Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I'm aware that the table dates from the end of 1959, but I could've sworn that there's another place which dates the Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn family tree to the late '60s, but my brain isn't cooperating...

So would I, but I can't find any reference to it. I am a bit worried by the whole "Celeborn of Alqualonde" story; my gut feeling is that it's later and therefore I should be using it, but it's so weird that I don't want to. The most salvagable version of it would be "Celeborn grandson of Elmo of Alqualonde", but I'm not sure Tolkien ever considered that (and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

In regards to the Ingwe/Ilwen gap, perhaps you're right, but I still lean towards the more conservative side of just keeping the gap as written, and keep speculation to a minimum. Not that it really matters that much, but since we're splitting hairs...

Perhaps you're right. The discussion on marriage ages appears to be from an earlier text, and at age 108 Ingwe would be 24 and a quarter, so it doesn't work anyway. I'll switch it back.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

And yeah, BTW, you referred to Idril as Ingwe's granddaughter

I was trying to refer to Indis as Ilion's granddaughter. Look, I learnt the names of the Finweans, I didn't know there were gonna be a bunch of I-names to pick up as well!

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

If I were you, I would just anchor all the YT Beleriand dates to the YT 1133, which Tolkien did in regards to Feanor's conception and birth in the NoME.

Or even better, I would just put the AAm and GA YT side by side in a spreadsheet (including your calculated dates) and make that the basis.

The latter falls down because I've moved the Finwean dates and the Valinorean History dates relative to each other. The former falls down because we specifically have an explanation for what Luthien's birthday means. Sooo instead, spreadsheets!



This version moves the fall of Utumno to after the March, as VI.B strongly implies should be the case. We lose the corruption of Men by Sauron (or at least any specific date for it), but get to retain the devastation of Beleriand in the fall of Angband as a justification for why the Valar wanted the Elves well out of the way. Melkor has ample time to sneak around corrupting Men while the Valar are staring at his gates, in line with the later comments you mentioned earlier.

I've largely followed the GA spacing after that. One date I'm not sure of is 1330 for Orcs entering Beleriand: NoME 1.XXII makes this 1320, but I think GA postdates that. It's hard to tell, but the notes to GA mention a 1320 date on the (earlier) AAm proper.

I think this works; as with all of these, the "time of peace" ends up being compressed, but the relative dating hangs together.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

So would I, but I can't find any reference to it. I am a bit worried by the whole "Celeborn of Alqualonde" story; my gut feeling is that it's later and therefore I should be using it, but it's so weird that I don't want to. The most salvagable version of it would be "Celeborn grandson of Elmo of Alqualonde", but I'm not sure Tolkien ever considered that (and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Ohh boy...Tolkien in his last 4 or 5 years of life practically settled on Celeborn being a Teler of Aman. And if that wasn't enough, he changed Celebrimbor's origin from that of a grandson of Feanor (as in his 1966 2nd edition of LOTR) to a Telerin companion of Celeborn during the Exile, to Celebrimbor being a Sinda descendant of Daeron (in the PoME)---this is why the "Translations from the Elvish" project constrains things to Tolkien's published works as a cornerstone.

Otherwise, you'd just go mad - heck, in the '70s Tolkien at least on two occasions kind of forgot about the existence of Fingolfin...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The latter falls down because I've moved the Finwean dates and the Valinorean History dates relative to each other. The former falls down because we specifically have an explanation for what Luthien's birthday means. Sooo instead, spreadsheets!



This version moves the fall of Utumno to after the March, as VI.B strongly implies should be the case. We lose the corruption of Men by Sauron (or at least any specific date for it), but get to retain the devastation of Beleriand in the fall of Angband as a justification for why the Valar wanted the Elves well out of the way. Melkor has ample time to sneak around corrupting Men while the Valar are staring at his gates, in line with the later comments you mentioned earlier.

I've largely followed the GA spacing after that. One date I'm not sure of is 1330 for Orcs entering Beleriand: NoME 1.XXII makes this 1320, but I think GA postdates that. It's hard to tell, but the notes to GA mention a 1320 date on the (earlier) AAm proper.

I think this works; as with all of these, the "time of peace" ends up being compressed, but the relative dating hangs together.

Given that the GA date to the early '50s, and the 1.XXII dates from c. 1958, I'd bet that the latter is more relevant.


And in regards to the imprisonment of Melkor - I think you're focusing on the wrong thing: you can simply, like I said before, anchor the early dates to the NoME (YT 1133 as the arrival of Elves to Aman, in accordance with YT 1132 in the GA when they left Beleriand).




EDIT: I think you can constrain the births of Cirdan and Eol. In regards to Cirdan, there's this:

Before ever they came to Beleriand the Teleri had developed a craft of boat-making; first as rafts, and soon as light boats with paddles made in imitation of the water-birds upon the lakes near their first homes, and later on the Great Journey in crossing rivers, or especially during their long tarrying on the shores of the Sea of Rhûn, where their ships became larger and stronger. But in all this work Círdan had ever been the foremost and most inventive and skilful.

- PoME, 'Last writings', note 29, pp. 391-2


And in regards to Eol, there's this:

Eöl should not be one of Thingol's kin, but one of the Teleri who refused to cross the Hithaeglir. But [later] he and a few others of like mood, averse to concourse of people, ... [had] crossed the [Mts] long ago and come to Beleriand.

- WotJ, 'Maeglin', note to §9, pp. 321-2

However, immediately following that note is this:

...but the relationship to Thingol would have point...

I explained my reasoning why these two pieces don't actually contradict each other in a thread I made a year ago or so.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

(and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Well, from People of Middle-earth (I don't have exact chapter--I'm typing one-handed, with a baby in one arm...): "[Celebrimbor] was a Teler, one of the three Teleri who accompanied Celeborn into exile. ...

If the idea of "three Teleri who joined Celeborn" could hold, no reason Nimloth's dad--or even Nimloth--couldn't be one of the three. But, if you really hold to "latest text is primary," then "Celeborn descendant of any kind of Elmo's" is probably out. As CT says (page 299 in my paperback copy of UT--I have my arm back):

Originally Posted by Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn

: A different story, adumbrated but never told, of Galadriel's conduct at the time of the rebellion of the Noldor appears in a very late and partially illegible note: the last writing of my father's on the subject of Galadriel and Celeborn, and probably the last on Middle-earth and Valinorset down in the last month of his life. ... There [in Alqualondë] she met Celeborn, who is here again a Telerin prince, the grandson of Olwë of Alqualondë and thus her close kinsman.

--emphasis added

This post took long enough that I have proposed a solution and then obliterated the possibility of the problem...

Elmo, Galadhon, Galathil, and Nimloth can remain without worrying about their connection to Celeborn, I'd say, because The Last Word on the Subject very clearly removes Celeborn from Elmo's lineage, full stop.

Why a first-cousin marriage between Galadriel and Celeborn is fine and between Maeglin and Idril would have been verboten... might just be a Noldor thing (and Maeglin's enough of Eöl's son to have resented a Noldorin rule).

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Well, from People of Middle-earth (I don't have exact chapter--I'm typing one-handed, with a baby in one arm...): "[Celebrimbor] was a Teler, one of the three Teleri who accompanied Celeborn into exile. ...

If the idea of "three Teleri who joined Celeborn" could hold, no reason Nimloth's dad--or even Nimloth--couldn't be one of the three. But, if you really hold to "latest text is primary," then "Celeborn descendant of any kind of Elmo's" is probably out. As CT says (page 299 in my paperback copy of UT--I have my arm back):

--emphasis added

This post took long enough that I have proposed a solution and then obliterated the possibility of the problem...

Elmo, Galadhon, Galathil, and Nimloth can remain without worrying about their connection to Celeborn, I'd say, because The Last Word on the Subject very clearly removes Celeborn from Elmo's lineage, full stop.

Why a first-cousin marriage between Galadriel and Celeborn is fine and between Maeglin and Idril would have been verboten... might just be a Noldor thing (and Maeglin's enough of Eöl's son to have resented a Noldorin rule).

This all hinges on the fact that Tolkien in his published works had a completely different idea. That is why I suggested to Huinesoron to adopt whatever doesn't contradict LOTR and RGEO.

Again, you'd go mad trying to fit this 'triangular' mess into a 'cube'...

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

This all hinges on the fact that Tolkien in his published works had a completely different idea. That is why I suggested to Huinesoron to adopt whatever doesn't contradict LOTR and RGEO.

Wholly agree!

Christopher Tolkien even states that had his father remembered what he'd added to the second edition about Celebrimbor, he'd have "undoubtedly" felt bound to the already published text.

I think there's no doubt Tolkien desired certain "purposed contradictions" in his legendarium, but I don't see any indication that he remembered what he'd already published about both Galadriel and Celeborn and still wanted to alter the canon. And it might seem an odd thing to forget about Galadriel's RGEO tale for example, but on the other hand, this might have been more a matter of not remembering -- at the moment of writing a given text or letter -- what he'd actually published as opposed to written.

In late texts there are various examples of Tolkien seemingly forgetting stuff, including: Beards, Glorfindel II, the Problem of Ros (where he indeed ultimately rejects an idea due to an already published detail). The following seems to be the mindset of an older Tolkien at least, noting Christopher Tolkien's statement in note 8 to Of Dwarves and Men

"I mention all this as an illustration of his intense concern to avoid discrepancy and inconsistency, even though in this case his anxiety was unfounded. For an earlier account of the Runes see VII. 452-5] CJRT, commentary, POME

Of course one could characterize this as Christopher Tolkien's opinion, given that his father did change certain details for the Second Edition at least, but in any case, I hold JRRT to what he published, especially given his often-changing mind, and where arguable contradiction is found, I put author-published description above even late ideas.

Put it this way: as altering already published work affects the art of world-building, I think Tolkien at least needs to be aware when he's contradicting something in print -- meaning, he needs to be aware for the alteration/new idea to be truly considered, and then, added, or not, "in story" for his Readership.

My opinion anyway.

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron - I think there might be a problem with using the '72 years until adulthood' figure.

The dates of characters' births and marriages in XIII.1 (which we're using as the template for the timeline) are predicated upon the carefully calculated dates in 'Scheme 7' of XVII.

However, 'Scheme 7', up to generation 13 assumes that the differences between the births of parents and children are less than 72 years (from 25 years in the first three generations and getting progressively longer until reaching 73 years in generation 13).

Another problem is the gestation period, which is only 1 year in 'Scheme 7'. Which means that our timeline's Elves have to be 75 years old at minimum before having children: and if we apply this at a constant rate before reaching gen. 13, we get a problem.



Related to the above - I would still change 864/144 to 863/144, and move back the following Valian years by a year, in order to preserve Tolkien's SY. The main reason is the elaborate calculations I mentioned above, who knows how messing with SY dates for the dates of birth of characters would impact those calculations.

Again, I stress that XIII.1 was predicated upon them. (For example, Tolkien's timeline has Ingwe born in 2072, Finwe in 2120 and Elwe in 2126 - pulled straight from 'Scheme 7'.)

It would also shave off 144 years, making the timeline last for c. 5930 years, a bit closer to the SA and TA duration, if not by much. Which might mean that you'd have to jettison a whole VY during the March, something I find preferable.

[Huinesoron]

Taking these in reverse order:

864 or 863 - I take the point that XVII.3(7) uses 2016, not 864/144, as the date of the Finding. That means Tolkien's error in XIII.1 was the reverse of what I thought it was, and I need to adjust the dates as Arvegil suggested. (Note: XVII.3(7) also dates the March to 2232, which is later and more precise than the dating in XIII.3.) I suspect this throws off the 3100 years from the arrival in Aman to the end of the Age; I'll have to run the calculations.

Aging - XVIII is later than XVII.3(7), so I have to use 72 years as adulthood for named Elves. All this means is that in the beginning, the Quendi aged faster - which is suggested in multiple generational schemes. I have no problem with that, and it's part of why I didn't list every generation-start date in the first place.

Celeborn - the simplest solution here is to leave Celeborn's birth-date in place, but to remove his father's name and reference the later source as to why. There's nothing in the late sources saying he was born in Aman, right? He could still be born on the March; we already saw that there was time for him to be a grandson of Elmo, and Olwe is older. (The rest of Elmo's descendents have no birth-years, so are out of scope anyway.)

Celebrimbor - At the risk of being facetious, there's no reason he couldn't be a Teler of Alqualonde and Curufin's son. His birth is long before Feanor's exile, so he could have stayed with a Telerin mother; and PoME notes that Curufin's wife was of wholly different temperament to him. To go full synthesis on the tales, he could have sailed with Celeborn and Galadriel, reconciled with his father and uncles, lived in Nargothrond with them, rejected them, travelled to the Nirnaeth with Gwindor, and wound up retreating to Gondolin with Turgon. –but all that matters is that there's no source contradicting the claim that he was the son of Curufin.

Beleriand - There is no natural divide in the GA timeline (unlike AAm, which splits very nicely into early history / late history blocks): it's all supposed to be early. So other than Elwe's awakening (and Luthien), it all has to be anchored on a single date. There is no obvious right answer; I'll need to work up a table of all the options, once I've got the rest of the numbers adjusted.

Luthien - Given that Luthien's birthdate is fixed solely on the basis of "one third of Melkor's imprisonment", that will need to be maintained. There is no other basis for including her at all.

The Fall of Utumno - Did Utumno fall at the beginning or end of the Great March? The only case for "beginning" is the VI.B claim that the Arising and Fall of Men happened during the Captivity, and that only indicates "beginning" if you take the relative dates of the Awakening/Finding/Fall, rather than the absolute date of 10 VY after the Finding. With several later sources stating or implying that the Fall of Men was solely at Melkor's hands, we can ignore that tenuous argument entirely, and go with the plain text that says Utumno fell after the March was over.

I'll have to work the numbers on most of these points, but other than Beleriand I think this is a solid plan.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Aging - XVIII is later than XVII.3(7), so I have to use 72 years as adulthood for named Elves. All this means is that in the beginning, the Quendi aged faster - which is suggested in multiple generational schemes. I have no problem with that, and it's part of why I didn't list every generation-start date in the first place.

The problem is when a later source contradicts a key earlier one (on which the whole reconstructed timeline is based on, moreoever) in such a way as to make the timeline practically unusable - and I do think it contradicts 'Scheme 7': it's not just that the Elves are grown up by age 24 in the first three generations, it's that the pattern of parent/child age difference doesn't stop at 72. It goes 25 > 37 > 49 > 61 > 73 > 85 > 97 > 109 > 121 > 133 by generation 27.

Also, take a look at this quote (pp. 141-2):

When do Ingwe, Finwe, and Elwe come in? If born before the Finding in FA 2016, they should be then adult, and at least 24: sc. born no later than 1992.

What Tolkien is saying here is effectively that his entire 'Scheme 7' was based on Elves reaching adulthood at 24 loar, even in FA 2016, by generation 20+!

Which implies that there's something else other than Elves reaching adulthood which is pushing the parent/child age gap upwards.



EDIT: Totally irrelevant rant incoming - why do you think Tolkien felt that he should change the '5 generations from OG Elves, c. FA 1080 March' to '24/25 generations from OG Elves, FA 2232 March'?

'Schemes 1 and 2' have:

1) c. 864 years from Awakening to Finding, plenty of time for Melkor to find and terrorize the Elves

2) the total number of Elves at Cuivienen at the onset of the March, c. 26-55,000, a very decent number indeed

3) the infinitely more reasonable (and prettier) 5 generations from OG Elves to Ambassadors (seriously, the later figure of 24/25th generation for the Ambassadors is as comical and ugly as the 72 years for Feanor crossing the ocean)

Why can't he just leave well enough alone??

I'm not suggesting of course that you take up the earlier schemes, but I had to vent somewhere.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Celeborn - the simplest solution here is to leave Celeborn's birth-date in place, but to remove his father's name and reference the later source as to why. There's nothing in the late sources saying he was born in Aman, right? He could still be born on the March; we already saw that there was time for him to be a grandson of Elmo, and Olwe is older. (The rest of Elmo's descendents have no birth-years, so are out of scope anyway.)

Probably best to leave Celeborn's parentage vague (maybe a footnote explaining the possible versions).

However, I think Tolkien's latest word (CT dates it to about a month before Tolkien died) on the subject was that he was a grandson of Olwe (via one of Olwe's sons I assume):

There she met Celeborn, who is here again a Telerin prince, the grandson of Olwë of Alqualondë and thus her close kinsman.

- UT, 'History of Galadriel and Celeborn'

Problem here is of course that it makes Galadriel and Celeborn first cousins.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Celebrimbor - At the risk of being facetious, there's no reason he couldn't be a Teler of Alqualonde and Curufin's son. His birth is long before Feanor's exile, so he could have stayed with a Telerin mother; and PoME notes that Curufin's wife was of wholly different temperament to him. To go full synthesis on the tales, he could have sailed with Celeborn and Galadriel, reconciled with his father and uncles, lived in Nargothrond with them, rejected them, travelled to the Nirnaeth with Gwindor, and wound up retreating to Gondolin with Turgon. –but all that matters is that there's no source contradicting the claim that he was the son of Curufin.

Again, depending on how you date the 'Shibboleth' (even though CT says c. 1968, some of it could very well be later), probably no.

The latest we hear of Celebrimbor's descent is from 'Of Dwarves and Men' (c. 1969):

This was, no doubt, due to the influence of Celebrimbor, a Sinda who claimed descent from Daeron.

- PoME, p. 297

I don't think the gymnastics required to square this with his other accounts is worth it, even if possible.

Concerning Celebrimbor (and Celeborn above) I think we should stick to what CT said:

When my father wrote this [Celebrimbor being a Teler of Aman] he ignored the addition to Appendix B in the Second Edition, stating that Celebrimbor 'was descended from Feanor'; no doubt he had forgotten that that theory had appeared in print, for had he remembered it he would undoubtedly have felt bound by it.

That was probably not always the case, but when in doubt, I think we should take the above quote to heart.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Beleriand - There is no natural divide in the GA timeline (unlike AAm, which splits very nicely into early history / late history blocks): it's all supposed to be early. So other than Elwe's awakening (and Luthien), it all has to be anchored on a single date. There is no obvious right answer; I'll need to work up a table of all the options, once I've got the rest of the numbers adjusted.

Luthien - Given that Luthien's birthdate is fixed solely on the basis of "one third of Melkor's imprisonment", that will need to be maintained. There is no other basis for including her at all.

As I mentiond before, AAm has an interesting note attached to it (note to §81, p. 106):

After the entry for 1190 a new entry was added for the year 1200: 'Luthien born' (with a query).

So if we're following the AAm post Feanor's birth, we should keep this addition. And I think this note might postdate the same entry in the GA.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The Fall of Utumno - Did Utumno fall at the beginning or end of the Great March? The only case for "beginning" is the VI.B claim that the Arising and Fall of Men happened during the Captivity, and that only indicates "beginning" if you take the relative dates of the Awakening/Finding/Fall, rather than the absolute date of 10 VY after the Finding. With several later sources stating or implying that the Fall of Men was solely at Melkor's hands, we can ignore that tenuous argument entirely, and go with the plain text that says Utumno fell after the March was over.

I tend to agree with Melkor being the only one to corrupt Men - however, how is Melkor supposed to come back to Men (the 'second visit') after he is captured (i.e. after the fall of Utumno)?