Table of Contents for the Red Book

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

The source of the Silmarillion was not the Red Book, as the Red Book was some sort of reference (to a book Tolkien somehow found, perhaps? and published the stories?) that he made. The Silm was the collection of stories, edited, that had a creational twist. It doesn't come from the Red Book, which was all about Hobbits.

Allow me to cordially disagree here, quoting from the Prologue, Note on the Shire Records:

It [the Red Book] was in origin Bilbo's private diary, which he took with him to Rivendell. Frodo brought it back to the Shire, together with many loose leaves of notes, and during S.R. 1420-1, he nearly filled its pages with his account of the War. But annexed to it and preserved with it, probably in a single red case, were the three large volumes, bound in red leather, that Bilbo gave to him as a parting gift. To these four volumes there was added in Westmarch a fifth, containing commentaries, geneologies, and various other matter concerning the hobbit members of the Fellowship

The Prologue goes on to describe that the original Red Book no longer exists, but the tht oldest and most accurate surviving copy, of the Thain's Book, the original copy, which apparently still exists. This copy, made by the scribe Findegil is described thus:

But the chief importance of Findegil's copy is that it alone contains the whole of Bilbo's 'Translations from the Elvish'. These three volumes were found to be a work of great skill and learning in which, between 1403 and 1418, he had used all the sources available to him in Rivendell, both living and written. But since they were little used by Frodo, being almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days, they no more is said of them here.

Now, I will readily grant that the above does not prove that the Silmarillion was derived from Bilbo's translations- but I believe it does leave the door open to that possibility. I'm also fairly certain that Tolkien himself alluded to that possibility in his letters, but as I do not have a copy of them, I cannot say for certain.

How Aelfwine's experiences fit in, I do not know.

My own pet theory is that Aelfwine is responsible for the older, pre-LotR form of the Silmarillion, which conforms less to the Lord of the Rings, and seems (to me) to be more the work of an Anglo-Saxon. Bilbo's translations, therefore, are in my little theory, a more scholarly work, from which is derived the more contradictory and confusing post-LotR versions of the [i]Silmarillion/i]. This is, of course, just a theory.

[mark12_30]

But a good one. Nicely done.

[Bêthberry]

Still, in terms of RPGs, we have the possibility of writings by Sam and Elanor, which were lost, particularly about the Westmarch lands of The Shire, if I am not mistaken.

What a conundrum this makes for canonicity (as if we don't have enough already!). We could sub-create RPGs for events which were lost to the record of Middle-earth.

Plus, would this open us to the possibility that we could have two variants, Bilbo's versions and Frodo's, which, as written by different participants in events, could present slightly different points of view?

What fun medieval narratology/textuality makes!