How close is the published The Silmarillion to JRRT's Silmarillion?

[Galin]

Whaddayamean if?

Okay if.

So not that anyone is really questioning me so far, but might as well post the reference from The Shibboleth of Feanor [the first of two]:

'... Galadriel's hair. Galad occurs also in the epesse of Ereinion ('scion of kings') by which he was chiefly remembered in legend, Gil-galad 'star of radiance': he was the last king of the Eldar in Middle-earth, and the last male descendant of Finwe* except Elrond the Half-elven.'

Author's note, note 47: 'He was the son of Arothir, nephew of Finrod.' [see the note on the parentage of Gil-galad, pp. 349 ff. -- From this work was derived Gil-galad's name Ereinion introduced into The Silmarillion.]'

The Peoples Of Middle-Earth

I take Christopher Tolkien to mean ['from this work'] The Shibboleth of Feanor here, itself dated 1968 or later, and the note making Gil-galad the son of Arothir is dated earlier than the Shibboleth, at 1965. Ereinion in Aldarion And Erendis was an editorial change by Christopher Tolkien, and does not occur in the original, which actually had 'Finellach Gil-galad of the House of Finarfin' rather. Other instances in Unfinished Tales seem to be Christopher Tolkien employing the name while describing something.

So far I can't find any other earlier instance of Ereinion, so that's why I say this name occurs only after Gil-galad became, once again, a Finarfinian.

Again just to post it, and to help explain my reference to Finwe earlier.

[Leaf]

Regarding

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

How close would you feel the published Silmarillion is to a version of it that JRRT would've published himself had he lived? Like, percentage wise I guess?

I think the biggest difference between CT´s Silmarillion and a hypothetical version of the Silmarillion made by J.R.R. Tolkien himself would be the frame of the story or the structure of the narrative in general. As it is the structure of the published Silmarillion lacks a history of transmission which is by all means not very tolkienesque. I suppose we all know a great deal about Tolkiens different approaches regarding this subject (Ælfwine etc.). But the question how this allegedly old myths are told seems to be nearly as important as the content of the myths itself. I guess that discussing the various versions of the myths (purely on a contentual level) dismisses this important matter. It´s hard to rate this difference (percentage wise) because it would be substantially distinct from what we´ve got.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

Whaddayamean if?

My apologies. I read your post and you seemed rather dubious about your information. You stated:

Plus, I think the only text with Ereinion in it [unless I've missed another reference] dates rather late, ...

Looking up your references indicates to me that you are entirely correct, inasmuch as Christopher Tolkien originally knew the name Ereinion only from the article “The Shibboleth of Fëanor” in The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME XII). Other references are taken from there and later are considered by him to be erroneous.

I agree from checking the word scion in several dictionaries that scion means generally “heir of noble birth”, not necessarily a descendant of a king or king, and so equally would be a meaningful name whether Gil-Galad be taken as a son of Fingon or a son of Orodreth.

I note that Tolkien does not even mention Orodreth (or Orodreth’s daughter Finduilas) in Galadriel’s statement brought forth by mhagain. Presumably Orodreth has been forgotten by Tolkien accidentally or Orodreth is now considered to be a son of Finrod and so not mentioned by Galadriel in her utterance concerning her siblings.

Originally Posted by Leaf

I think the biggest difference between CT´s Silmarillion and a hypothetical version of the Silmarillion made by J.R.R. Tolkien himself would be the frame of the story or the structure of the narrative in general.

I agree. Christopher Tolkien could have included some of the material stating that the Silmarillion was only Númenorian legend but may have felt that that would have been too complicated a concept. Best just let the Silmarillion stand as story without any frame.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

My apologies. I read your post and you seemed rather dubious about your information.

No apology necessary as I was just joking a bit there [thus the wink emoticon]; and yes I wasn't sure.

I note that Tolkien does not even mention Orodreth (or Orodreth’s daughter Finduilas) in Galadriel’s statement brought forth by mhagain. Presumably Orodreth has been forgotten by Tolkien accidentally or Orodreth is now considered to be a son of Finrod and so not mentioned by Galadriel in her utterance concerning her siblings.

Yep. In note 20 to The Elessar [mhagain's quote is from this text] CJRT also refers to this as noteworthy. Time-wise CJRT guesses The Elessar text was 'probably' written at the same time, or a little earlier than, Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn -- which according to Hammond and Scull, was itself 'perhaps' written at the end of the 1950s.

Not that you didn't know, but to try and note the relative dating of things.

[jallanite]

I didn’t know where mhagain’s quotation was taken from and did not feel like spending hours looking for it, particularly when the quotation didn’t contain the name Orodreth.

Thanks for the info.