Beren and Lúthien - Changes needed

[Elvellon]

Hey Findegil,

I was reading the working doc, and came across this bit:

A vault of topless trees it seemed, {995}
whose trunks of carven stone there stood
like towers of an enchanted wood [1240]
in {magic }fast[ craft] for ever bound,
bearing a roof whose branches wound
in endless tracery of green {1000}
lit by some leaf-emprisoned sheen
of moon and sun, and wrought of gems, [1245]
and each leaf hung on golden stems.

I couldn't find here, or in the private forum, any discussion about the change to line 1241 – unless I missed it, of course!

I don't think the new line "in fast craft for ever bound," works. For one, the Lay is in iambic tetrameter (not uniformly, but close), but this line is now short one syllable. For another, it throws off the stresses. And lastly, here "fast" doesn’t mean “rapid; quick”, but "firm; secure" – as in “fastened.” So, it’s not fast craft, it’s trunks fastened by craft.

Long story short, I think this would work better, both in preserving the stresses and the meaning:

A vault of topless trees it seemed,
whose trunks of carven stone there stood
like towers of an enchanted wood [1240]
{in magic} [in craft were] fast for ever bound,
bearing a roof whose branches wound
in endless tracery of green {1000}
lit by some leaf-emprisoned sheen
of moon and sun, and wrought of gems, [1245]
and each leaf hung on golden stems.

If you're against adding "were," then I think that at the very least, the line should be "in craft fast forever bound" to preserve the meaning of fast.

Edit:

BL-RG-08.5: I agree with Aiwendil that it would be nice to keep these lines. What about...

There countless torches fitfully
did start and twinkle{,} BL-RG-08.5 {as the Gnomes}[with a spark]
{were}[as Noldor] gathered {to their fading homes}[in the dark],
and thronged the long and winding stair
that led to the wide echoing square.

[Aiwendil]

You're quite right about line 1241, and I'm not sure how I missed that before. However, I don't think your proposal works grammatically. "In magic fast forever bound" is an adjective phrase modifying "towers of an enchanted wood"; inserting a verb into it doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I've never been of the mind that every use of the word "magic" must be struck from the text, and my preference here would be to simply retain the original reading.

BL-RG-08.5: I don't know. These lines could work, but they feel a little off to me. I guess we have to weigh re-writing Tolkien's rhymes against cutting out of a few lines of the poem.

I've just stared at the lines for a while again, and still can't come up with a better suggestion.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

You're quite right about line 1241, and I'm not sure how I missed that before. However, I don't think your proposal works grammatically. "In magic fast forever bound" is an adjective phrase modifying "towers of an enchanted wood"; inserting a verb into it doesn't make sense.

I was thinking of it modifying "trunks of carven stone," but looking at it closer, I see what you mean, and why "were" doesn't work in that case. I think I'm in agreement with you that every use of magic does not need to be removed. I'm also of the opinion that every use of "gods" doesn't need to go either, especially here, where it may involve changing too much. Which brings me to another suggestion to preserve some currently omitted lines:

BL-SL-03:

So would they not that angry day
King Felagund their lord obey,
but sullen murmured that Finrod
nor yet his{ son}[ sire] were as a god.

Since the equivalent line in QS I is "And now they murmured that Finarfin’s son was not as a Vala to command them," it seems to me the easiest fix (short of excision) is to change the mention in the Lay from Finrod nor his son, to Finrod nor his father ("sire" being a word that Tolkien uses more than once in place of "father").

BL-RG-08.5: I don't know. These lines could work, but they feel a little off to me. I guess we have to weigh re-writing Tolkien's rhymes against cutting out of a few lines of the poem.

I share your concern for re-writing, and you're right, it's a little off. But I also worry about cutting out too many groups of lines, which risks messing with the pace of how quickly or slowly Tolkien moves the reader from one moment to the next. So, it seems worth attempting to keep lines if possible.

Here's another possibility, making use of a rhyme that Tolkien is quite fond of:

There countless torches fitfully
did start and twinkle{, as the Gnomes}[ in the gloom]
{were}[as Noldor] gathered to their {fading homes}[doom],
and thronged the long and winding stair
that led to the wide echoing square.

Here's a clean version:

There countless torches fitfully
did start and twinkle in the gloom
as Noldor gathered to their doom,
and thronged the long and winding stair
that led to the wide echoing square.

This image is supported by §129 of Aam, where Tolkien uses "gloom" to describe the atmosphere at this very moment: "The lamp of the Mindon burned pale in the gloom."

One might be able to write a couplet that rhymes "in hand they bore" (meaning the torches) with "Noldor," but at the moment I'm not seeing it.

[Aiwendil]

BL-SL-03: While I don't necessarily think that every instance of "god" used of the Valar must be excised, I think its use here from the mouth of an Elf is sufficient reason to delete this couplet.

BL-RG-08.5: I've been racking my brain trying to work out a rhyme for either "... did start and twinkle, as that folk" or "... did start and twinkle, as that kin". If we were OK with an archaic placement of "in" following its noun, we could do:

There countless torches fitfully
did start and twinkle, as {the Gnomes}[that kin]
were gathered {to their fading homes}[their white city in],
and thronged the long and winding stair
that led to the wide echoing square.

But that may be too archaic; I can't think of anywhere Tolkien uses that construction.

With "folk", we could try:

There countless torches fitfully
did start and twinkle, as {the Gnomes}[that folk]
were gathered {to their fading homes}[under twilight's cloak],
and thronged the long and winding stair
that led to the wide echoing square.

I kind of like this one, except that I'm hesitant to add in a metaphor like that that's not in the original.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

BL-SL-03: While I don't necessarily think that every instance of "god" used of the Valar must be excised, I think its use here from the mouth of an Elf is sufficient reason to delete this couplet.

Being one of the "songs of Númenor," I haven't been inclined to think of anything written here as strictly "from the mouth of an Elf." We're reading a Mannish text, and we know Men thought of the Valar as gods, right? (Apologies if I'm retreading settled ground. I'm doing my best to digest 20+ years of debate on these ideas split over dozens of threads.)

BL-EX-06: "lay white beneath on the dark stones" looks like a transcription error. My copy has "lay white beneath on the dank stones"

BL-EX-10: A fantastic bit of work here, but a few things don't sit quite right for me. Don't get me wrong, the effort that was put into the Lay by everyone involved is nothing short of brilliant. I'm not here to step on any toes, just to share some grist for the mill. In that spirit, here is my suggestion:

But lastly, ere he bade farewell,
spoke Finrod: 'Celegorm the fell,
I say, by sight this hour received,
no Silmaril shall be retrieved
by thou nor any kin or friend,
for ever unto world’s end.
And this indeed that we now seek
will be delivered from the reek,
but never to your hands will fall.
Nay, shall your oath devour all
of Fëanor’s sons, and deliver then
to another the bride-price of Lúthien.

My main goals were as follows: to put "Celegorm the fell' and the "sight that is given" back into Finrod's mouth; to replace "Jewel" with "Silmaril"; to remove "in vain you swore", since the oath is not mentioned twice in GA; to find a more natural line than "shall come from 'neath the triple peak"; to get rid of the two nearby shall's; to end on "Lúthien."

The usage of "reek" here is the Old-English noun form, as in "delivered from the noxious fumes."

BL-RG-22: How about:

Yet not all unavailing were {2215}
{the}[Finrod's] spells{ of Felagund}; for {Thû}[Sauron knew] [2455]
{neither}[not] their names nor purpose {knew}[true].

BL-EX-10.5: I took a stab at including Celebrimbor's renunciation:

‘We will remember it,’ they said,
and turned upon their heels, and sped,
saddled their horses, trussed their gear,
and went with hound and bow and spear,
BL-EX-10.5 but alone; for none would go,
perceiving evil would follow
the curse that heavy lay therein.
At that time, the son of Curufin,
Celebrimbor, rose and disclaimed
his father’s deeds; and he remained
in Nargothrond. At last they spurred
their horses north, and spoke no word
but sounded horns, and rode away
like wind at end of stormy day.

There is a missing bit here (bolded), which needs to be added back in:

There Curufin and Celegorm {2985}
in sudden tumult like the wind [3275]
rode up. The hooves of horses dinned
loud on the earth. In rage and haste
thus madly eastward they now raced,

[Findegil]

First of all: Elvellon, I am glad to have your input here as everywhere. But here it is very welcome indeed, since my talent for rhyming is very limited.

Nonetheless, I have to argue against some of your suggestions.
A general remark first: The argument that what we have here is one of the “songs of Númenor”, has come up in some discussions. For me, it does not hold water for several reasons:
- That a poem or text has be traditioned by the Numenorians does not mean that the in-story author was of mankind. I would argue here to the contrary, since the mannish origin of the Narn was mentioned as an exception. (Nonetheless, later mannish redactions is of course possible.)
- Even so the main line of tradition might be Númenorean, it is by no means impossible that additional sources are involved. Such as eyewitnesses talked to in Imladris.
But these in-story arguments are in a way pointless, because the main counter arguments for me are external:
- Some time ago the project discussed if we should assume that our texts have existing counterparts in Middle-earth. And the final result of that discussion was that we could not entertain that idea at all. Tolkien could and did use that idea and thus produce the large corpus of sources we have. But since we decided that we can only hope to produce one single string of very diverse texts telling the Legend of Middle-earth, we have to skip that idea.
Therefore if the result of our editing does not have an existing counterpart in Middle-earth, it does as well not have a history of in-story tradition.
- If we follow the argument that due to its tradition a texts is allowed some failures to its ultimate end, we render our project void and useless. It is no question that a character in the story must not speak the truth, but that is not the point here. If we accept that the texts, we produce have a tradition behind them that allows for them make false statements about what we found as the ‘true’ story, we would have to give our readers some means to find out were these false statements begin and end. That mean would be the full corpus of sources we used. What than is the worth of the text we produced?
- This does not mean, that we can not leave some uncertainty in our version or that we can not use parts that Tolkien did mention with a disclaimer (like the second prophecy of Mandos). But it clearly means we have to take up all such disclaimers, and were we don’t have them we should try to report what we find as the ‘true’-story as well as possible.

Now to the more specific issue:

Line [1241]: First, since line numbers may change, let’s take up an editing mark for this case: BL-RG-00.7. On the case itself, I agree that it was maybe a bit over the top to change each and every occurrence of ‘magic’. Nonetheless for me it has a kind of negative connotation, following the discussion of it between Galadriel and Sam in Lothlorien. Thus it seem inappropriate for a description of a work of craft that seems to appeal to the author. What about getting rid of the means ({magic}[craft]) and instead mention who (masons) used these means:

A vault of topless trees it seemed, {995}
whose trunks of carven stone there stood
like towers of an enchanted wood [1240]
BL-RG-00.7 {in magic }[by masons] fast for ever bound,
bearing a roof whose branches wound
in endless tracery of green {1000}
lit by some leaf-emprisoned sheen
of moon and sun, and wrought of gems, [1245]
and each leaf hung on golden stems.

BL-RG-08.5: Elvellon’s first suggestion with the ‘spark‘-‘dark‘ couple is still my favorite. The ‘gloom’-‘doom’ couple is nice in itself, but is it the doom of the Noldor that they approach going to central square in Tirion? I don’t think so. Aiwendil’s ‘kin’-‘city in’ is to archaic to me. The ‘that folk’-‘twilights cloak’ couple is as well to my liking. I don’t think the metaphor ‘twilight’s cloak’ is to much artistical license. We are dealing with a poem, some freeness must be granted.

BL-SL-03: ‘Apologies if I'm retreading settled ground.’ I don’t think you do, and even if, we have done so before and we will most probably do so in future. The discussion is what brings the project forward. (And often it is the fun of it, not the (temporary) final result.)
‘We're reading a Mannish text, and we know Men thought of the Valar as gods, right?’ Wrong, in two ways: We do not read a mannish text (see my remark above). At best we rad a text edited by man. And the man that thought of the Valar as gods where not the Númenoreans. At first they did know better, being in alliance with the Elves, and later when they rebelled against the Valar, I doubt that they would name them gods, since who would rebel against gods? Anyhow I have to say that using ‘god’ in this context is a no go for me. We can tell our readers that man did name the Valar gods, but to have a group of elvish Exiles address them as such does not work for me. That the Nargothrondrim are Exiles makes these lines anyhow doubt full: They did rebel against the rule of the Valar in the first place, so what would it help, if Finrod would be a Vala?
But I understand the urge to keep the lines. So I searched form some replacement with the one characteristic that could transport the meaning of god like ruler ship: infalliblity. Even so I did not find a solution for the couple, this might by a line of thought worth mentioning.

BL-EX-10: I like your suggestion. In the first part you did edit it more but less so in the last. But as it is ‘grist for the mill’ I would try to leave out the ‘reek’ and use instead the couple ‘seek’-‘indeed’. For that of course we need some additions. I would not use ‘Silmaril’ again here, therefore ‘one stone’ was the best I could come up with. In the next line ‘solemn quest’ is as well the best I found. I had first considered ‘hopeless quest’ but Finrod just declared that he sees that Beren will get it, so that this should give him some hope. Farther on I would like to now why you moved the ‘shall’ in the third last line? I think the line works without that movement.

BL-EX-10 <GA{'}But {this I will say to you,}lastly, ere he bade farewell, [2155]
spoke Finrod: ‘{Celegorn}[Celegorm] the fell,
I say, by the sight {that is given me in }this hour received,
no Silmaril shall be retrieved
by{, that neither} thou nor any {son of Fëanor shall regain the Silmarils}kin or friend,
for ever unto world's end. [u] [2160]
[/b]And this one stone, that we now seek
in solemn quest, shall come indeed{ },
but never to your hands will fall.
Nay, your oath shall devour {you}all
of Fëanor’s sons, and deliver then [2165]
to {other keeping}another the bride-price of Lúthien.'>

Clean text:

But lastly, ere he bade farewell, 2155
spoke Finrod: ‘Celegorm the fell,
I say, by the sight this hour received,
no Silmaril shall be retrieved
by thou nor any kin or friend,
for ever unto world's end. 2160
And this one stone, that we now seek
in solemn quest, shall come indeed,
but never to your hands will fall.
Nay, your oath shall devour all
of Fëanor’s sons, and deliver then 2165
to another the bride-price of Lúthien.'

BL-RG-22: I like your suggestion. But why do you change {neither}[not]?

BL-EX-10.5: I like your suggestion, but aren’t your first three lines each one syllable short? What about {none}no one in the first line and ‘perceiving that evil would follow’ for the second? I have no good solution for the third, but ‘heavily’ would be a last resource.
Maybe my counting is wrong, but isn’t Curufin 3 syllables (Cu-ru-fin)? If so that line is too long. But however the line can stand since we count iambic feet and not syllables propper.

Line [3277]: Thanks for pointing that out!

Respectfully
Findegil

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Findegil

First of all: Elvellon, I am glad to have your input here as everywhere.

Thanks, and I appreciate the thoughtful and informative replies. Coming here has sure humbled me in regards to my familiarity with Tolkien, but I'm loving the process of diving deep into this project!!

To your points about the "songs of Númenor" and "Mannish texts," thank you for taking the time to summarize it so clearly. I can see the reasons for adopting this stance, and I'm happy to leave it there as settled.

How about this, then:

So would they not that angry day
King Felagund their lord obey,
but {sullen }murmured that Finrod[ was not grand]
{nor yet his son were as a god}[as any Vala to command].

BL-RG-00.7:
Is there a thread here where the use of the term “magic” was discussed? I'm curious if it is primarily Patrick Curry’s opinion that drove this idea I've seen that Tolkien saw magic as an evil. Is there a clear statement from JRRT on the matter? My understanding has been that Tolkien saw the word “magic” not as inherently negative but as inaccurate, because “all human stories have suffered the same confusion” between “the devices and operations of the Enemy, and those of the Elves” (from Letter 131). Galadriel echoes this sentiment in Fellowship, where she does not say that the word “magic” is only used for “the deceits of the Enemy,” but rather that it is one word being used for two different things. It must not have had too negative an association in her mind, because she then referred to the mirror as “the magic of Galadriel” and “Elf-magic” – and ironic adoption of a word familiar to the Hobbits.

I don’t disagree that the word should be minimized because of its inaccuracy. And this is easy enough to do in prose, but it seems to me that in the Lays, one should do so primarily when it doesn’t disturb Tolkien’s verse too much. Personally, the more I think about it, the more I feel “in magic fast for ever bound” is too lovely a turn of phrase to mess with. But in fairness, here's another suggestion:

A vault of topless trees it seemed, {995}
whose trunks of carven stone there stood
like towers of an enchanted wood [1240]
BL-RG-00.7 {in magic}[so crafted] fast for ever bound,
bearing a roof whose branches wound

BL-RG-08.5:

but is it the doom of the Noldor that they approach going to central square in Tirion?

I was using it in the sense of the Noldor gathering to begin the long, metaphorical march from their “fading homes” to their inevitable doom across the sea.

BL-EX-10:
“Seek” and “indeed” are too imperfect of a rhyme. I think the word “reek” here is altogether appropriate: Tolkien refers to “the reeking towers of Thangorodrim,” as well as “the reeking tops of the Iron Mountains”; and he used the word in the sense I’ve used it more than once in composing the Lay of Leithian: “above the reek and trampled dead”, “A second morning in cloud and reek”, “amid the reek, and far and wide”. It’s only because he used it so frequently that I felt comfortable using it. In general, I’ve tried to restrict my changes to rhymes that Tolkien used elsewhere; that seemed the safest, least destructive, course.

Farther on I would like to now why you moved the ‘shall’ in the third last line?

I’m not sure, but you’re right, it shouldn't have been moved!

BL-RG-22: I like your suggestion. But why do you change {neither}[not]?

Again, I’m not sure, it must have been late! It should be “neither.”

BL-EX-10.5:

I like your suggestion, but aren’t your first three lines each one syllable short?

You’re right about the first line: "but alone; for none would go" is 7 syllables. "No one" misplaces the stresses, so to preserve natural stresses, I'd suggest a rhetorical repetition of the word "went" (I've bolded the stresses):

and went with hound and bow and spear,
but went a-lone; for none would go,

However, the other two lines do have the proper four feet of eight syllables (stresses in bold):

per-ceiv-ing e-vil would foll-ow
the curse that heav-y lay there-in

The stresses on "follow" and "therein" are slightly unnatural, but Tolkien broke the rules plenty (Shakespeare too), so I'm not too bothered by it, personally.

Maybe my counting is wrong, but isn’t Curufin 3 syllables (Cu-ru-fin)? If so that line is too long. But however the line can stand since we count iambic feet and not syllables propper.

Tolkien himself didn’t always stick to only eight syllables, as long as the extra syllables were unstressed. For example: “the quest of the shining Silmaril” is nine syllables, as is “of the breaking of the towers of stone” (ten syllables if you pronounce towers as “tow-ers”).