Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

[davem]

In CT's note on the final words in LotR he writes:

In all the texts of 'The Grey Havens' from the earliest draft Sam said to rosie when he returned to Bag End 'Well, I'm back.' 'Well. I've come back' does not mean the same thing.'

So, he clearly recognises that a particular phrasing, a particular choice of words, affects the meaning of what's being said. That being the case, & for all SpM says, I still wonder how he can justify this particular change. As B88 points out, there is a significant difference between 'do not' & 'need not'.

If I'm right (& its only speculation) that this edition is to be seen as definitve - though it seems from comments in the new foreword that this edition has been recorded electronically by Harper Collins as just that - it means that these changes are authorised by CT to stand from now on, & will be in every subsquent edition.

It may seem a trivial point - maybe Mithalwen is right. I suppose my own feeling is that, as we have so few comments about Elven psychology ‘from the horses mouth’ so to speak, these lines of Legolas’ are significant, & I can’t help thinking we need more justification for the change than CT has offered us so far. If this is to become the standard text, then pretty soon it won’t be possible to buy the original version - the only one Tolkien authorised. I know one could argue that Tolkien made more significant changes between the first & second editions of LotR , but he made those changes. It seems to me that this is different. This edition, as I pointed out recently in the Canonicity thread, contains between three & four hundred emendations. Most are of spellings (with others like the change from ‘smaller than the other’ in Aragorn’s reference to Pippin to ‘smaller than the others’). This one, though, I feel actually alters Legolas meaning not just his words.

[Nimrodel_9]

Hmmm... I would have to say need sounds right. They need not count the years because they are immortal. They live forever, and can only die from wounds in battle or a broken heart. Time really has no effect on them. That is it does, but it takes so long that it wouldn`t be noticable to a mortal, or perhaps one of there own. Counting the years would be a waste of time. Darn. Now that I think about it, counting the years wouldn`t be a waste of their time, seeing how they have so much of it. I guess what I`m trying to say is, why count the years if you are going to be around forever?

This brings up another idea. Do you suppose most elves knew their own age? I guess if they knew the year as it was to the race of Men (I can`t really decide how to word it), when they were born, they could always figure it out. My mind is slow today. Any ideas?
Nimrodel

[Mithalwen]

Well I just feel that it is possible to read far more into a phrase than the author ever intended. However, I accept that this is an interesting exchange, and if I remember rightly Paul Kocher discusses it at length in his book "master of middle earth". However, I think that there are enough "original" edition out there to mean it will be accessible to many, and I imagine, the changes will be documented on the net even if they are not listed in the books.

Also, I feel that CRT would not have authorised the changes if he did not think the alteration were closer to his father's intentions that what is there currently. It will not have been a frivolous decision. Given that he is now eighty (or near enough) it is his last chance to put things "right". Whether it is the correct choice we will probably decide for ourselves,but I am not sure anyone is better placed than CRT to make it. Clearly Davem is right in pointing out that do not and need not are not quite the same thing but I think the "not for themselves" tightens the distinction. I think I prefer need not because elves in mirkwood who interract with mortals must use mortal reckoning for convenience .. so I think it is a clarification .... but we will see..

edit italicised

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

As B88 points out, there is a significant difference between 'do not' & 'need not'.

I do not deny that there is a significant difference in meaning. But I do not think that this difference alters the essential nature of Elves. In fact, using "need" is probably more accurate:

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I think I prefer need not because elves in mirkwood who interract with mortals must use mortal reckoning for convenience .. so I think it is a clarification .... but we will see..

Elves actually do record the passing of years when it is necessary to do so, for example, as Mithalwen says, for interraction with mortals. For example, Celeborn notes that it has been "eight and thirty years of the world outside since you came to this land", when he greets Aragorn. (And we all know that he's the wisest Elf in all of Middle-earth. ) So Elves do recognise and record the passing of the years. They simply feel no need to do so for themselves. But to say that they do not do so under any circumstances is inaccurate.

[Aiwendil]

I usually hate it when people say this - but I think, Davem, that you may be reading too deeply into the issue (though it is indeed interesting and I'm glad you brought it up).

Yes, on face value there seems to be a rather significant difference between the two versions of the text. If the circumstances of the writing of LotR weren't known, if this were some epic from a thousand years ago one text of which gives "do" and another "need" - then no doubt it would be worth spilling a good deal of scholarly ink over the issue. It is certainly possible to read deep significance into the variation.

But consider the circumstances as we know them to be. Tolkien wrote "need" initially. At that point, such was quite clearly his intention. Then through a mere accident on Christopher's part, the word "need" was lost. In correcting Christopher's copy, Tolkien observed the grammatical lapse and filled it. Now, we may entertain three possibilities:

1. There is a significant difference between "need" and "do", and Tolkien's final intention was "do".

2. There is a significant difference, and Tolkien's intention all along was "need", "do" being a mistake.

3. There is no significant difference, at least in Tolkien's intention.

If 1 is true then not only was there apparently some quite real but otherwise wholly unknown shift in Tolkien's conception of Elves between the writing of the chapter and the correction - it was also a remarkable stroke of luck that an accidental omission made by Christopher happened to coincide perfectly with that change. This seems to me rather improbable.

If 2 is true, then we must assume that Tolkien was in quite a rush when he wrote in "do", for otherwise he surely would have noticed that the statement as it now stood was incorrect.

If 3 is true, then "do" and "need" are equally good and it is of no import whatsoever whether Tolkien was rushed or not, nor does it much matter which was finally adopted.

I am inclined to think that 1 is the least probable of those three scenarios, and consequently that "need" is indeed what ought to have been adopted in the published text.

[davem]

Perhaps its down to a question of what kind of statement Legolas is making - is it a 'primary' statement on Elvishness, equal to 'Elves at death do not pass beyond the circles of the World' - ie, a 'fact' about their nature, or is it simply a turn of phrase? Change it to 'Elves at death need not pass beyond the circles of the World' & it changes an essential statement about them.

But, in a sense this change does exactly that - 'Elves do not count the running years' says that no Elf, ever, for any reason, counts the running years. Elves need not says 'some may, some may not - its optional'. It may be that need is a more accurate reflection of Tolkien's thought, but we'll never know, & for that reason I'm uncomfortable with the change.

Also, in changing Legolas' words, don't we change his character? Its not simply a question of whether the statement is technically correct about how Elves think, its also a matter of what the character Legolas is saying, the idea he's trying to communicate.