The Book of Lost Tales Part I: A Readthrough

[Galin]

A major note of what-if lingers about the poem. "The Trees of Kortirion," CT tells us, looks to have been revised nearly a half-century after its original composition, probably about 1962 for a possible inclusion in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. And we're not talking about the ORIGINAL version here, I want to emphasize; we're talking about a version completely overhauled in the wake of the LotR, which--had it been published--would have had equal canonical stature to any of the other Bombadil poems (I give them coëval status with The Hobbit myself).

I would have given it coeval status with all author-published works

This is astounding--to me, anyway--...

I find it very interesting too!

... because the revised, ca.1962, poem is still about a city titled "Kortirion." Is this still the Elvish name for Warwick-in-England? Or is it still the central city of Tol Eressëa? What about the whole "Kor" part of its name? Kôr, we will see more fully later, was the name in the BoLT of the city that the Silmarillion calls Tirion. Did Tolkien still envision "Kor" existing, perhaps as an alternate name for Tirion? Or is it simply part of the name of this other city, with a different--and nowhere elaborated--etymological history? It's hard to imagine that Tolkien didn't at least have a private half-answer in his thoughts to this question.

Cor still works for 'round' things in an Elvish scenario. In the late 1930s the base KOR- meant round, and kôr was a: 'round hill upon which Túna was built'. This connection to roundness, at least, survived into The Lord of the Rings, noting the Elvish word cormacolindor 'Ringbearers', and Tolkien might have retained the idea that a hill could be named for its roundness, as he had early on.

Anyway in this last version of the poem it is the 'Edain' who built Kortirion, and we have (I think) fading companies of Elves, which leads me to think we are not upon Tol Eressea here.

I imagine that Avallone replaced Kortirion as the major city of Eressea. Kortirion was 'central' to the Island if I recall correctly, and (if I again recall correctly) I think there is a hint that the Eressean tree hailed from the midst of the Isle... but I can't locate any late references that speak to Kortirion surviving as a city, from an external perspective.

Perhaps Gondolin was enough of a memory of Tirion in the later scenario? The earlier scenario was: 'Now this city they called Kortirion, both in memory of their ancient dwelling of Kor in Valinor, and because this city stood also upon a hill and had a great tower tall and grey that Ingil son of Inwe their lord let raise.'

But Gondolin was made in memory of Tirion anyway, and it was built upon an 'island-hill'.



Although I think an external connection to Warwick still exists, I'm not sure how this poem could be part of the Red Book and actually refer to an Elvish-named Warwick.

Perhaps that's part of why it was not used in 'Adventures' in the 1960s? It brings up questions of authorship and timing if it is really ultimately about Warwick in England. Could it be a place in Middle-earth built by the Edain... that survived? Still, I think 'England' surviving from the destruction of Beleriand was out by this relatively late date.

In short I'm confused

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Galin

I would have given it coeval status with all author-published works

I wonder if you meant to say "coequal", rather than "coeval"?

coeval means "having the same age or date of origin" implying that all these works were written at the same time.

coequal means "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance."

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Puddleglum

I wonder if you meant to say "coequal", rather than "coeval"?

coeval means "having the same age or date of origin" implying that all these works were written at the same time.

coequal means "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance."

As the one who first brought the word up--Galin was responding to my post--I'll admit I tend to misuse "coëval," but even granting that I did, it's something of an apt mistake in this case, because "having the same age or date of origin" is a relevant matter in this case, because "The Trees of Kortirion" is a revision dating to the 1960s--in other words, its of an age with all the other post-LotR writings, even if the original version was contemporary of the Book of Lost Tales.

(My point of it being coëval with The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and The Hobbit was, admittedly, more focused on co-equality than contemporaneity, but I was referring to the canonicity of each, and in this I am grounding canonicity in the age of the texts--remember, the final version of The Hobbit in Tolkien's lifetime was promulgated in the mid-1960s. And depending on the extent to which you give weight to the dating of a text, the assignment of its canonicity is a point where coëval and coëqual can get stickily intertwined.)

((A further aside: I blame Tolkien for both my knowledge and my misuse of the word "coëval"--I am 99.999% certain I learned it in the context of "Manwë was coëval with Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar" --paraphrasing-- and this is illustrative of the point, perhaps, whereby age and equality intermingle. It gives nuance to the text that I did not pick up on as a teenager to note that Tolkien is saying that Manwë and Melkor are "of the same age" in the mind of their creator, but the reason this is relevant in the text is because Manwë and Melkor are both mightily powerful and important Valar, and while it may be a mistake on teenaged-me's part to read the text as being a direct proof of their co-equality, nonetheless their contemporaneity IS a proof of their similar status--not least because it does not seem to me that there should be time--and thus contemporaneity at all--in the mind of Eru, but also because "coëval" is essentially a synonym of "peer."))

[Puddleglum]

I, too, read "coeval" as "equal in power" when I first read Silmarillion (also as a teenager when it first came out). It was only later I learned more about "coeval" and I think now that Tolkien really did understand it's nuance and use it intentionally meaning that they were "created" together as (dare I suggest) non-identical twins - one of whom had greater gifts but was motivated by increasing his own position and power, while the other was wiser and more humble (more willing to seek the glory of his father, rather than his own).

Actually, I wonder now if Tolkien's knowledge of the twins Esau & Jacob may have informed his subcreation of Melkor & Manwe. [note, I don't say inspired - but may have provided insights he used in giving them their qualities]

A few related quotes:

• "Mightiest among (the Ainur) is Melkor" (implying mightier than Manwe - though not, necessarily, more noble in spirit).
• "In the powers and knowledge of all the other Valar (Melkor) had part". Not said of Manwe - implying Melkor has more raw strength and knowledge than Manwe.
• "Manwe and Melkor" were bretheren in the thought of Illuvatar" even though "mightiest of those who came into the World was, in his beginning, Melkor."
• In the Valaquenta it's interesting that Tulkas is the strongest of the Valar (implying stronger than Manwe) even though Melkor is called the Mightiest of the Ainur (therefore also of the Valar who were a subset of Ainur) - hence stronger than Tulkas (at least, in his beginnings). Implying again that Melkor was stronger than Manwe.

Also, I seem to recall something in one of the HoME books about Manwe, after Melkor's first defeat at Utumno, being surprised how easily Melkor was beaten - not realizing how his power had become disbursed in the mastering of Arda and expecting him to be FAR more powerful then himself.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Puddleglum

[*]In the Valaquenta it's interesting that Tulkas is the strongest of the Valar (implying stronger than Manwe) even though Melkor is called the Mightiest of the Ainur (therefore also of the Valar who were a subset of Ainur) - hence stronger than Tulkas (at least, in his beginnings). Implying again that Melkor was stronger than Manwe.[/LIST]

Do you think there's a distinction here between pure brawn and overarching force?

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by IxnaY AintsaY

Do you think there's a distinction here between pure brawn and overarching force?

Well, pure brawn fits into the 'who would win a fight', whereas actual power is more 'who has more reach, and more power of more things'.

Tulkas is basically all brawn. Melkor had legitimate power, and although he was defeated, that only angered him, rather than ruined his plans completely.

Melkor appears to be among the smartest of the Valar, and it was specifically stated in one of the books that Melkor had the most power and knowledge after learning from Eru Illuvatar.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Puddleglum

Also, I seem to recall something in one of the HoME books about Manwe, after Melkor's first defeat at Utumno, being surprised how easily Melkor was beaten - not realizing how his power had become disbursed in the mastering of Arda and expecting him to be FAR more powerful then himself.

Yep it's in Morgoth's Ring:

"So that they come at last to Utumno itself and find that 'the Morgoth' has no longer for the moment sufficient 'force' (in any sense) to shield himself from direct personal contact. Manwë at last faces Melkor again, as he has not done since he entered Arda. Both are amazed: Manwë to perceive the decrease in Melkor as a person; Melkor to perceive this also from his own point of view: he has now less personal force than Manwë, and can no longer daunt him with his gaze."

But this is a later development, coming as it does from the 1955 essay 'Melkor Morgoth' in which Professor Tolkien states outright "Melkor must be made far more powerful in original nature" and "Later, he must not be able to be controlled or 'chained' by all the Valar combined."
I must admit that I'm not one hundred per cent about this, but is it not the case that originally Manwë and Melkor were conceived of as being equally powerful, then at a later stage Melkor became more powerful than him? Until of course he was conceived of as being more powerful than all the Valar put together. And by 'the Valar' does it mean just the Valar, or all Ainur?

I get the impression Professor Tolkien felt that for the 'metaphysical maths' to work regarding Morgoth constantly imbuing his essence into his servants, the earth, etc, and still be at least somewhat formidable, his original power would have to be extraordinarily great.

[Galin]

I have to admit I didn't think about the word really, in my response.

I didn't mean to cofuse the discussion in any case

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by IxnaY AintsaY

Do you think there's a distinction here between pure brawn and overarching force?

I do think there is, so the Tulkas/Melkor/Manwe comparison (at least) is less than clear (could be some mixing of apples & oranges). Good point.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

but is it not the case that originally Manwë and Melkor were conceived of as being equally powerful

Well, I'm not sure if anything Tolkien wrote directly points to them being equal in might at any point in the story development - if you know of one, I'd be interested in it.

I wonder what we would have grown up thinking about their relative power if Tolkien had never used the word "coeval". Would we have gotten the idea of equal might somewhere else? Or would we have grown up thinking of Melkor as the single most mighty Ainu (the arch-prince, as it were) whose power went to his head?

For my part, I've sort of grown up thinking of Melkor as Lucifer to Manwe's Michael (or Gabriel?) - given Tolkien's Catholic background - so it could be I'm influenced by that.

Originally Posted by Galin

I didn't mean to confuse the discussion in any case

I never thought you confused anything - just gave an opportunity for discussion of an obscure (to modern minds) word - which I kind of enjoy