* * Principles of editing the Fall of Gondolin/Translations from the Elvish * *

[Aiwendil]

well it is 'concrete' that CJRT saw fit to eliminate Rog because as he states" It is absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as a lord of Gondolin." 2nd footnote p.211 HB BoLT2.

Agreed. I have never disputed this. But in any case:

1. We should not simply take Christopher's word for everything.

2. This is an exceptional situation, in which we have an explicit statement from CJRT; I imagine that other issues that might fall under principle 7 will be different in that regard.

If this is not clear, let me make it so: I think that CJRT's statement is very strong evidence against the use of the name "Rog". There is also some evidence for the name. What matters to this debate is not which evidence is stronger; that is a separate issue. What matters is the nature of the evidence. You seem to imply that under the old principles, CJRT's statement would not count as evidence. I disagree. The fundamental criterion for deletion is this: that there is sufficient evidence that the name "Rog" would not have been retained by Tolkien. That evidence may come in any form.. So much was, I think, apparent in the old principles; and it is made explicit in my new proposal, as I will show.

I perhaps was not clear enough in my last post. In it I revised my proposed Principle #7 to coincide more closely with CJRT's quote above. All references to aesthetics have been removed [although they could still be be a factor, just not an arbitrarily chosen one] as I said above,

Okay. I'm sorry for misinterpreting you.

I think the above quote from CJRT is clear that this is not the case. He would not [necessarily] have disappeared according to CJRT, his name would have.

I think you misunderstand me, perhaps because I phrased my statement very badly. I should have said: But I don't think that CRT rejected Rog for aesthetic reasons - he rejected him because he interpreted the evidence as showing that the name "Rog" would have disappeared in a later account.

That is, he did not simply decide that "Rog" was a bad name. He decided that it did not fit into later Sindarin. Our decision, as you have emphasized (and as I agree) should be based on the same criterion as that which Christopher used. That is, we must decide whether "Rog" fits into later Sindarin. One piece of evidence against this is Christopher's statement.

and specifically for Rog as it re-inforces the importance of our Revised Silmarillion/Translations from the Elvish, being as beautiful to read as the current version.

But the question relating to "Rog" is not: "What will work best/be most beautiful to read?" It is: "What would have happened to the name in a later Fall of Gondolin?"

I will agree that if no one else [ or rather a majority] wishes to see this project go into the stage of literary polishing just as would any book for publication, then there is no need to delete Rog's name, It is still not for certain that his person/actions could not in some fashion be retained, and indeed for the purposes of the rough draft we could exclude a revised principle 7 altogether.

Here, I think, you are still confusing the two issues. The question of Rog's name is not a stylistic one. It is a canonical one. Our decision either to retain it or omit it has nothing to do with whether this is to be a polished or a rough Silmarillion. The only difference between a rough and a polished Silmarillion (assuming that both are "canonical") should be in presentation, not in actual content. And the name of a character is content.

I do not think Rog has not been dealt with and I find Aiwendil's proposal far more complicated [ actually I will admit to confusion especially as to how it applies to Rog at all, but again I have been working on this from 2-5 am

Okay, I'm glad you asked. I'll explain (for I really do think that my proposal takes into account your concern, as well as retaining what should be retained from the old principle 7).

The principle, like both the old one and your new proposal, is a guideline for how we determine what to change. 7A covers everything explicit; we have no disagreement there. 7B is the new item, and the one that covers things like "Rog". It is intended to mean that if we have enough implicit evidence that JRRT would have changed it, we can change it. So for "Rog", if we deem that the name does not fit with later Sindarin (even if we don't have actual proof), we can change or delete it, since later Sindarin takes precedence over the Gnomish of BoLT.

You could use it to make the argument against the name "Legolas" in BoLT; then you would say that, since LotR takes precedence over BoLT, it is implied that "Legolas" would have been changed (if the presence of the name in LotR can be shown to mean that it would have been excluded from FoG).

You could use it to make the argument against mechanical dragons: since in all later texts there is no reference to or allowance for mechanical dragons, they are implied not to exist.

Of course, the point here is not to debate any of these specific issues; but I hope I've shown how my proposal allows implicit evidence.

The reason (and the only reason) that I favor this proposal over yours is that it spells out in greater detail the necessary conditions for making a change, and it provides a slightly more stringent requirement. In essence, it means "JRRT almost certainly would have changed it", but it also tells us, in general, how we are to determine whether JRRT almost certainly would have changed it. That is, we must have evidence from a text or texts of greater precedence. It also keeps the corollary, which forbids us from simply rejecting or changing things for no reason. I think both the guideline and the corollary are important to retain, and that is the only reason that I favor my proposal over yours. If you think the language is confusing or unclear, I would be happy to try to clarify it, if you point out the problem spots.

Perhaps, if you still object to my proposal, you could point out what exactly your objections are, and we could try to emend it in such a way as to satisfy both of us.