[Aiwendil]

Good questions, Maedhros.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Information in sources of lower level priority are to be preferred over information in sources of higher level priority where the item of information in source of higher level priority can be reasonably demonstrated to be an error, whether a "slip of the pen" or from inadequate checking of previous writing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Could you clarify this please?

The idea is that in certain cases, texts that are given higher priority by principles 1 and 2 are clearly in error. For example, in the appendices to LotR, one of the kings of Numenor was inadvertantly omitted. This error was documented in Unfinished Tales. So, even though LotR has priority over UT according to principle 1, we can use the UT version, since it specifically corrects the error, and the error is clearly demonstratable.

Would this fall on this category?
And also for example the use of Men in the fall of Gondolin when it clearly referst to Elves and even Orcs. Does that falls in here too?

The conflict inherent (and inevitable) in principle 6a is this: we are directed to alter texts to agree with texts of greater priority; but we are also constrained to change them minimally. So, as with many of the other principles, there is an elusive equilibrium point: how do we know when the contradiction is significant enough to warrant the change? There is no easy answer to this, and it is in this decision that we must exercise judgement in each peculiar case.

So, in the example of 'men' being used of male Elves: I would argue that there is very little, if any, contradiction between the use of 'men' in this way and the use of 'Men' to refer to humans; the possibility of contradiction here is thus not enough to warrant a change to the text. One who made the counter-argument would have to argue that there is a contradiction, and that it is significant enough to warrant the change.

The matter of the "Children of Iluvatar" is slightly different. Here, we are also dealing with the possibility that the phrase in Ainulindale D was an error made in copying Ainulindale C. So the arguments here would depend on both 5 and 6a.

Does the Mechanical dragons fall in this category.

Yes. Of course, as I've said before, it is still possible to make arguments both for and against mechanical dragons. But principle 7b certainly justifies the argument against them; that is, that there is implicit evidence that the mechanical dragons disappeared from the later mythology.

Are the aesthetics used in for example the Fall of Gondolin.
There is a great diff in the narrative between the Bolt Fog and the Unfisished Tales Version of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin.
From what I have been able to read, I think it's outside of the scope of the principles, Right?

Yes, the question of stylistic changes has purposefully not been considered yet. The current principles do not allow us to make stylistic changes to the texts, but we have discussed the possibility of, at some later stage, going back and doing stylistic changes.

The gist of the "aesthetics" phrase in principle 7 is this: we can't simply decide, for example, to keep the thousands of balrogs just because we like the story better that way. In determining the actual events of the story, we must not base our decisions on personal judgement, but rather on the principles.