Transmission theory: what the heck was Tolkien thinking?

[Galin]

I stumbled across the following from JRRT (letter 276 to Richard Plotz), to mix into Hammond and Scull's Chronology. But first, I can't recall any reference to Elfwine dating to after the later 1950s early 1960s "phase". The fact that some sort of Elfwine scenario was in the mix even after the first edition Lord of the Rings was published brings up its own questions, but anyway I emphasize the first edition here because Bilbo's translations are said to be some books of lore that he gave to Frodo, while two notable Elder Days references come along in the second, revised edition of the 1960s.

As noted already, in 1962 ATB is published, which reveals that Rivendell holds Elvish and Numenorean Lore, and a Tale of Turin and Mim is referred to as Numenorean.

1965, 25 July Tolkien sends his new text, Note On The shire Records, to Houghton Mifflin Company, for insertion after the Prologue to the revised edition. So now the reader learns that Bilbo's Translations From The Elvish were "almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days". And JRRT ultimately added in Appendix A (revised edition) that the ancient legends of the First Age were Bilbo's chief interest.


1965, 12 September Tolkien replies to Mr. Plotz, in which he mentions the Numenorean Tale The Mariner's Wife, adding:

"This is supposed to have been preserved in the Downfall, when most of Numenorean lore was lost except that that dealt with the First Age, because it tells how Numenor became involved in the politics of Middle-earth."

So as I read this, less that two months after the new Note On The Shire Records is sent to publishers, JRRT explains to Richard Plotz that First Age Numenorean Lore was not lost, when much else Numenorean lore was lost at the Downfall.

I'm wondering if I can get a date (if known), with respect to the month, for the letter that gave rise to this thread? The excerpt being...

"Is there going to be another book? Professor Tolkien is hoping to complete for publication another work, called the Silmarillion, an account of the history and mythology of the First and Second Ages and the early part of the Third Age as it has come down through the Numenoreans, but he is kept from it by other matters..."

__________

For anyone interested, Tolkien did meet with Mr. Plotz later.

1966, I November Tolkien meets with Richard Plotz, who is quoted at least twice referring to Bilbo's possible involvement with respect to the Silmarillion material (that is, a report by Dick Plotz referring to when he visited Tolkien on 1 November, 1966):

Tolkien tells him that one of the snags delaying publication of The Silmarillion is its quasi-biblical style, which Tolkien considers "his best, but his publishers disagree. Another problem is that of finding a story line to connect all the parts. "At the moment, Professor Tolkien is considering making use of Bilbo again ... perhaps the Silmarillion will appear as his research in Rivendell."

Hammond And Scull, Chronology

Here Mr. Plotz puts it another way...

"he, half-heartedly I suppose, was thinking up schemes for rendering the Silmarillion publishable. So far, I think what he is doing is relating it to Bilbo's stay in Rivendell, which is what he said to me.

Now there is a hint of this somewhere in The Lord of the Rings.... But apparently when Bilbo went to Rivendell he was surrounded by Elves and all Elven records for seventeen years. Here was living history and he attempted to write it down, and this is what became the Silmarillion ["An Edited Transcript of Remarks at the December 1966 TSA [Tolkien Society of America] Meeting"; Niekas 19 (Spring 1967), p. 40]
Hammond and Scull, Reader's Guide

I wish we had Tolkien's exact words here, in any event.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Hmmmmm- well, it's always possible that Tolkien was, characteristically, vacillating!

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

Actually, I think I'm coming around to the "uncritical translation of old legends" view of Bilbo's work especially in light of T's description of Quenta Silmarillion as a compilation made in Numenor, focused around the Great Tales (all of them about Edain). This is especially appealing in that we know that Bilbo was quite fond of Aragorn and very interested in his lineage. The only (minor) problem there is that "Translations from Numenor" or some such might have been a more accurate title, even though the given one isn't inaccurate (presumably the Numenorean QS was written in Sindarin).

I had something of a small epiphany in this regard brought on by analogies made here to classical mythology. We have all read collections of "Greek" mythology-- except that many of those stories and several of the best known in fact come from Ovid, a Roman; further confusing matters is the fact that often these collections, especially the older ones, use the Latin rather than Greek names of deities (even that reflects Roman "garbling;" with the exception of Apollo, the Roman pantheon were native Latin gods who were subsequently syncretized with the Greek and appropriated their legends).

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

As for the Numenorean Turin- it certainly is the case that various poems get made about the same story, or pieces of the same story--how many poems and tales have been made about Arthur and his knights, including by Tolkien? See also the fight at Finnsburg, known both from its own fragmentary poem and as an episode recited in Beowulf, and the three extant medieval versions of the Sigurd/Siegfried tale. One in-universe example is the poem of Beren and Luthien's meeting sung by Aragorn at Weathertop, which is clearly distinct from the Lay of Leithian.

[Rhun charioteer]

This has the rather uncomfortable implication that the Silmarillion didn't actually "happen" but was numenorian embellishment.

So I am inclined to view it as Tolkien's quixotic but ultimately pointless effort later in life to have mythos conform with science.

If you ask me that isn't necessary and is more damaging to the story than redeeming so I'll say the Silmarillion was an "accurate" description of things that took place.

[Galin]

I think that plenty already in The Silmarillion can still happen (in a sense of reader participation as it concerns what "really" happened), on a round earth and under a pre-existing sun. And there are plenty of magical or fantastic things that remain.

And if folks allow (and enjoy) a flat earth idea to be true, despite that part of the mind can still conjure up "well, that's impossible" without given a choice from the story itself, can't the same folk, side, in a sense, with Mannish legends?

Admittedly, an "in story undermining", being part of the reader experience, arguably makes it easier for questions to intrude, and sway the reader to choose a more likely opinion, but within the reader experience, one is still allowing (if the writer does his job well) the fantastic to be true. Then maybe it's about individual measures.

What version of Pi's (Life of Pi) story is true? Or which do you prefer? And then again both versions are fiction.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galin

I think that plenty already in The Silmarillion can still happen (in a sense of reader participation as it concerns what "really" happened), on a round earth and under a pre-existing sun. And there are plenty of magical or fantastic things that remain.

And if folks allow (and enjoy) a flat earth idea to be true, despite that part of the mind can still conjure up "well, that's impossible" without given a choice from the story itself, can't the same folk, side, in a sense, with Mannish legends?

Admittedly, an "in story undermining", being part of the reader experience, arguably makes it easier for questions to intrude, and sway the reader to choose a more likely opinion, but within the reader experience, one is still allowing (if the writer does his job well) the fantastic to be true. Then maybe it's about individual measures.

What version of Pi's (Life of Pi) story is true? Or which do you prefer? And then again both versions are fiction.

I expect it's rather like a fundamentalist's adamant word-for-word view of the bible as opposed to a more liberal Christian's understanding of biblical events through the lens of modern, accepted science.