View Single Post
Old 03-21-2004, 08:28 PM   #77
Maédhros
The Kinslayer
 
Maédhros's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Formenos
Posts: 658
Maédhros has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via MSN to Maédhros
Quote:
So when I understand rightly what was said so far, than
- we all want to hold the discription of Yavanna as a tree, if we can find a good way to do so.
- we know that the passage under discussion is not a footnote but a verbal aside from Pengoloð to Ælfwine.
- we agree that Ælfwine is to be deleted and that therefore the passage can not stand as it is.
- we also agree that in the Ainulindalë as we created it, is a footnote to §19 (not directly connected to the passage under discussion) that is asigned "Quoth Pengoloð."
Quote:
Aiwendil and Maedhros suggested to incorporate the passage into the text, by deleting the indications of the spoken communication. This would mean to make the observer of scene unkown and to give the actuel wording to Rúmil. The advantage is that we hold the passage as a part of the text.

Antoine and I suggested to move the passage into a footnote. The advantage is that we could leave the passage in the mouth of Pengoloð without to much emendations in the passage itself. The disadvantage is that we lift a spoken word of Pengoloð to a writen word a scribed to or written by Pengoloð and that we create a textual footnote (in contrast to editorial footnotes) which we have avioded so far.
I'm a little intrigued so far with the problem that we are having in trying to accomodate Yavanna's tree passage into the text. The problem it seems lies in the fact that the passage comes from Pengoloð and not from Rúmil, meanwhile if we use a footnote, we would know for sure that the passage came from Pengoloð and not from Rúmil, and we have a precedent of another footnote in the Ainulindalë.
My first original idea agreed with Antoine, use a footnote in the text because we have a precedent in the Ainulindalë. But as I worked with the Fall of Gondolin, I came to dislike the idea of it. As I was re-reading our version today, I noted some interesting things:
Quote:
§ 14... But {thou must understand, Ælfwine,} that when the Ainur had beheld this habitation in a vision and had seen the Children of Ilúvatar arise therein, then many of the most mighty of the Holy Ones bent all their thought and their desire towards that place. And of these Melkor was the chief, even as he was in the beginning the greatest of the Ainur who took part in the Music. And he feigned, even to himself at first, that he desired to go thither and order all things for the good of the Children of Ilúvatar, controlling the turmoils of the heat and the cold that had come to pass through him. But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subjects and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.
and this one...
Quote:
§21 Thus it came to pass that of the Holy Ones some abode still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this condition Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should henceforth be contained and bounded in the World, and be within it for ever, so that they are its life and it is theirs. And therefore{, Ælfwine,} we name them the Valar, the Powers of the World.
How is it that in these two passages, we had no trouble keeping the text into our main narrative yet have have the problem in section §25.? Am I missing something here?
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy."
Maédhros is offline   Reply With Quote