![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Finally, some comments on the first section.
First, a general comment on the text: There is a lot of jumping back and forth between QS and GA here. This is to be expected, given the textual situation, and I think that for the most part it is skillfully done; but I worry a little that in trying to provide as complete and detailed an account as we can, we may be slicing up Tolkien's prose too indiscriminately. In particular, I think we must be careful not to use additions from other sources merely for the sake of added verbiage, but only when some substantive detail is gained. I will try to point out specific places where this is an issue. RB-DB-01: This is a good example of my concern above. Here we have cognate sentences in QS and GA: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
§141: There are some missing Celegorn > Celegorm changes here: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
§143: Here again some difficulties arise from the mixture of QS and GA. But first of all there is an issue of chronology. The situation appears to be that the assault on Minas Tirith was placed in 457, two years after the Bragollach, in AB 2 and in QS. In GA it was moved first to 456 and then to 455, the same year as the battle, and before the death of Fingolfin. Our text as it stands has the earlier chronology, and this at the very least must be changed. But, as previously, I'm somewhat inclined to take the bulk of the passage from GA instead of from QS. As far as I can tell, nothing of substance appears here in QS that is absent from GA. The only thing I would perhaps want to salvage from QS is the description of Sauron, which is given at greater length in QS and was revised in LQ. If we take this, then we must remove the redundant description from GA. I would therefore suggest this: Quote:
|
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
It seems discussed here a bit... http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4479 I'm not a member of this Silmarillion project, but as a fan of Tolkien's nomenclature I'll give this a go: Ambarto becomes the youngest or 'last' child, thus matching up better with Telufinwe 'Last Finwë' (though this was not specifically marked it appears). Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Good to see you, Galin!
I will have to look into the name issue some more, but as far as I can tell you are correct. My memory is a bit hazy on some of these issues. Glancing at the Name Changes thread, though, I noticed that in fact we had (at my suggestion!) already settled on "Amros" rather than "Amras". I'm less clear on the Amrod vs. Amarthan point, as (alas) I still don't have any of the Vinyar Tengwar (maybe those ought to go on my Hanukkah/Christmas wish-list). However, my point here was simply that it is Amras/Amros who is alive and well in Beleriand at this point and Amrod/Amarthan who died at Losgar, and not the other way around. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Oops Aiwendil, yes I was essentially agreeing with you regarding the basic question I quoted.
I guess I could have made that clear enough without blathering on so much about the Amrod/Amarthan question, it's just that this question is one I have mused about myself. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Posted by Aiwendil:
Quote:
RB-DB-01: Agreed we take your suggestion. RB-DB-06.5: §134 ... {Third}[Fourth]: Good catch. RB-DB-07: I thought it might be helpful because the last time we have heard of Glaurung before, we were told that he was not yet full grown. But the addition might be considered superficial. §137: In this case I do not agree fully to your suggestion. In the first sentence it is better to take up GA fully, but I would still keep the first half sentence from the QS. And in the rest of the paragraph I think we loss a good deal of information by only taking one source. Quote:
RD-DB-24: Agreed, we take the addition out. {Damrod and Diriel}[Amros] it will be. §143: I did not observe the chronology issue. But I am reluctant to skip all that nice interpretation why Tol Sirion was the last fortress attacked in that battle. Also I see some info in QS that is missing in GA. Some examples in detail (No. are take from the text below): RD-DB-25.5: That Glaurung was shy of the River Sirion at this time is a motive not given eles were. Interesting that he is again in the eastern Battle in the Nirneath. RD-DB-28: That Sauron was in command of Balrogs in this battle doth strength his position among the host of Morogth. RD-DB-31.5: Well, this is new. I wish to keep the word 'necromancy'. As fare as I remember this is the only real connection you will get while reading the story of Middle-Earth chronological between Gorthaur of Beleriand and the Necromancer of the Mirkwood in The Hobbit. Even so the change might be called stylistic, I think it is important because we will have to live with The Hobbit as it is. I think connections should be strength if we can. After RD-DB-32: That the final victory came by assault and not by siege is important, since it makes Orodreth escape much more feasible. After RD-DB-33: The 'dark cloud of fear' is again a nice tie to the siege of Minas Tirith in The Lord of Rings. I think that should not be lost. Within RD-DB-34: Orodreth is no longer Finrods brother, but his nephew. But I find 'Steward' the more fitting connection here. RD-DB-35: Why should we loss this bridge to the future? Readers will remember this easier if we provide them with the information that it has influence in the future narrative. Now you could say that again I propose a stylistic change. But I think that I rather argue against a change with reasons of style. The difference is, that in Annals I would not expect such a style, in a 'Quenta' it is rather classical. And Tolkien is using this often in The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. Thus I would edit: Quote:
Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
RB-DB-07: Adding the 'now' is a small change, and there's no real problem with it; but my inclination is that if Tolkien didn't feel the need to include it, we shouldn't either.
§137: You're right that there are some minor details in QS that would be nice to keep here. I think your suggestion is good, except that I would delete the last clause ('but Barahir returned . . .'), since the next paragraph in QS essentially says the same thing in much greater detail. RD-DB-25.5: Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, it seems redundant to say that Orodreth was the warden of the tower here, since a few sentences later we say again that he held the fortress as the steward of Finrod. RD-DB-31.5: My concern here is that Tolkien revised the passage in LQ1 and changed 'necromancy' to 'shadows and ghosts'. This may have been a mere stylistic change. It seems to me that in matters of style, we should always take Tolkien's revised version over earlier ones. I agree that making a connection to The Hobbit would be nice, but unless the revised version actually contradicted The Hobbit, I don't think we're justified in changing it. Quote:
RB-DB-33: Agreed, the dark cloud of fear is a good detail missing from GA. RB-DB-34: Agreed. RB-DB-35: Well, one could argue that the future strife is actually implicitly foretold in the words 'for that time'. However, I see nothing wrong with adding the more explicit statement from QS. My suggestion for this section, then, is; Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 248
![]() |
Hello now my humble oppinion.
RB-DB-07 add "now". RD-DB-31.5 add to GA information, "master of necromancy". So both texts I think a fortress can be besieged first and then hardly assaulted. So both texts RD-DB-28 agreed with Aiwendil. Yes now I see Amros is better, more appropriately and later than Amras. I'm going to change it in my version. Greetings Last edited by gondowe; 11-25-2010 at 01:31 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
RB-DB-07: Okay, we skip the 'now'.
§137: Agreed. RB-DB-25.5: Your suggestion is good. RB-DB-28: Interristing line of thinking. Looking at the beginning of the Battle were QS states two times that Balrogs were involved (see §134 before and behind RD-DB-05) this is not the case in GA §145. And the same is true for QS §140 were it si said that 'the valour of the Elves and Men of the North, which neither Orc nor Balrog could yet overcome' which is missing from GA §147. In GA Balrogs are not mentioned at all in this Battle. Cosequently this would be again a case of 'By By, Balrogs'! I agree about Orordreth and teh reduntance of him beeing The Warden of the Tower. RB-DB-31.5: Okay, okay, yes it would be against our rules. And in addition it si redundant since a master of necromancy is a master of shadows and ghosts. After RD-DB-32: I don't think that there is realy a diference in the course of the battle in QS and GA at this point at least non that we cold find. In QS Sauron 'took Minastirith by assault' and that is all we get. In GASaurons 'host broke through and besieged ... Minas Trirth ... and this they took after bitter fighting, and Orodreth ... was driven out.' You simply can not drive some one out by a siege. Either the besiged makes an excrusion or you make an assault. From what we have in QS I thought it would be better to make it explicit that the final victory was an assault and not and excrusion of the defenders gone a miss. Seeing that Orodreth was already driven out, I do not agree that Celegrom and Curufin rescued him like Barahir rescued Fealgund. The words in GA that the brethern 'stemmed the tide for a while' suggest for me rather that they rescued Orodreth during a flight in which he was hoplessly outnumbered and in danger to be overrun simply by a very fast advance of his enemy. I picture the situation of Orodreth like this: He had only a very small host left. The when they drove him out the enemy was directly on his heels. When he would have turned to defend his retreat the enemy would have closed him in. But the enemy was to near to run simply without defence. Thus he had no chance to escape with out help. What the cavalary of Celegrom and Curufin did was defending Orodreth retreat so that he cold lay the necessary distance between his host and the enemy and then they cold outrun the enemy because of the greater fastness of their mounted host. Respectfuly Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |