Elven Characteristics

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

No, but it is published in the UT and Christopher Tolkien has the right himself to define what is cannon. A right he usually does not choose to use, but anything what he publishes should have a fair amount of weight behind it.

A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else?

If so I can't agree. It's all posthumously published material, including the material published by the Linguistic Editorial Team for instance [Vinyar Tengwar, Parma Eldalamberon] which contains more than pure linguistic information about Middle-earth.

Isildur was undoubtedly very tall himself, but his incredible height was never a distinguishing feature for him as it was his father. (...) Tolkien published the prologue of the Hobbits (...) Even from that one rough note, the Numenoreans must have been close to 7ft.

I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

This though is really not that important, because being a couple of inches taller than the average is unlikely to get you a nickname as Tall. (...) Being a couple of inches taller than average as I said is really not a great distinction. To put it into context the average height for a British Male is about 5'10. Somebody, who is 6'2 is not going to get the nickname Tall.

Is it unlikely? I'm not so sure, especially when dealing with an already tall folk in general, with the 'tallest' of the already tall being a fairly prominent person in history.

In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

Taking the artwork statement as true and literal creates a problem on several things as we have been through. These were some of Tolkiens latest writings on the subject and not brief notes which accompanied the artwork. He wrote entire essays such as Of Dwarves of Men or Numeanorean Linear Measure. Even if you want to insist that there is a contradiction in the sources, which is more likely to be correct: the short brief note about a picture or two separate essays he wrote on the subject?

Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet.

But for a different example we have a relatively brief marginal note where Tolkien appears to toss away decades of thinking that there were very many Balrogs, in favour of 3 or at most 7 ever existing. Which idea is more likely to be correct in this case?

One can gather up a number of quotes to illustrate hosts of Balrogs existing, or Balrogs 'one thousand' even, and together they might seem quite a strong case by comparison to one marginal note, and one revision to a text which itself [the revision] yet mentions no certain number. Of course the 'older' quotes will be consistent with each other as to number, but JRRT kows that his readership only knows so much about Durin's Bane, and he is thus free to radically alter the conception, making all the earlier descriptions part of a discarded notion.

I'm not saying I know this to be true with respect to the artwork description, but I feel it's a reasonable possibility given the phrasing employed.

And yes Of Dwarves And Men is an 'entire essay' but the remark on Eldarin height compared to Numenoreans [along with the Halfling reference] is one sentence within it if I recall correctly -- or if not one sentence it's brief enough, and obviously the essay is about much more. And Christopher Tolkien characterizes Numenorean Linear Measures [NLM] as: 'A note associated with the passage in 'The Disaster of the Gladden Fields'...'


Incidentally, when writing NLM I wonder if Tolkien had remembered what he had already published about Eomer [and Eowyn] in Appendix A! I won't go into it here but in my opinion this is another [at least] arguable glitch of some measure, even though in the tale proper [The Lord of the Rings] Eomer does seem to be tall, generally speaking.

[Lissë]

I'd like to come back to the hair problem. Galin, what did you find on hairstyles? The thread 'hairy-pottering' does not really exist, does it? Could you tell us the passage where Tolkien describes elven hair as black?

[Galin]

Hi again Lisse. Here it is, but it's not very long (pun intended)

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ight=pottering

And about the matter of black hair, Tolkien wrote in 'Words, Phrases, Passages' (p. 155): 'The Noldor were generally hróva or morna' [these Elvish words are noted] 'morna black of hair: hróva 'dark, dark brown'

In another entry JRRT seemed to think absolute black was not the case (same source): 'The predominant colour of Noldorin hair was very dark brown (no Elf had absolute black hair: morna)' I note here that Tolkien used morna, the word used in the previous citation.

But even if this entry is later than the first, it appears possible that JRRT revised that no Elf was black of hair, as in The Shibboleth of Feanor (dated 1968 or later), for example, Finwe has 'black' hair (note 19). Or concerning Urundil (note 61): 'His hair was not as dark or black as was that of most of the Noldor, but brown, and had glints of coppery red in it.'

Hmm

[Nerwen]

And apologies to Lisse for further hijacking her thread (i.e. my last comment).

Originally Posted by Galin

Hi again Lisse. Here it is, but it's not very long (pun intended)

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ight=pottering

And about the matter of black hair, Tolkien wrote in 'Words, Phrases, Passages' (p. 155): 'The Noldor were generally hróva or morna' [these Elvish words are noted] 'morna black of hair: hróva 'dark, dark brown'

In another entry JRRT seemed to think absolute black was not the case (same source): 'The predominant colour of Noldorin hair was very dark brown (no Elf had absolute black hair: morna)' I note here that Tolkien used morna, the word used in the previous citation.

But even if this entry is later than the first, it appears possible that JRRT revised that no Elf was black of hair, as in The Shibboleth of Feanor (dated 1968 or later), for example, Finwe has 'black' hair (note 19). Or concerning Urundil (note 61): 'His hair was not as dark or black as was that of most of the Noldor, but brown, and had glints of coppery red in it.'

Hmm

My own feeling is that this is a revision. I suppose it need not be, if you take "black" as really meaning "almost black".

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else?

If so I can't agree. It's all posthumously published material, including the material published by the Linguistic Editorial Team for instance [Vinyar Tengwar, Parma Eldalamberon] which contains more than pure linguistic information about Middle-earth.

Yes I am suggesting that anything published by Christopher Tolkien has more weight, because he has full authority to write or delete anything he wants. The quote provided is in the post above.

I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

The essays were written in 1969 and were more detailed than the breif notes.

Is it unlikely? I'm not so sure, especially when dealing with an already tall folk in general, with the 'tallest' of the already tall being a fairly prominent person in history.

In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

The thing is Elendil did not hang out with a relatively small group of friends. He was around the nobility of Numenor and they were actually taller than average. Ar-pharazon himself may have been the tallest man alive at the time.

When we look at English kings like Edward I, Edward II, Edward IV or Henry VIII they had to be over 6 inches taller than the average man for their height to be noted.

Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet.

But for a different example we have a relatively brief marginal note where Tolkien appears to toss away decades of thinking that there were very many Balrogs, in favour of 3 or at most 7 ever existing. Which idea is more likely to be correct in this case?

One can gather up a number of quotes to illustrate hosts of Balrogs existing, or Balrogs 'one thousand' even, and together they might seem quite a strong case by comparison to one marginal note, and one revision to a text which itself [the revision] yet mentions no certain number. Of course the 'older' quotes will be consistent with each other as to number, but JRRT kows that his readership only knows so much about Durin's Bane, and he is thus free to radically alter the conception, making all the earlier descriptions part of a discarded notion.

I'm not saying I know this to be true with respect to the artwork description, but I feel it's a reasonable possibility given the phrasing employed.

This is true, but we can look at the dates when these articles were written. The comments supporting the great height of the Eldar are written in the late 60s. As I pointed out before, Christopher Tolkien was left in charge with sorting and editing what was to be published. I will always take what he has published over any artwork descriptions.

And yes Of Dwarves And Men is an 'entire essay' but the remark on Eldarin height compared to Numenoreans [along with the Halfling reference] is one sentence within it if I recall correctly -- or if not one sentence it's brief enough, and obviously the essay is about much more. And Christopher Tolkien characterizes Numenorean Linear Measures [NLM] as: 'A note associated with the passage in 'The Disaster of the Gladden Fields'...'

We can argue semantics, but Numenorean Linear Measures is at least 500 words long and there are other notes written detailing the decline of Numenoreans and Hobbits at the end.

Incidentally, when writing NLM I wonder if Tolkien had remembered what he had already published about Eomer [and Eowyn] in Appendix A! I won't go into it here but in my opinion this is another [at least] arguable glitch of some measure, even though in the tale proper [The Lord of the Rings] Eomer does seem to be tall, generally speaking.

I am unaware of any contradiction, but if there is once more we should follow the precedent that Christopher Tolkien has set. Unless the matter was of great importance, then J.R.R. Tolkien would usually bow to what was published.

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, it seems you have now shifted your goalposts regarding height descriptions. No doubt not a deliberate tactic, but whatever. You're not actually supporting your original contention anymore, as far as I can see.

Now, about Christopher Tolkien: yes, I know he has the legal right to publish (or not publish) and edit his father's writings. I already said that, remember? Again, I don't see what that has to do with it.

If you were to argue that Christopher Tolkien's familiarity with his father (rather than any legal position) makes him a better judge of what the man really intended than an outsider... okay. But even that is very problematic.

And, of course, it can't make a contradiction not a contradiction. That's the thing: it appears you're trying to argue simultaneously that the two versions agree with each other and that one should be considered wrong. I don't get it.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

cellurdur, it seems you have now shifted your goalposts regarding height descriptions. No doubt not a deliberate tactic, but whatever. You're not actually supporting your original contention anymore, as far as I can see.

Now, about Christopher Tolkien: yes, I know he has the legal right to publish (or not publish) and edit his father's writings. I already said that, remember? Again, I don't see what that has to do with it.

If you were to argue that Christopher Tolkien's familiarity with his father (rather than any legal position) makes him a better judge of what the man really intended than an outsider... okay. But even that is very problematic.

And, of course, it can't make a contradiction not a contradiction. That's the thing: it appears you're trying to argue simultaneously that the two versions agree with each other and that one should be considered wrong. I don't get it.

No I have not shifted my argument, but given two different arguments.

1. That descroption of Elendil being 7ft is not really a problem, because this is often used to describe people, who are 7ft. I then gave a recent article where a team of individulas ranging from 6'1 to 6'7 were described in general terms as being 6ft.
-I also pointed out that if the minimum height for the Eldar was 6'6 then the average height had to be taller
-Aragorn was said to be 6'6 in the article, but we know he was a lot shorter than the Numenoreans of old. If Aragorn and Boromir, at 6'6 and 6'4 respectively, were shorter than the Numenoreans of old then they must have been close to 7ft on average
-Elendil and Isildur were not the same height and therefore we can realise that the description of them being 7ft tall was not an accurate height

The second argument is that if YOU still think there is a contradiction, which I DO NOT, then we should go with what Christopher Tolkien has published, because he has the right to delete or rewrite anything that was published.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

No I have not shifted my argument, but given two different arguments.

1. That descroption of Elendil being 7ft is not really a problem, because this is often used to describe people, who are 7ft. I then gave a recent article where a team of individulas ranging from 6'1 to 6'7 were described in general terms as being 6ft.
-I also pointed out that if the minimum height for the Eldar was 6'6 then the average height had to be taller
-Aragorn was said to be 6'6 in the article, but we know he was a lot shorter than the Numenoreans of old. If Aragorn and Boromir, at 6'6 and 6'4 respectively, were shorter than the Numenoreans of old then they must have been close to 7ft on average
-Elendil and Isildur were not the same height and therefore we can realise that the description of them being 7ft tall was not an accurate height

The second argument is that if YOU still think there is a contradiction, which I DO NOT, then we should go with what Christopher Tolkien has published, because he has the right to delete or rewrite anything that was published.

I'm sorry, but none of your examples have been to the point. Generalising about the heights of a group, such as the sports teams you favour for this purpose, is not the same as talking about one or two individuals. Once again: you are claiming that the statement that Elendil was "seven feet tall," is in perfect agreement with another statement indicating that he was ten inches taller than that. I... really don't know what more to say.

As for your second argument, I guess you mean it's a sort of backup, should you fail to convince anyone of the validity of the first one. Fair enough. But the argument itself- well, as you've simply stated it again, all I can do is say again that I don't see the point.

[Galin]

Galin wrote: A far as I know Christopher Tolkien has never defined canon. Are you here suggesting that what Christopher Tolkien published in Unfinished Tales for example, has more weight than what Hammond and Scull have published somewhere else? (...)

Cellurdur responded: Yes I am suggesting that anything published by Christopher Tolkien has more weight, because he has full authority to write or delete anything he wants. The quote provided is in the post above.

I'm aware of the wording of Tolkien's will, but don't see what this necessarily has to do with what Christopher Tolkien actually did. Do you have something from Christopher Tolkien himself, anywhere, where he states or even suggests that something he himself published has 'more weight' than something he authorized, say, the Linguistic Editorial Team to publish, like Ósanwe-kenta for example?

Christopher Tolkien is not 'deleting' any text that I'm aware of because it has less weight than something else. And even if he did, to my mind that doesn't change that JRR Tolkien is the creator of Middle-earth in the end.

I'm sorry I don't follow this argument at all, and I agree with Nerwen here.

Galin wrote: I'm aware of all this information [edited here for brevity]. Again, if the artwork quote represents a different notion, what Tolkien wrote elsewhere but never published himself can be forgotten or easily revised. At the moment I'm not aware that Tolkien published the history of 'halfling' anywhere [outside of the word Banakil and that 'Men' called the Hobbits Halflings], but as I say I think his description noted by Hammond and Scull works well enough given the date the term was coined, which also works well enough with the Eldarin 'artwork description' in my opinion.

Cellurdur responded: The essays were written in 1969 and were more detailed than the breif notes.

Well the artwork descripton I cited is itself a 'late text' too, and as I say, how brief is all the artwork commentary combined? It hasn't all been published yet. Not that I would necessarily be swayed about relative brevity in any case.


Incidentally I asked Hammond and Scull if the artwork commentary possibly included the note concerning Celeborn on p. 286 in Unfinished Tales. I asked: 'The note on Hobbit stature must be meant, and Celeborn isn't in the artwork of course, but I wonder if the bit about Celeborn could be part of, or connected to, the description noted on p. 107 (a tall Elf) in the Reader's Companion.' They responded:

Galin wrote: Hmm, does this possibly include the note concerning Celeborn on p. 286?

No, that note is from some other source - none that we recall seeing.

Wayne & Christina

Galin wrote: In general nicknames can be funny things. For example, growing up in a relatively small group of friends the tallest person among us received a nickname to represent this. His sister was tallish too, and she awas given a nickname 'to match'.

Cellurdur responded: The thing is Elendil did not hang out with a relatively small group of friends. He was around the nobility of Numenor and they were actually taller than average. Ar-pharazon himself may have been the tallest man alive at the time.

My point here was that nicknames can be funny things in general, and thus there are arguably ways for Tolkien to explain 'Elendil the Tall' without making him 7 foot 10.

Galin wrote: Not all of Tolkien's reaction to the artwork has even been published yet. (...)

Cellurdur responded This is true, but we can look at the dates when these articles were written. The comments supporting the great height of the Eldar are written in the late 60s. As I pointed out before, Christopher Tolkien was left in charge with sorting and editing what was to be published. I will always take what he has published over any artwork descriptions.

Christopher Tolkien actually published a bit of the 'artwork descriptions' [see my next post] [ edit note: I edited this section to be more precise, but I did so before realizing that Cellurdur had already quoted the unedited version below. That explains the two versions now]. Now more of these descriptions, but still not all, are in print, thanks to Christopher Tolkien allowing both Hammond and Scull and J. Rateliff to publish them.

We can argue semantics, but Numenorean Linear Measures is at least 500 words long and there are other notes written detailing the decline of Numenoreans and Hobbits at the end.

Well, it was you who called NLM 'an entire essay'. CJRT called it a note. Are we going to count words now, or words that actually deal with height within a given text compared to another?

I'm not. I've only got so many fingers and toes



In any case the 'artwork descriptions' represent Tolkien's thinking at the time. They appear to be considered enough for me, and we don't have 'merely' 5 foot 10 or 11 for the Eldar for instance, nor even 6 feet to 6 feet 3 or 4 for most Eldar, for example, which if we did, we would then have the Numenoreans at their height towering over them by a full foot or nearly so in some cases.

In short [no pun intended] the Eldar are still notably tall here, especially the great kings and leaders; and we read often enough about the Noldorin kings and leaders too.

And yes we don't know the external chronology of a number of 'late texts' dealing with heights, which I acknowledged from the start.

[Galin]

By the way, with respect to the artwork commentary from Tolkien, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull revealed [at another forum, I underline one section here]:

We did, in fact, make extensive use of this manuscript in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion (2005), on pp. 3-4, 107, 229, 244-5, 265, 272, 447, and 493. Christopher Tolkien had earlier published part of it in Unfinished Tales (1980), pp. 286-7. We refer to it variously as a manuscript written c. 1969, a late manuscript, a late unpublished note, etc., with the source given only as the Tolkien Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford. When we wrote the Reader's Companion, the Bodleian Tolkien papers were in process of being reorganized and renumbered; therefore by agreement with the Library and the Tolkien Estate, with whom we worked closely, we gave only a generic citation for Bodleian materials.


We also promised the Estate to follow Christopher's lead in Unfinished Tales, where he quoted from the manuscript in question without explaining the larger context of its criticism of Pauline Baynes's map -- that we would quote only elements of fact concerning The Lord of the Rings, its characters and world. Pauline was then still alive (until August last year), and neither we nor the Estate wished to cause her any distress when she saw our book. Tolkien himself had not sent his criticism to her, and never would have done so. Anyway, identifying the manuscript in broader terms while quoting the portions we did would have been extraneous. When describing the map itself (pp. lxiv-lxvi), we were concerned only with the place-names added by Tolkien, avoiding the issue of the art altogether.



It may be, nonetheless, that Pauline knew of Tolkien's dislike of the top and bottom of her poster-map from other sources, for in her lifetime special copies turned up with strips cut off, and this was described in catalogues once or twice. No doubt we'll mention it in the bibliography of Pauline's work that we're in process of writing.


Wayne & Christina

In a note to The Bladorthin Typescript (ii Bladorthin, note 14, Mr. Baggins), John Rateliff describes an essay written circa 1970 and now in the Bodleian Library (Tolkien Papers A61 a, fol. 1-31).

Mr. Rateliff quotes a description of Gandalf from this essay (which includes 'Which should make him a short man even in modern England, especially with the reduction of a bent back' incidentally), noting also that it was written in response to Pauline Baynes' art for the poster-map of Middle-earth -- which included the Fellowship and Bill, and certain evil types too.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

I'm aware of the wording of Tolkien's will, but don't see what this necessarily has to do with what Christopher Tolkien actually did. Do you have something from Christopher Tolkien himself, anywhere, where he states or even suggests that something he himself published has 'more weight' than something he authorized, say, the Linguistic Editorial Team to publish, like Ósanwe-kenta for example?

Christopher Tolkien is not 'deleting' any text that I'm aware of because it has less weight than something else. And even if he did, to my mind that doesn't change that JRR Tolkien is the creator of Middle-earth in the end.

I'm sorry I don't follow this argument at all, and I agree with Nerwen here.

We have the words from JRR Tolkien himself. Christopher Tolkien has sole authority when it comes to not only publishing, but editing the story. We see excess this authority in the case of Sador. Tolkien planned to change him into one of the Pukel men, but in the Children of Hurin he remains a lame man.

Tolkien may be the creator of the Middle-Earth, but he passed on those rights to his son. Virtually everything we know about the extended world comes from the work that Christopher Tolkien has done.

If he thought that the notes on the artwork were a noteworthy contradiction then he could have made a comment about it. He did not. In other cases he does.

Well the artwork descripton I cited is itself a 'late text' too, and as I say, how brief is all the artwork commentary combined? It's hasn't all been published yet. Not that I would necessarily be swayed about relative brevity in any case.

Brevity does give an indication to the amount of time and thought he put into the work. A brief note written about a piece of artwork is far more likely to be less precise than an essay. Secondly it is up to Christopher Tolkien to decide what he wants to be noted.

My point here was that nicknames can be funny things in general, and thus there are arguably ways for Tolkien to explain 'Elendil the Tall' without making him 7 foot 10.

Not generally the case with Tolkien though. People called the 'the Tall' tend to be tall. We even have Tolkien naming Elendil as the tallest of the exiles.

Christopher Tolkien actually published some of these 'artwork descriptions'. They were not noted as such at the time because Pauline Baynes was still alive, and some of Tolkien's commentary was negative, or could be taken as negative.

Now more of these descriptions, but still not all, are in print, thanks to Christopher Tolkien allowing both Hammond and Scull and J. Rateliff to publish them [Pauline Baynes has passed on incidentally]

That's still not the same as Christopher publishing them himself is it? The comments on the artwork are definitely of interest, but they need validation from Christopher Tolkien or at least a comment for me to hold them with equal standing to TCOH for instance.

Well, it was you who called NLM 'an entire essay'. CJRT called it a note. Are we going to count words now, or words that actually deal with height within a given text compared to another?

I'm not. I've only got so many fingers and toes

This is where you are arguing semantics. Whether you call it a note or an essay it is quite a long and detailed account about measurements.

In any case the 'artwork descriptions' represent Tolkien's thinking at the time. They appear to be considered enough for me, and we don't have 'merely' 5 foot 10 or 11 for the Eldar for instance, nor even 6 feet to 6 feet 3 or 4 for most Eldar, for example, which if we did, we would then have the Numenoreans at their height towering over them by a full foot or nearly so in some cases.

In short [no pun intended] the Eldar are still notably tall here, especially the great kings and leaders; and we read often enough about the Noldorin kings and leaders too.

And yes we don't know the external chronology of a number of 'late texts' dealing with heights, which I acknowledged from the start.

Well this is where we will disagree. I still have not seen you address these issues concerning the notes on the artwork.

If Aragorn at 6'6 is much shorter than the average Numenoreans of old then how tall were the Numenoreans of old? In every text no matter how late, the decline in stature is noted.

Nor have you answered that if the minimum height was 6'6 for the Eldar then what would the average height be?

EDIT
Mentioned it briefly, but Tolkien was well aware of the English kings. It was not unusual for one of the Plantagenet descendants to be nearly a foot taller than the average man and virtually a foot taller than the average peasant. Charlemagne himself was a giant at close to 6'3. Edward I and II were both described as the tallest and strongest men in the real (considering their great height this was probably not just flattery). Elendil is simply a reflection of this.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

We have the words from JRR Tolkien himself. Christopher Tolkien has sole authority when it comes to not only publishing, but editing the story. We see excess this authority in the case of Sador. Tolkien planned to change him into one of the Pukel men, but in the Children of Hurin he remains a lame man.

You are talking about the constructed works here, not merely posthumously published statements as written by JRRT himself. And in any case no where does Christopher Tolkien state which version of Sador is 'canon' for instance.

If he thought that the notes on the artwork were a noteworthy contradiction then he could have made a comment about it. He did not. In other cases he does.

Well CJRT didn't publish the quote in question. He gave that authority to Hammond and Scull, and we as readers can see or interpret contradiction even if no one mentions something -- noting that I already mentioned the way Hammond and Scull presented the 'Elendil' variations, for example.

Brevity does give an indication to the amount of time and thought he put into the work. A brief note written about a piece of artwork is far more likely to be less precise than an essay.

Not necessarily. Think long about something, write with brevity and to the point. And you keep saying 'brief note' despite that we haven't yet seen all the commentary.

That's still not the same as Christopher publishing them himself is it? The comments on the artwork are definitely of interest, but they need validation from Christopher Tolkien or at least a comment for me to hold them with equal standing to TCOH for instance.

As I said, CJRT did publish part of one of these in UT -- you actually quoted a part of the 'artwork descriptions' without realizing it.

But no they do not 'need validation' from CJRT to hold equal standing with the rest of the same commentary from the creator of Middle-earth. And The Children of Hurin is arguably 'not canon' as it is clearly the work of Christopher Tolkien not JRRT.

Where does CJRT claim The Children of Hurin is canon?

Is everything in Vinyar Tengwar or Parma Eldalamberon 'lesser' material somehow, if CJRT merely gave certain texts to the Linguistic Team to publish and comment on?

This is where you are arguing semantics. Whether you call it a note or an essay it is quite a long and detailed account about measurements.

Yes that was where I pointed out that you characterized one text as a 'brief note' versus an 'entire essay' -- when Christopher Tolkien characterized your 'entire essay' as a note rather.

Semantics indeed

Well this is where we will disagree. I still have not seen you address these issues concerning the notes on the artwork.

Well let's see if I have spoken to certain issues or not, as...

If Aragorn at 6'6 is much shorter than the average Numenoreans of old then how tall were the Numenoreans of old? In every text no matter how late, the decline in stature is noted.

... the artwok quote says 7 feet and so on, as I quoted. What issue needs addressing there? I don't quibble with what this text says about the Numenoreans of old in general.

Nor have you answered that if the minimum height was 6'6 for the Eldar then what would the average height be?

That's because there is no average height noted in the text under consideration, and I interpret that quote as it stands. That said, my interpretation yet allows for not every Elf being exactly 6 foot 6, as I already described above.

Mentioned it briefly, but Tolkien was well aware of the English kings. It was not unusual for one of the Plantagenet descendants to be nearly a foot taller than the average man and virtually a foot taller than the average peasant. Charlemagne himself was a giant at close to 6'3. Edward I and II were both described as the tallest and strongest men in the real (considering their great height this was probably not just flattery). Elendil is simply a reflection of this.

Elendil might have been a reflection of this. Then again Tolkien might have said, but wait, that makes Thingol even taller? Maybe I need to rethink things a bit.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

You are talking about the constructed works here, not merely posthumously published statements as written by JRRT himself. And in any case no where does Christopher Tolkien state which version of Sador is 'canon' for instance.

Well he puts one version in the story and published it. That's good enough for me.

Well CJRT didn't publish the quote in question. He gave that authority to Hammond and Scull, and we as readers can see or interpret contradiction even if no one mentions something -- noting that I already mentioned the way Hammond and Scull presented the 'Elendil' variations, for example.

Not necessarily. Think long about something, write with brevity and to the point. And you keep saying 'brief note' despite that we haven't yet seen all the commentary.

This just causes more problems. If we don't have the full commentary then we can not garner the context. For instance I remember a discussion about what was meant by Erendis' 'beauty seldom seen in Numenor.' One person argued it meant she was dark haired, but by looking at text elsewhere Christopher judged it to mean she was an incredibly beautiful woman much like Morwen.

Without context we have no indication of things he said prior. I really don't see how this can be viewed as a contradiction with such little evidence.

As I said, CJRT did publish part of one of these in UT -- you actually quoted a part of the 'artwork descriptions' without realizing it.

But no they do not 'need validation' from CJRT to hold equal standing with the rest of the same commentary from the creator of Middle-earth. And The Children of Hurin is arguably 'not canon' as it is clearly the work of Christopher Tolkien not JRRT.

Where does CJRT claim The Children of Hurin is canon?

Is everything in Vinyar Tengwar or Parma Eldalamberon 'lesser' material somehow, if CJRT merely gave certain texts to the Linguistic Team to publish and comment on?

If it is published by Christopher then I do consider it as part of the canon as far as we can know such things. Christopher has the right to edit and publish any work he sees fit. He knows more about Tolkien's intentions than anyone and we can begin to argue about level of canon, but for me it is certainly above anything published anywhere else.

If Christopher published only part of that quote he probably had full access to the other passages he did not publish and was found in the Hammond book.

Yes that was where I pointed out that you characterized one text as a 'brief note' versus an 'entire essay' -- when Christopher Tolkien characterized your 'entire essay' as a note rather.

Semantics indeed

There is a difference between a 'brief note' and the way that Christopher Tolkien used the term. As said previously I believe a short (I now understand it may have been longer) note about art is less likely to be as accurate as a considered passage on elves.

Well let's see if I have spoken to certain issues or not, as...


... the artwok quote says 7 feet and so on, as I quoted. What issue needs addressing there? I don't quibble with what this text says about the Numenoreans of old in general.

The problem is that a generic 7 foot is often used to describe someone much taller. It is very common for tall people to be described as 6ft even if they are taller or short people to be described as 5ft. These statements are not to be taken literally. Even the term a 'six footer' only means that someone is over 6ft.

That's because there is no average height noted in the text under consideration, and I interpret that quote as it stands. That said, my interpretation yet allows for not every Elf being exactly 6 foot 6, as I already described above.

Which is why I said the text is does not contradict anything. If there is no mention of an average height, then why should it contradict the average height being close to 7 foot as mentioned elsewhere?

Elendil might have been a reflection of this. Then again Tolkien might have said, but wait, that makes Thingol even taller? Maybe I need to rethink things a bit.

Maybe, but it's worth noting that Elendil, according to the note where he is 7'11, is not even the tallest man in Numenor during his own lifetime. So Tolkien had no problem with other men being taller than Elendil.

EDIT
I just looked at the full quote from the artwork again. Now I have seen it in full context, there is no way that it means Elendil was just 7ft tall.


'the Númenóreans before the Downfall were a people of great stature and strength, the Kings of Men; their full grown men were commonly seven feet tall, especially in the royal and noble houses. In the North where men of other kinds were fewer and their race remained purer this stature remained more frequent, though in both Arnor and Gondor apart from mixture of race the Númenóreans showed a dwindling of height and of longevity in Middle-earth that became more marked as the Third Age passed. Aragorn, direct descendant of Elendil and his son Isildur, both of whom had been seven feet tall, must nonetheless have been a very tall man..., probably at least 6 ft. 6; and Boromir, of high Númenórean lineage, not much shorter, (say 6 ft. 4).'

We now have more context and we can see Elendil the TALL, must be a lot more than 7ft. Tolkien tells us that it was common for men to be seven fee tall and especially in the royal houses. Now we are supposed to believe that a man nicknamed the TALL was the 'common height.' This is why context is so important. Elendil has to be significantly above 7ft for his nickname to make any sense.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Well he puts one version in the story and published it. That's good enough for me.

You can take the constructed versions as canon if you like. For me these versions are constructed for the 'reader experience' [different from a scholarly approach to an unfinished legendarium with different parts written at different times] not to define for the reader what Tolkien ultimately intended.

This just causes more problems. If we don't have the full commentary then we can not garner the context. For instance I remember a discussion about what was meant by Erendis' 'beauty seldom seen in Numenor.' One person argued it meant she was dark haired, but by looking at text elsewhere Christopher judged it to mean she was an incredibly beautiful woman much like Morwen.

Without context we have no indication of things he said prior. I really don't see how this can be viewed as a contradiction with such little evidence.

If there is more context about Eldarin height in these same papers, description that alters or helps with an interpretation of the text presented, I would expect it to be included as well. H&S are noted Tolkien scholars and you can find their thanks to Christopher Tolkien and other folk in the Preface to their Companion to The Lord of the Rings.


In any case, using what we have, I interpret things differently than you do.



The rest is just going in circles now.