The Translator Conceit

[HerenIstarion]

Newly consecrated young monk has entered into service at a monastery famous for its archive of sacred texts, and has been given a task of copying manuscripts. Despite availability of originals, he found that monks were copying from earlier copies, whilst originals were kept in the basement for safekeeping. Being of inquisitive mind, young monk asked an audience with the prior to learn the reason of such practice.

'Why don't we copy from originals, father?' he asked.
'Why? My son, I'm not sure... it is tradition, I suppose. Besides, if we take them out too often, we may damage them'
'Yes, father, you're right. But, if we never take them out for comparison, we may omit incorrigible errors in our copying. How do you know we are not copying some error, or number of such, for generations already?'
'You know, my son, I believe our copiers, you yourself included, are mostly diligent, so no errors slipped our notice. Yet, to sooth your worries down, I'll check documents you've copied against originals myself. Wait for me here; it must not take more than half an hour.

Prior went off to the basement where originals were kept, yet came not back in half an hour, nor in an hour. In fact, he’s been missing for a day or two. Worried, young monk went after him to the basement, and found him in poor state. Prior's garments were in disorder, hair stood on end, cheeks were feverishly red. He sat on the floor, and all round him original manuscripts were scattered. Monk ran down the stair to him.

‘What happened, father? Why do you sit on the floor? Are you feeling well?’
‘What?... Who?!... Ah, it's you, my son…you were right, we’ve been copying an error for generations… too late now… yet it was written that monks should celebrate in the original, as I’ve just found out… not monks should celibate … too late now….'

Kidding apart, but approaches as you suggest are not alternative. If the story I’ve just provided you with (and do hope all who’ve read it took it as light humor and nothing more) have been true, it would illustrate that even venerable (and diligent) scribes may err sometimes.

So, my own approach would be a mix, something along the lines of Received Tradition of Venerable, yet sometimes Fallible (for records being in contradiction) Recorders

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'm quite convinced that Tolkien intended the former, but I'm not convinced that he would deplore the latter. The former is a typically pre-Renaissance approach toward ancient documents, the latter a typically post-Renaissance.

But surely we have in Bilbo's own story a clear account of a 'false' version of events deliberately concocted by a scribe.

The very existence of one 'false' account of historical events in the Legendarium calls the veracity of the others into question. Plus, which of the many versions of the Sil are the 'correct' one - the many, sometimes Fallible Authors theory allows us all of them, the 'Venerable Recorders' version requires us to through most of them out.

In other words, if we think in terms of FA's we can accept all the writings as part of a vast mythology, constructed by various hands, with different agendas, different kinds of information & differing levels of talent, but if we choose to go down the VR road, we have to reject, say, the Quenta in favour of the 77 Sil, or both of them in favour of the BoLT.

Now, possible Tolkien wanted us to have one final version of the stories after he had rejected all the others, but he never got there, so we can have all the M-e writings together - but only if we reject the VR approach in favour of the FA.

[drigel]

venerable (and diligent) scribes may err sometimes.

There is a parallel to our own history, and the authors passion for learning history. The cycle tends to be that a culture rises, flourishes, falls and is largely forgotton except for some scant archeological evidence. Luckily, we find, occaisionally and fortuitously, an old, worn book that some monk has written (or contributed to as a group), after gathering together various local folklore - usually hundreds of years after the fact. Whether commisioned for a purpose other than an actual transmission of available information, or not, the fact for us is that, other than some morter and bricks, that book is all we have for information. It's rarely (post Roman era) firsthand information, but to me, that deepens the enchantment and enriches the mystery. Who is the author(s)? What was the motivation? What are the differences between two authors covering the same particular subject of history? Its a love of those books, and of a time where all lore, knowledge and enlightenment resided in between book covers. An intentional effect used well by the author.

As to LMP's query - VR or FH? I would have to waffle on that like Heren. For myself, it's more of an appreciation of the creative process. The author had the final say, and unfortunately, the creation in total was never completed.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

But surely we have in Bilbo's own story a clear account of a 'false' version of events deliberately concocted by a scribe.

This is true, but I don't know how heavily one can lean on this in arguing a general point about the Translator Conceit. The 'false version' was after all a very special case - it was in fact a clever trick, a gimmick, used to get around the problem of contradictions between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I very much doubt that Tolkien would have thought of or used such a device had he not been faced with such a situation.

Plus, which of the many versions of the Sil are the 'correct' one - the many, sometimes Fallible Authors theory allows us all of them, the 'Venerable Recorders' version requires us to through most of them out.

There are two issues here that ought not to be conflated. First, there are contradictions between texts in which Tolkien simply changed his mind about the story and re-wrote it. Second, there are contradictions between texts that are purported to come from different 'scribes'. Clear examples of the first would be many places where Tolkien cancelled lines of a manuscript and replaced them with a new version. A clear example of the second would be the 'false story' in the first edition of The Hobbit.

I would argue that the varying versions of the Silmarillion primarily constitute a set of contradictory texts of the first class. There is no indication, for example, that when Tolkien wrote the 'Sketch of the Mythology' and its revisions (including the 'Quenta Silmarillion') he intended them to be merely a 'different tradition' than the Book of Lost Tales. On the contrary, all indications are that he intended the story told therein to replace that from the Book of Lost Tales. This is especially evident in the case of the 'Sketch', which was initially intended merely as a summary of the mythology contained in BoLT and was clearly not supposed to be an alternative tradition - and yet which tells a story that is different in many ways from BoLT.

There are cases where one can make a good case for two versions representing different traditions - perhaps the most obvious example from HoMe is 'The Drowning of Anadune'. But one cannot view all the vast complex of contradictory Silmarillion texts this way. Or rather, if one chooses to do so, that is a creative, "fan fictional" way of viewing things.

[davem]

There are cases where one can make a good case for two versions representing different traditions - perhaps the most obvious example from HoMe is 'The Drowning of Anadune'. But one cannot view all the vast complex of contradictory Silmarillion texts this way. Or rather, if one chooses to do so, that is a creative, "fan fictional" way of viewing things.

Surely one can view the texts in any way one chooses. The texts are simply the texts. Actually this approach would have solved a lot of Tolkien's problems if he had adopted it.

[littlemanpoet]

It seems that my use of the latinate has resulted in tangentially inferred connotations. In other words, my "venerable recorders" wording got you thinking about monks. What if I had said "renowned loremasters" instead?

But as to the tangent. It should be noted that novices were never allowed into the Scriptoriums of the monasteries to do copying. That was a high craft that was reserved for those who had proved themselves for their eye for detail and/or their "craftiness" with illuminations. No doubt there were errors, as they are inevitable; however, they were fewer than most of us have been led to believe, having been inured in the prejudices of moderns against medievals. Enough about the tangent.

Originally Posted by davem

...if we think in terms of FA's we can accept all the writings as part of a vast mythology, constructed by various hands, with different agendas, different kinds of information & differing levels of talent, but if we choose to go down the VR road, we have to reject, say, the Quenta in favour of the 77 Sil, or both of them in favour of the BoLT.

Originally Posted by davem

Surely one can view the texts in any way one chooses.

You cannot have it both ways, my dear fellow.

I appreciate the clear logic provided by Aiwendil: another useful distinction.

Finally, as pertains to renowned loremasters: it must be remembered that the myth with which we are concerned, contained individuals who were thousands of years old and had memories that stretched back for eons. Galadriel is the best example. Cirdan and Elrond also come to mind. Any loremasters who copied from originals were most likely Elves themselves, and had at least one of these persons with whom they could check their facts. So the Translator Conceit as it applies to "fallible scribes" must be considered with these realities of Middle Earth taken into account.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You cannot have it both ways, my dear fellow.

I think if you read my responses in context you'll see I'm not trying to. Of course, as we all know, the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes...

Finally, as pertains to renowned loremasters: it must be remembered that the myth with which we are concerned, contained individuals who were thousands of years old and had memories that stretched back for eons. Galadriel is the best example. Cirdan and Elrond also come to mind. Any loremasters who copied from originals were most likely Elves themselves, and had at least one of these persons with whom they could check their facts. So the Translator Conceit as it applies to "fallible scribes" must be considered with these realities of Middle Earth taken into account.

Which was always Tolkien's problem - specifically, but not solely, as regards the Flat earth/Round earth situation. Therefore he has to move more & more to the concept of the texts not being produced by the Elves at all, but by Men sundered from the Elves, in Numenor & Gondor. The Elves, naturally, knew the real story, but Men only had mangled traditions, etc..

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

[Tolkien] has to move more & more to the concept of the texts not being produced by the Elves at all, but by Men sundered from the Elves, in Numenor & Gondor. The Elves, naturally, knew the real story, but Men only had mangled traditions, etc..

So you're saying that Tolkien created the Translator Conceit - as something among Men - as a direct result of what he saw as contradictions within his mythology?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So you're saying that Tolkien created the Translator Conceit - as something among Men - as a direct result of what he saw as contradictions within his mythology?

I do not intend to answer for davem, but I'm more than willing to share my own opinion. I do believe that may have been one of the reasons, but probably, one of the later reasons (when major contradictions of round/flat earth, solar system/tree-centered system etc started to surface) at that. As it was originally applied (and maybe intended too), 'TC' just served as one of the means of 'credibility' (or, to use more 'clever' word much loved around these here 'high-brow' discussions - 'verisimilitude' ), i.e., to assist same old 'suspension of disbelief'. I very much share Tolkien's dissapointment with authors weaving really good fantasies only to
flick the reader on the nose in the end telling him that all of the story was 'only a dream'. 'Documentariness', declared in the very beginning of the book, is intended to help reader 'trust' the author (I, at least, felt something along the following lines: good, this is translation, that is, all of these really happened, this guy won't take me in and than tell me it was just a little girl's dream in the end)

[davem]

Interesting new angle on the subject - Adam Thorpe's new novel 'Hodd', which I'm currently halfway through.

Hodd is certainly an ambitious piece of work: it purports to be the English translation of copy of a Latin manuscript, discovered by a British army officer in a bombed out church during the Great War. Said officer, also a scholar, takes it upon himself to translate and annotate the manuscript, and we also have occassional interjections by Thorpe himself and several other ‘unknown hands’. It’s so utterly consistent and compelling that you feel if Adam Thorpe had teamed up with a master forger instead of a literary agent, quite a few people might have been convinced to rewrite history for real!http://www.bookgeeks.co.uk/2009/05/2...y-adam-thorpe/

Adam Thorpe has defined writing as a way of surviving the solitary confinement of the writer's situation, by "dreaming up a different existence (fiction) or shaping memory into significance (poetry)". Hodd - a story, we must presume, already only a version of itself - allows us to watch both processes as they remake a reality that, in a sense, never existed. But it's also a novel of sly and powerful ironies in which, at every turn, a kind of visionary fundamentalism trumps the humanity of its narrator. All Matthew ever wants is a father, and all he ever gets offered is ideas. We don't know whether to laugh or cry at this lifelong vulnerability.http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009...-thorpe-review

Many echoes of Tolkien's creation & the idea of the Translator conceit as he used it - the WWI officer who discovers, & subsequently translates into modern English, an ancient manuscript, & the emphasis on the father/son relationship, where the son is constantly seeking the lost father.. Of course, if you read the reviews, let alone the book itself (well worth it, too) you'll realise that Thorpe is doing a very different thing to Tolkien - Tolkien is offering an 'ideal' past, of heroes & magic, wonder & beauty, whereas Thorpe (via his narrator) demolishing the heroic ideal of Robin Hood. A very interesting counterpoint to Tolkien......