Oversight, or changing conceptions?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Except he didn't. My Second Edition has "Finrod," bold as brass. The correction to "Finarfin" was posthumous, in 1976 (originally only the UK edition; the change wasn't made to the H-M until the Anderson revision in 1987,* and in the Ballantine never).

Yikes. I've had it my head for years that Tolkien changed it for the revised edition! Although Christopher Tolkien writes [Unfinished Tales, note 20, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn] . . .


"Before the revised edition of The Lord of the Rings was published in 1966 my father changed Finrod to Finarfin, while his son Felagund, previously called Inglor Felagund, became Finrod Felagund. Two passages in the Appendices B and F were accordingly emended for the revised edition -- It is noteworthy that Orodreth . . ."

. . . according to Hammond and Scull, as you say, the change wasn't seen in print until after Tolkien's passing.

As for the names being "Sindarin"- why shouldn't they have been? Tolkien was very consistent in all the First Age texts in using what were originally Noldorin name-forms, and came up with a nifty ret-con for why the same forms (now "Sindarin") were used in later histories.

In Words, Phrases and Passages (PE17) Tolkien notes that Finrod should not have a Sindarin name because he stayed in Aman. And in Tolkien's "ultimate" conception of the name Finarfin, it's characterized as a Sindarization of Finwe Arafinwe in any case, and JRRT explains why, even though he remained in Aman.

Or as I might be soon writing: as Finrod stayed in Aman

And there we have a decent example of things being changed out from under the published text of the LR in the background, and the LR being altered to suit.

Well, is what we have here an authorized alteration?

And by that I don't mean -- is this change evidenced in posthumously published accounts -- I mean does the choice to alter already published text here come from JRRT himself (but the change didn't, for whatever reason, end up in the revised edition until after Tolkien's passing)?

And if it's not authorized, how does this stand alongside Christopher Tolkien's choice to "alter" (or at least leave out) the detail of Celegorm's golden hair due to what is said in the Appendices -- if I recall correctly, CJRT notes that this decision was based on a statement in Appendix F with respect to the dark-haired Eldar/Noldor?

Another one would be the omentielmo/vo alteration.

Here it seems that Tolkien couldn't help himself tinkering with an element of his languages, and gave in to stepping on already published text . . . and invented an internal reason for it.

He's treating author-published text differently than his private texts, as well he should in my opinion. All the Quenya pronouns hidden away in Tolkien's desk drawer can be altered without a thought of creating "inconsistency" . . . except if one is published, and later Tolkien changes his mind about that one.

The primary vehicles of Tolkien's creative thought regarding the Elder Days were always Quenta Silmarillion and the Annals, and the occasional allusion in the LR merely the moon's reflection of the sun's light.

Again, this seems to be a matter of detail.

I think it's worth drawing distinctions between works that were definite revisions or wholesale replacements of earlier works, that is, the earlier works were definitively rejected; . . .

I agree. I do this, and draw other distinctions you mention too.

a handful of later writings actually marked "official and final;"

What works are these? I don't recall the wording here.

In any event, in Unfinished Tales Christopher Tolkien points to the fact that Galadriel's actions could still be "transformed radically" for example, "since the Silmarillion had not been published" -- and we could echo this for so very many ideas that had not been published.

And flipping this coin, what other distinction would Tolkien himself be very naturally aware of? The one that stopped him from claiming ros was a Beorian word, or led Christopher Tolkien to give his opinion that Celebrimbor would have remained a Feanorean. Publication of course. CJRT also wrote (my emphasis here):

_____

"It may be suggested that whereas my father set great store by consistency at all points with The Lord of the Rings and the Appendices, so little concerning the First Age had appeared in print that he was under far less constraint. I am inclined to think, however, that the primary explanation of these differences lies rather in his writing largely from memory. The histories of the First Age would always remain in a somewhat fluid state so long as they were not fixed in a published state; and he certainly did not have all the relevant manuscripts clearly arranged and set out before him."

Foreword, The Peoples of Middle-Earth
_____



Ursula Le Guin did some fancy dancing with Earthsea, for example. But she herself published the later books of course, leaving no question as to whether she truly wanted to shine such a new light on Earthsea.

[Galin]

Well, to give the question its own post . . . again, Christopher Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, note 20, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn:

"Before the revised edition of The Lord of the Rings was published in 1966 my father changed Finrod to Finarfin, while his son Felagund, previously called Inglor Felagund, became Finrod Felagund. Two passages in the Appendices B and F were accordingly emended for the revised edition -- It is noteworthy that Orodreth
. . ."

So here, emended for the revised edition, which I took to mean the revised edition of the first sentence. Also:

"The names Fingolfin and Finarfin are thus spelt in B, but in A Fingolphin and Finarphin (see. p. 265 note 10). In the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings (1966) Finarphin was spelled thus, later changed on my suggestion to Finarfin (Appendix F, Of the Elves)."

Christopher Tolkien, commentary, The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II), OfThe Silmarils and the Unrest of the Noldor

And so I thought that Finrod had still been altered by Tolkien himself for the second edition, although to Finarphin. And now that I'm paying more attention to what Hammond and Scull wrote in their Reader's Guide to The Lord of the Rings
. . .

As first published, "Finarfin" read "Finrod". In the Allen & Unwin three-volume paperback edition (1974) "Finrod" was changed to "Finarphir" (first and second printing), then to "Finarphin" (third printing, 1975), and finally "Finarfin" (fourth printing, 1976), as Christopher Tolkien determined the name to be used in The Silmarillion (1977)."

So my question is . . . what? Or am I missing something? Or . . . huh?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well, to give the question its own post . . . again, Christopher Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, note 20, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn:




So here, emended for the revised edition, which I took to mean the revised edition of the first sentence. Also:



And so I thought that Finrod had still been altered by Tolkien himself for the second edition, although to Finarphin. And now that I'm paying more attention to what Hammond and Scull wrote in their Reader's Guide to The Lord of the Rings
. . .



So my question is . . . what? Or am I missing something? Or . . . huh?

H&S know their bibliographical stuff, and I'm inclined to take their word for it barring very strong evidence contra. My guess is that not all the revisions Tolkien "prepared for" the 1966 edition actually made it into print, at least at that time.

And although CT is a praiseworthy scholar and editor, his memory is not always perfect; he could very well have forgotten or been unaware that while "Finarphir" may have been the reading of his copy of the 2nd ed., earlier printings still read "Finrod." I can testify that the H-M 14th printing (ca 1976), which as I said above used the 1966 plates unchanged, reads "Finrod."

[Galin]

Thanks for the replies WCH.

I don't own "J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography" and had just assumed, though based on certain descriptions, that this change showed up in Tolkien's lifetime.

And when I said I thought Tolkien was "mistaken" I only meant in the sense of creating an inconsistency between first and second editions -- especially after seeing WPP and knowing JRRT's seeming reason to change Finrod (as the name of the Elf who stayed in Aman) had become a non issue . . .

. . . in other words, my choice of "mistake" is very much based on my approach to canon -- I favor the approach, even from JRRT himself I mean, that the tales of the First Age keep in step with already published text (what little there is of it concerning the First Age anyway, relatively speaking) -- unless an "internal inconsistency" is desired of course.


And while I like the alliteration in Finrod Felagund, I have no problem with Inglor Felagund too.


But as I've derailed the thread about canon, I'll shaddup now

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Last bit on Finrod: Tolkien changed his mind. Why? Not entirely sure, but probably related to his development of the family's Quenya names and the notion that Finwe would have given all his sons similar -finwe ones. "Findarato" just didn't fit the pattern, so it was moved down a generation. Tolkien's prerogative. Who are we to tell him no? While he had never planned a 2d Ed, the necessity fell on his head and he decided to take advantage of the opportunity to bring LR into line with post-1953 developments in the First Age material. Note also that the following year in The Road Goes Ever On, what he has to say about Galadriel doesn't really square with the LR at all points, either, unless you use a shoehorn and a hammer.

-------------------------------------------

Back to Mithrellas- it seems the best explanation to force a fit is to say, yes, used loosely "Eldar" just means those who made it to Beleriand. Maybe not even the Laiquendi. But I still suspect that when Tolkien wrote Appendix A he had simply forgotten what he said about Imrahil's ancestry almost as a throwaway line ("At length they came to the Prince Imrahil, and Legolas looked at him and bowed low; for he saw that here indeed was one who had elven-blood in his veins.") Remember, the full Mithrellas legend was written much later.

[Galin]

Erg. My bad. Turns out the H&S reference I posted above relates to the specific passage of the golden house of Finrod, while another Appendix F reference changed to Finarphir.

Ballantine Books 1965: "Noblest of all was the Lady Galadriel, of the royal house of Finarphir and sister of Finrod Felagund, King of Nargothrond."

Yikes.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

( . . . ) Tolkien's prerogative. Who are we to tell him no? While he had never planned a 2d Ed, the necessity fell on his head and he decided to take advantage of the opportunity to bring LR into line with post-1953 developments in the First Age material.

We are Tolkien's readership and can say "no" by way of criticism anyway, just as if he'd kept changing the colour of the Dwarf hoods in The Hobbit. And Tolkien told himself no regarding inconsistency with already published work, so why not here as well?

In any case, I think JRRT was creative enough to work his Silmarillion material around what was said in LOTR about Finrod. And in general there wasn't that much already in print to "constrain" him concerning the First Age, relatively speaking.

Note also that the following year in The Road Goes Ever On, what he has to say about Galadriel doesn't really square with the LR at all points, either, unless you use a shoehorn and a hammer.

And so I get out shoehorn and hammer where (arguably) necessary, with respect to author-published works.

But why should I tire my arm with respect to Mithrellas when Appendix F defines Eldar as " . . . the name of the Three Kindreds that sought for the Undying Lands and came there at the beginning of Days (save the Sindar only)."

Thus, even if the legend is true, Mithrellas was not one of the Eldar with respect to the Three Unions.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You are in effect saying "God can too create a boulder so heavy He Himself can't lift it."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I don't really disgree with anything you are saying, aside from the general comment that I dislike bright lines and pigeonholes, which often create an artificial impression of definition where there is none, rather like a blurry picture digitally "sharpened". The best we can do is evaluate and compare unpublished material on a case by case basis, and giving some pieces great weight and others little to none.

I don't think personally that "Finarfin" in Appendix F was a mistake, no matter whether it was the father's intended revision or the son's alone: clearly in his work on the First Age Tolkien had changed his mind about the character's name, as he did on many, many other occasions; and it's explicit that Finarfin is a Sindarization of Arafinwe which was the form used in Middle-earth when referring to him, even if he never used it himself.* One can't really see the compiler of QS writing "The sons of Finwe were Feanor, Fingolfin and Finwe Arafinwe."

______________________________
*We talk about Christopher Columbus, a man who as far as he was concerned was named Cristoforo Colombo.