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

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by jallanite

In short Christopher Tolkien disagrees with you.

I'm aware of the texts (I believe I may have been one of the first to note that the Hobbit was a case of the latter Sun and Moon story appearing in print) but I'm happy to live with CT disagreeing with me.

Just to stir it up, another CT-ism that I accept is Gil-galad as the son of Fingon. The reason why is because this keeps the kingship (of the Noldor in Middle-earth) in the house of Fingolfin; it would seem odd indeed if the kingship were to jump across to Finarfin's house.

Aside from making a mockery of the name Ereinion (how could he be a "scion of kings" when his ancestors had never held the kingship in Middle-earth?) it seems to have been Tolkien's intent that Finarfin's family, aside from Galadriel, be wiped-out in the First Age:

Angrod is gone, and Aegnor is gone, and Felagund is no more. Of Finarfin's children I am the last.

Just accepting the latest versions of stories that were left unfinished, and when those versions were possibly a result of Tolkien's infamous niggling (and would no doubt have been niggled even more over had he ever returned to them), may not get an end-result that's in harmony with the rest of the stories.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by mhagain

Just accepting the latest versions of stories that were left unfinished, and when those versions were possibly a result of Tolkien's infamous niggling (and would no doubt have been niggled even more over had he ever returned to them), may not get an end-result that's in harmony with the rest of the stories.

My point is that Tolkien decided in Morgoth’s Ring that the Silmarillion was, in part, untrue Mannish legend, which allowed him to retain much of the old Silmarillion stories as just stories along with a more scientific viewpoint. That Tolkien, over and above that, also wrote matter that was contradictory is another issue altogether. Confusing these two just makes the matter more confusing.

Your listing of personal details on which you personally disagree with Christopher Tolkien’s Silmarillion tradition contradicts your statement:

Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.

You seemingly do not accept some of Christopher Tolkien’s decisions. I would say you have a perfect right to choose not to accept Christopher Tolkien’s decisions and have already said so. But Tolkien’s decision to change his Silmarillion tradition before the return of the Noldor to make it into partly Mannish legend has the result that often there will be two contradictory versions of any legend, that of the Silmarillion and that of the Wise, both of which Tolkien updated.

My own feeling is that accepting usually does not enter the matter, for me. Tolkien was writing fiction. He intended his writing to be coherent and one may point out where he has failed. But when one coherent statement contradicts another coherent statement then both statements should be equally acceptable. The Silmarillion material was almost all unpublished in Tolkien’s lifetime and so other than likelihood of Tolkien deciding on a particular statement, there is no way to choose among discrepant statements.

[Galin]

Aside from making a mockery of the name Ereinion (how could he be a "scion of kings" when his ancestors had never held the kingship in Middle-earth?)...

Orodreth/Arothir was still King of Nargothrond however, and in the Ereinion text Tolkien notes his descent from Finwe. Plus, I think the only text with Ereinion in it [unless I've missed another reference] dates rather late, 1968 or later, after Tolkien had at least made the change of Orodreth/Arothir being the son of Angrod, and Gil-galad being the son of Arothir.

So a name meaning 'Scion of Kings' seems to have been invented after the switch to Gil-galad [again] becoming a Finarfinian.

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your listing of personal details on which you personally disagree with Christopher Tolkien’s Silmarillion tradition contradicts your statement:

Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.

You seemingly do not accept some of Christopher Tolkien’s decisions. I would say you have a perfect right to choose not to accept Christopher Tolkien’s decisions and have already said so. But Tolkien’s decision to change his Silmarillion tradition before the return of the Noldor to make it into partly Mannish legend has the result that often there will be two contradictory versions of any legend, that of the Silmarillion and that of the Wise, both of which Tolkien updated.

The contradiction is only apparent.

I accept CT's decisions at the time he made them, in the early/mid 70s, and accept them as being in accordance with JRRT's explicit wish that CT take over the reins and do what he wanted.

It's very well documented that CT subsequently came to view many of those decisions as incorrect, so we're not dealing with a single opinion formed at a single point in time here, and I would have hoped that would have been obvious.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by mhagain

The contradiction is only apparent.

See Galin’s discussion of J. R. R. Tolkien’s actual use of the name Ereinion. If Galin is right here, then Gil-galad at the time that Tolkien named him Ereinion was indeed the “Scion of Kings”.

Yes, legally Christopher Tolkien had the right to do anything he wished with his father’s work. However legally any commentator has the right to criticize what Christopher Tolkien has done, whether that commentator’s criticism is just or not, just as he or she has the legal right to criticize the writings of any other author as long as he or she does not descend to provably libelous statements.

Your statement I still find offensive. The statement was:

Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.

Your use of the word we indicates that I, not just you, have no choice but to accept whatever Christoper Tolkien has written. Yet you yourself note that Christopher Tolkien himself “came to view many of those decisions as incorrect”. I don’t think you meant Christopher Tolkien was in any way legally overstepping the limits set by his father’s will. Indeed, had Christopher Tolkien produced a work almost entirely of his own invention (instead of the published Silmarillion he did produce) that would not have transgressed anything in the will. And I don’t see that when Christopher Tolkien “came to view many of those decisions as incorrect” he was suggesting that he had written anything that was legally incorrect.

Your attempt to show that Christopher Tolkien has done nothing illegal (and indeed could have done nothing illegal regardless of what he did write) has no relevance to complaints that have been made about Christopher Tolkien’s writings, complaints I feel are largely unjustified.

[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.