". III has "Elves" and "Men", where IV has "Quendi" and "Atani". I can't easily imagine Tolkien stepping back from using the 'more technical' terms. In many places IV goes into more detail than III, and the only place I can find it having less detail is right at the start, when it drops the otherwise-unknown "the Valar are the soul of Arda" idea. (Compare the transition from IV to XII, where the latter almost doubles the length of some paragraphs; Tolkien liked to add stuff!)

Um.

Okay. All of that is quite subjective; "Onnarië" is concrete. Let's see where that takes us.

- "Onnarië" only appears in III. It's not even indexed.
- "Onnalúmë" appears in IV, V, XII, XV, XVII.
- "Ontalúmë" appears in IV alone, as an alternative form of "onnalúmë".

A scenario where III was the earliest text would certainly explain this! But... I can't quite believe that Tolkien either lost/destroyed the very earliest version of III/IV/XII, or tried to write ab initio in typescript - with, as CH notes, red text used for Elvish words, very fancy, not what you'd do when drafting. Furthermore, CH's formatting strongly suggests that the typescript III was titled, on page, "OF TIME IN ARDA - I - The Quendi compared with Men". That section title and number were added as an amendment to IV; if IV was a rewriting of III, why would Tolkien do that?

As an alternative view... if Tolkien was trying to compress three or more sets of notes down into a single fair text, he might well have made it shorter on the way. He got two pages in, and then decided he didn't actually agree with what he was typing up any more! He pulled out a new piece of paper and began writing XII; by the time he got to the first mention of "Onnalúmë", he forgot that he'd ever considered changing it.

(XX does something similar, introducing a new date for the March which was immediately reverted to the original date.)

hS

[gondowe]

In any case it is true that the structure and explanations of CH are sometimes very vague. These texts may have a much greater degree of complexity than those presented to us CT in HoME but I miss this.
But it is very possible what you say in relation to my question. Tolkien may have forgotten that he had changed Onnarië

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Just to make sure that no one missed this, but, Text VI.A has the year of its composition right in the text itself (p. 39):

Men had then existed for 448 VYs + 22 SYs: i.e., 64,534 Sun Years, which, though doubtless insufficient scientifically (since that is only – we being in 1960 of the 7th Age – 16,000 years ago: total about 80,000), is adequate for purposes of the Silmarillion, etc.

- emphasis mine