3 Concerning Naugrim, Ents and Eagles

[Findegil]

DE-EX-10: Agreed.

DE-EX-11: Okay, we skipt this.

DE-SC-06: Okay, if both of you think we should removed it, we will do it.

DE-SC-08: Opps, sorry it seems I wrote it wrong way around. We will removed the sentence.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Great - I think with that, we have resolved everything for this chapter.

[ArcusCalion]

This is going great guys! Can I just take a moment to say how awesome it is to be a part of this project? Thank you guys for starting this all those years ago, and for continuing on with it. It's really amazing!

[Elvellon]

A couple of things I noticed:

In DE-EX-07b, DE-EX-07.3, DE-EX-07.6, DE-EX-09, and DE-EX-10, there are instances of "Aule" instead of "Aulë".

DE-EX-04: "Yet the making of thing..." should be "Yet the making of things..."

DE-EX-05: An instance of "Iluvatar" instead of "Ilúvatar".

If these sorts of minor corrections are inappropriate for this stage of the project, please don't hesitate to say so.

[Findegil]

Thank you for pointing out these typos. I correted them in my woking copy, which is the basis for all new posts done by me in the privat forum. So when ever the chapter will be updated there they will be corrected.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

I have problems with the deletion of the mention of Durin in this line:

The reappearance, at long intervals, of the person of one of the Dwarf-fathers, in the lines of their kings {- e.g. especially Durin - }is not when examined probably one of rebirth, but of the preservation of the body of a former King {Durin (say) }to which at intervals his spirit would return

While it's true that in the LOTR, Durin VII (the Last) is implied to be a descendant of Thorin III Stonehelm, I'm not sure that the situation here is as clear cut as it may seem.


Remember, the Dwarvish genealogy in the 'Appendix A' was provided by Gimli, and as such it might not reflect the actual state of the matter.

Gimli might simply be wrong in his interpretation of the prophecy of Durin the Last, or, alternatively he simply was not allowed to share such 'sacred' information, even to his friends.

The passage in question reads like this:

The matter of the Dwarves, whose traditions (so far as they became known to Elves or men) contained beliefs that appeared to allow for re-birth, may have contributed to the false notions above dealt with. But this is another matter which already has been noted in the 'Silmarillion'. Here it may be said, however, that the reappearance, at long intervals, of the person of one of the Dwarf-fathers, in the lines of their Kings – e.g. especially Durin – is not when examined probably one of re-birth, but of the preservation of the body of a former King Durin (say) to which at intervals his spirit would return. But the relations of the Dwarves to the Valar, and especially to the Vala Aulë, are (as it seems) quite different from those of Elves and Men.

And given that the LOTR and its appendices went through major historical revisions, I have no doubt that some of the 'Mannish garblings' found their way into them.


P.S. It makes zero sense that the forum kept the above passage while removing Durin, given that he serves as the prime example of the latest idea about the Dwarves. I mean, why would the other fathers of the Dwarves have their bodies preserved, with their spirits coming back to their bodies at intervals - but not Durin: the father of the fathers of Dwarves and the most revered of them all?!

[Findegil]

Arvegil145, ArcusCalion already remaked on that back very early in the thread and since than the '- e-g- especially Durin -' is back in our text. We only left out the next ' ... of former King {Durin (say) }to which ...'.

I hope that is okay for you.
Respectfully
Findegil