The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Saurondil · 08-07-2021, 09:43 PM

To make a Biblical analogy: for most Christians - with the significant exception of Protestantism - there are 14 chapters in the OT Book of Daniel. In the Jewish Bible, there are 12. Protestantism very early adopted the Jewish reckoning. Chapters 13 and 14 (and about 2/3 of chapter are Greek additions to the body of the book, which is in Hebrew. These "Additions to Daniel" are 3 of the works commonly known to Protestants as "the Apocrypha". Catholics call the 12 Hebrew chapters "proto-canonical", and the Greek additions "deutero-canonical" - all 14 chapters are recognised as equal in canonicity, but the Hebrew parts of the book enjoy a certain priority over the Greek additions.

Similarly here. IMHO:

1) TH, LOTR, and the 5 works in the Silmarillion count as fully canonical. When editions of a work disagree or are in error, I take the most recent as (unless otherwise indicated) the surest guide to the author's latest canonical intentions - later ideas not published or not published as books, do not have the same authority. They would count as protocanonical, with the possibility of a gradation even within those works.

2) In second place come unfinished pieces such as those in UT. I think of them as canonical in a lesser degree - they are canonical, in so far as they agree with, or at least do not contradict, the works in group 1. I would reckon some of them as at least deuterocanonical.

So the works in UT about Numenor would count as deuterocanonical - the discussion of Celeborn and Galadriel, might not. The Disaster of the Gladden Fields disagrees with Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age over why the disaster happened. As ORPTA makes an error about the relative dates of the Finding of the Ring & the ending of the Kings in Gondor, I accept ORPTA as canonical, but not as always.correct; and I would supplement it by TDGF, and treat TDGF as (in this respect) more reliable. A work of generally more authoritative status can therefore be supplemented, and even corrected, by a work of lower status.

The three incompletely consistent deaths of Isildur, in LOTR, ORPTA & TDGF, are rather like the three incompletely consistent deaths of Antiochus IV in the Apocrypha; or like the two deaths of Judas Iscariot in the NT.

How many (legitimate) Rulers of Numenor were there ? According to the 1977 Sil and Appendix A of LOTR, 24; according to UT, 25. The list in UT explains and corrects those in Sil & LOTR, so I go with UT. Aldarion and Erendis adds a lot of detail, including many names, to the canonical info about Numenor; so I accept those details as accurate and canonical.

3) In third place I would put the Book Of Lost Tales. I don't regard any of it as canonical. It is all certainly of great interest, but as evidence of the development of Tolkien's imagination and of the development of the stories; not as a source of lore about the feigned history and the world in which it is set. The archaic literary style is not what separates it from the first 2 groups. What makes it different, is that many of the ideas "are in serious disharmony" with ideas in those other books.

4) After that, I would put HOME volumes 3 to 12.

If groups 1 and 2 are like the parts of the Catholic canon of the Bible, perhaps groups 3 and 4 are like the Jewish legends and speculations that grew up around the Biblical material - not canonical material, not even secondary to that, but in a circle of ideas even further removed from the "epicentre" of full canonicity. If full canonicity is like the epicentre of a splash in a pool, group 4 shares in the same imagination as created the first 3 groups; but is of much lower authoritativeness.

I think the question of canonicity is well worth discussing; but I think it cannot be separated from questions of authoritativeness and authenticity.

08-07-2021, 09:43 PM	#16
Saurondil Animated Skeleton Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: North-East of the Great Sea Posts: 38	To make a Biblical analogy: for most Christians - with the significant exception of Protestantism - there are 14 chapters in the OT Book of Daniel. In the Jewish Bible, there are 12. Protestantism very early adopted the Jewish reckoning. Chapters 13 and 14 (and about 2/3 of chapter are Greek additions to the body of the book, which is in Hebrew. These "Additions to Daniel" are 3 of the works commonly known to Protestants as "the Apocrypha". Catholics call the 12 Hebrew chapters "proto-canonical", and the Greek additions "deutero-canonical" - all 14 chapters are recognised as equal in canonicity, but the Hebrew parts of the book enjoy a certain priority over the Greek additions. Similarly here. IMHO: 1) TH, LOTR, and the 5 works in the Silmarillion count as fully canonical. When editions of a work disagree or are in error, I take the most recent as (unless otherwise indicated) the surest guide to the author's latest canonical intentions - later ideas not published or not published as books, do not have the same authority. They would count as protocanonical, with the possibility of a gradation even within those works. 2) In second place come unfinished pieces such as those in UT. I think of them as canonical in a lesser degree - they are canonical, in so far as they agree with, or at least do not contradict, the works in group 1. I would reckon some of them as at least deuterocanonical. So the works in UT about Numenor would count as deuterocanonical - the discussion of Celeborn and Galadriel, might not. The Disaster of the Gladden Fields disagrees with Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age over why the disaster happened. As ORPTA makes an error about the relative dates of the Finding of the Ring & the ending of the Kings in Gondor, I accept ORPTA as canonical, but not as always.correct; and I would supplement it by TDGF, and treat TDGF as (in this respect) more reliable. A work of generally more authoritative status can therefore be supplemented, and even corrected, by a work of lower status. The three incompletely consistent deaths of Isildur, in LOTR, ORPTA & TDGF, are rather like the three incompletely consistent deaths of Antiochus IV in the Apocrypha; or like the two deaths of Judas Iscariot in the NT. How many (legitimate) Rulers of Numenor were there ? According to the 1977 Sil and Appendix A of LOTR, 24; according to UT, 25. The list in UT explains and corrects those in Sil & LOTR, so I go with UT. Aldarion and Erendis adds a lot of detail, including many names, to the canonical info about Numenor; so I accept those details as accurate and canonical. 3) In third place I would put the Book Of Lost Tales. I don't regard any of it as canonical. It is all certainly of great interest, but as evidence of the development of Tolkien's imagination and of the development of the stories; not as a source of lore about the feigned history and the world in which it is set. The archaic literary style is not what separates it from the first 2 groups. What makes it different, is that many of the ideas "are in serious disharmony" with ideas in those other books. 4) After that, I would put HOME volumes 3 to 12. If groups 1 and 2 are like the parts of the Catholic canon of the Bible, perhaps groups 3 and 4 are like the Jewish legends and speculations that grew up around the Biblical material - not canonical material, not even secondary to that, but in a circle of ideas even further removed from the "epicentre" of full canonicity. If full canonicity is like the epicentre of a splash in a pool, group 4 shares in the same imagination as created the first 3 groups; but is of much lower authoritativeness. I think the question of canonicity is well worth discussing; but I think it cannot be separated from questions of authoritativeness and authenticity.