3 Concerning Naugrim, Ents and Eagles

[Aiwendil]

For this chapter, I produced two texts, separating "Of Aule and the Dwarves" from "Of the Ents and the Eagles".

The basic text is the QS77, with only a few alterations and additions. I used "AD" for the text "Of Aule and the Dwarves".

As usual:
Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks
{example} = text that should be deleted
[example] = normalised text, normally only used for general changes
<source example> = additions with source information
example = text inserted for grammatical or metrical reason
/example/ = outline expansion

<AD Of Aulë and the Dwarves>

AD-01<AD The Naugrim are not of the Elf-kind, nor of Man-kind, nor yet of Melkor's breeding; ... to have learners to whom he could teach his lore and his crafts, that he was unwilling to await the fulfilment of the designs of Ilúvatar.>

<QS77 It is told that in their beginning the Dwarves were made by Aule in the darkness of Middle-earth; ...

Now Iluvatar knew what was done, ... And the voice of Iluvatar said to him: AD-02 'Why {hast thou}[have you] done this? Why {dost thou}[do you] attempt a thing which {thou}[you] know{est} is beyond {thy}[your] power and {thy}[your] authority? For {thou hast}[you have] from me as a gift {thy}[your] own being only, and no more; and therefore the creatures of {thy}[your] hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when {thou}[you] think{est} to move them, and if {thy}[your] thought be elsewhere, standing idle. Is that {thy}[your] desire?'

Then Aule answered: 'I did not desire such lordship. I desired things other than I am, to love and to teach them, so that they too might perceive the beauty of Ea, AD-03 which {thou hast}[you have] caused to be. For it seemed ... Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own making by {thee}[you]; and the child of little understanding ... But what shall I do now, so that {thou}[you] be not angry with me for ever? As a child to his father, I offer to {thee}[you] these things, the work of the hands which {thou hast}[you have] made. Do with them what {thou wilt}[you will]. But should I not rather destroy the work of my presumption?'

Then Aule took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. ... And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: AD-04‘{Thy}[Your] offer I accepted even as it was made. {Dost thou}[Do you] not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from {thy}[your] blow, nor from any command of {thy}[your] will.' Then Aule cast down his hammer and was glad, and he gave thanks to Iluvatar, saying: 'May Eru bless my work and amend it!'

But Ilúvatar spoke again and said: 'Even as I gave being ... but in no other way will I amend AD-05 {thy}[your] handiwork, and as {thou hast}[you have] made it, so shall it be. But I will not suffer this: that these should come before the Firstborn of my design, nor that {thy}[your] impatience should be rewarded. ... and until that time {thou}[you] and they shall wait, though long it seem. But when the time comes I will awaken them, and they shall be to {thee}[you] as children; and often strife shall arise between {thine}[yours] and mine, the children of my adoption and the children of my choice.'

Then Aule took the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves, and laid them ...

<LQ And since they AD-06{came}[were to come] in the days of the power of Melkor, Aulë made them strong to endure. ... Then their part shall be to serve Aulë and to aid him in the re-making of Arda after the Last Battle.

AD-07<AD Now these Seven Fathers, they say, return to live again and to bear once more their ancient names>. {Now these Fathers, they say, were seven in number, and they alone return (in the manner of the Quendi) to live again in their own kin and to bear once more their ancient names.} Of these Durin was the most renowned in after ages, father of that Dwarf-kin most friendly to the Elves whose mansions were at Khazad-dûm.

In the darkness of Arda already the Naugrim wrought great works, for they had, even from the first days of their Fathers, ...

The Naugrim were ever, as they still remain, short and squat in stature; they were deep-breasted, strong in the arm, and stout in the leg, and their beards were long. ...

The father-tongue of the Dwarves Aulë himself devised for them, and their languages have thus no kinship with those of the Quendi. ...

In their own tongue the Dwarves name themselves Khazâd; ... and the Gonnhirrim masters of stone AD-08{; and those who dwelt in Belegost they called the Ennfeng or Longbeards, for their beards swept the floor before their feet}. The chief cities of the Khazâd in the west of Middle-earth in those days were at [Khazad-dûm], and at Gabilgathol and Tumunzahar, which are interpreted in the {Gnomish}[Sindarin] tongue Nornhabar the Dwarrowdelf, and Belegost Mickleburg, and Nogrod the Hollowbold. ... There battle later befell; but as yet the Dwarves troubled the Elves little, while the power of the Gnomes lasted.

AD-09Here end the words that {Pengolod}[Thingódhel] {spoke to me}[wrote] concerning the Dwarves, which are not part of the Pennas as it was written, but come from other books of lore, from the Lammas, the Dorgannas, and the Quentalë Ardanómion{: quoth Ælfwine}.>

Comments:

AD-01: This opening paragraph of AD was omitted from QS77.

AD-02: Christopher Tolkien says in XI that his father eventually settled on using the formal, "you", throughout AD, whereas QS77 uses "thou". I have reverted all instances of "thou" to "you".

AD-03: As AD-02

AD-04: As AD-02

AD-05: As AD-02

AD-06: Changed per Tolkien’s emendation to LQ1.

AD-07: Taking the later version of the statement about the Dwarf-fathers returning to life.

AD-08: The "Longbeards" were later the Dwarves of Khazad-dum, not of Belegost.

AD-09: Removal of Aelfwine.

For my text of "Anaxartaron Onyalië", with QS77 as the basis, I will only indicate the beginning, end, and changes, as the rest follows QS77.

<Of the Ents and the Eagles Anaxartaron Onyalië>

Now when Aule laboured in the making of the Dwarves he kept this work hidden from the other Valar; but at last he opened his mind to Yavanna and told her of all that had come to pass. ...

Therefore she went before Manwe, and she did not EE-01{betray}[bewray] the counsel of Aule, but she said: 'King of Arda, is it true, as Aule hath said to me, that the Children when they come shall have dominion over all the things of my labour, to do as they will therewith?'

...

'Yet it was in the Song,' said Yavanna. 'For while thou wert in the heavens and with Ulmo built the clouds and poured out the rains, I lifted up the branches of great trees to receive them, and some sang to EE-02{Ilúvatar}[Eru] amid the wind and the rain.'

...

And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of EE-03{Iluvatar}[Eru]; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur.

...

'Nonetheless they will have need of wood,' said Aule, and he went on with his smith-work.

Comments:

EE-01: Per XI; ‘betray’ in QS77 was an editorial alteration of ‘bewray’.

EE-02: Per XI, as EE-01; ‘Iluvatar’ in QS77 for original ‘Eru’.

EE-03: As EE-02.

[Findegil]

This comparision is a difficult task. I will try to order the differences by occurrence and give some editing mark or some such as reference, so that the discussion might be at least easier to follow.

Happyly we both have chosen in this case the same basic text found in Sil77 page 16-17.

DE-SC-01 / AD-01: we added both these opening back in, but you toke up a bit too much. In your Version ‘It is told that in their beginning the Dwarves were made by Aule in the darkness of Middle-earth; for so greatly did Aule desire the coming of the Children, to have learners to whom he could teach his lore and his crafts, that he was unwilling to await the fulfilment of the designs of Iluvatar.’ is redundant.

AD-02 to AD-05: I was not so clear about this changes. Was it really all instances that Tolkien changed? If you think so, we can take these changes up into our common version.

DE-EX-01 to DE-EX-07: All these expansions of my draft Aiwendil did decised against or did not consider.

AD-06: The change reporte here is done in Sil77. Therefore I did not mention it.

AD-07: In my version I created a much fuller account of the rebirth of the fathers with DE-EX-10 to DE-EX-12. But I positioned it differently.

In the darkness of Arda already the Naugrim wrought great works, …: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ to use it later in its proper place.

DE-EX-07 / The Naugrim were ever, as they still remain, ...: This paragraph from AD both have taken up into the draft.

The father-tongue of the Dwarves Aulë himself devised for them, ...: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ to use it later in its proper place.

In their own tongue the Dwarves name themselves Khazâd; ...: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ to use it later in its proper place.

AD-08: I did a change in this passage of course, but quite differently. See the thread about ‘The Siege of Angband’.

AD-09: I did not take up this reference to Pengolod, but we might consider it. BY the way was {Pengolod}[Thingódhel] a decision taken by the project? I can’t remember.

DE-EX-09 to DE-EX-12: All these expansions of my draft Aiwendil did decised against or did not consider.

Sub-title: Aiwendil used the English title first and the Elvish second, while I did it the other way around. Since both were written of difrent amanuensis typescripts, we are completly free to chose, or was an other idea beyond your choice, Aiwendil?

DE-SC-04 / EE-01: These change was done in both versions. So I assume we agree on it.

DE-SC-05: this footnote found in HoMe 11 explaining ‘kelvar’ was not taken up by Aiwendil into his draft.

EE-02: This change from Iluvatar to Eru I missed in my Version, so I agree that it should be made.

DE-SC-06: This halfsentence was omitted from Sil778 because Christopher Tolkien thought it might imply that the sun was already in existence when Manwë thought about the Ents. This might have been Aiwendils reason not to include it as well. But since that vision is anyway a look into the future, I don’t think the omission is necessary. By the way I wrongly dedicated the source here as HoMe 12, as a matter of fact it is HoMe 11.

DE-SC-07 / EE-03: These change was done in both versions. So I assume we agree on it.

DE-SC-08: This passage was marked by Tolkien for exclusion, but Christopher Tolkien toke it nonetheless up into Sil77. In my draft I skipt it, Aiwendil kept it. I am open to both. In the event it is staing the fact of Middle-earth history that the Ents were doomed to die out in the Fourth Age and the dominion of Men.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

A few quick comments for now.

Originally Posted by Findegil

DE-SC-01 / AD-01: we added both these opening back in, but you toke up a bit too much. In your Version ‘It is told that in their beginning the Dwarves were made by Aule in the darkness of Middle-earth; for so greatly did Aule desire the coming of the Children, to have learners to whom he could teach his lore and his crafts, that he was unwilling to await the fulfilment of the designs of Iluvatar.’ is redundant.

My goodness, what an oversight! You are right, I included that sentence twice in a row.

AD-02 to AD-05: I was not so clear about this changes. Was it really all instances that Tolkien changed? If you think so, we can take these changes up into our common version.

Discussing the text "Of Aule and the Dwarves", Christopher Tolkien says:

There are a number of insignificant editorial alterations in the published text, and among them one point should be mentioned: my father was uncertain whether to use 'thou' or 'you' in the converse of Aulë with Ilúvatar (in one case he changed 'you may' to 'thou mayst' and then reverted to 'you may'). In the end he decided on 'you', whereas the published text has 'thou' throughout.

So yes, it appears that Tolkien's decision was to use "you" throughout this dialogue, despite the fact that Christopher for some reason opted for "thou" in the '77.

AD-06: The change reporte here is done in Sil77. Therefore I did not mention it.

That's fair.

AD-09: I did not take up this reference to Pengolod, but we might consider it. BY the way was {Pengolod}[Thingódhel] a decision taken by the project? I can’t remember.

It seems that in the time since I wrote this draft, we changed our mind about this - based on 'Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals', we decided to go back to Pengoloð/Pengolodh (see here).

Sub-title: Aiwendil used the English title first and the Elvish second, while I did it the other way around. Since both were written of difrent amanuensis typescripts, we are completly free to chose, or was an other idea beyond your choice, Aiwendil?

I don't think I had any reasoning behind this; just arbitrary choice.

The other points require me to look at things a bit more carefully, so I'll do that when I get the chance.

[Findegil]

AD-02 to AD-05: Okay, we take up these changes, but number them all. Also in DE-EX-04 we have:

… thought be elsewhere, standing idle. DE-EX-04<Letters; no. 212 Though you have devised a language for them, they can only report to AD-02.2{thee thine}< For consistence with Of Dwarves and Men, HoME 12 your> own thought. This is a mockery of me.> Is that AD-02.1{thy}<Of Dwarves and Men, HoME 12 your> desire?'

And I have a question: in the last instance of AD-05 you replaced ‘often strife shall arise between {thine}[yours] and mine, the children of my adoption and the children of my choice.' Is this corret? My feeling is that ‘your’ and ‘my’ would be correct, ‘yours’ doesn’t feels right at all. But that is based only on my feeling if I would add to it: ‘often strife shall arise between your children and my children. If that is true then ‘mine’ was used to corosponde nicely to ‘thine’. If we correct ‘thine’ to ‘your’ then shouldn’t we change ‘mine’ to ‘my’?

AD-06: I will include the edditng marker in the text, so that we can trak it.

AD-09: I think that we deciseded against using any diacritical signs in the normal text like ‘ð’. Therefore I assume it is Pengolodh. But in the case of Maedhros we have a late text of Tolkien naming him Maedros which was what we adopted. Looking up many of the references we have already included, I think I agree on taken this one up into our version as well, but I think it should go with the passages left of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ to the end of ‘Of the Coming of the Noldor’

Titel: If your choise was arbitrary, I agrue that the Elvish should be first, since the English seems to be a kind of translation, or not?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Findegil

And I have a question: in the last instance of AD-05 you replaced ‘often strife shall arise between {thine}[yours] and mine, the children of my adoption and the children of my choice.' Is this corret? My feeling is that ‘your’ and ‘my’ would be correct, ‘yours’ doesn’t feels right at all. But that is based only on my feeling if I would add to it: ‘often strife shall arise between your children and my children. If that is true then ‘mine’ was used to corosponde nicely to ‘thine’. If we correct ‘thine’ to ‘your’ then shouldn’t we change ‘mine’ to ‘my’?

No, it should be "yours and mine". "My" and "thy" correspond with "your" (these are possessive determiners, and cannot be used as predicate adjectives), whereas "mine" and "thine" correspond with "yours". If the word "children" were explicitly included, it would be correct to say "strife shall arise between your children and my children", but if "children" is left out, it must be "strife shall arise between yours and mine".

AD-09: OK. Personally, I don't trouble myself too much about things like ð vs. dh, as this is purely a matter of English orthography. We should, however, go with Tolkien's latest convention.

Titel: If your choise was arbitrary, I agrue that the Elvish should be first, since the English seems to be a kind of translation, or not?

Yes, that does make more sense.

[Aiwendil]

I've finally looked at the rest of the items.

DE-EX-01: I’m uncertain about this. I think there are three issues. First, the fact that Tolkien rejected this passage (and omitted any statement on Dwarf-women in the final version of this text), and second, the fact that some of the five passages here contradict each other, and it is difficult to tell which story has precedence. It is true, however, that of these versions, b, d, and e all seem to be more or less in agreement. Third, in ‘Dwarves and Men’, we have the note that ‘Durin slept alone’, in reference to the other six dwarf-fathers being placed in pairs. This seems to offer a different meaning for Durin’s ‘aloneness’ than that in the passages from LQ/‘Concerning the Dwarves’. Of course, it doesn’t directly contradict LQ/‘Concerning the Dwarves’ - Durin could have been ‘alone’ in both senses. But we might consider whether it implicitly suggests that the story of the six brides for seven brothers had been abandoned.

DE-EX-03, -04, -05, -06: Here Findegil combines the dialogue between Aulë and Iluvatar from LQ with that between them from Letter 212. I find myself uncertain about this, and I’m tempted to suggest that we should take one or the other. On the other hand, the additions are not very disruptive and it reads fairly well. So perhaps this combination is OK.

I think a word got dropped in DE-EX-04; it should be:

DE-EX-04<Letters; no. 212 Though you have devised a language for them, they can only report to AD-02.2{thee thine}< For consistence with Of Dwarves and Men, HoME 12 you your> own thought.

Incidentally, a small point: the change from ‘thou’ to ‘you’ comes from ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ (HoMe XI), not ‘Dwarves and Men’ as indicated in the marked-up text. Also, might I suggest that for convenience of reading ‘Dwarves and Men’ be abbreviated ‘D&M’ instead of spelled out fully each time?

DE-EX-07: This goes hand in hand with DE-EX-01, of course, and depends on whether we are going to retain the story of the six dwarf-women.

It feels slightly odd to mention the departure of the Elves across the sea here, since that has of course not happened yet. When this text was written, it was obviously intended to come much later in the Quenta Silmarillion. But I suppose it’s not the only case of forward-looking references, so it may be fine.

DE-EX-07.1: I can’t agree with this one. The source is Christopher Tolkien’s statement:

and at the head of the page he suggested that the legend of the Making of the Dwarves should be altered (indeed very radically altered) to a form in which other Dwarves were laid to sleep near to the Fathers.

As Christopher notes, this is a very radical change, and I think it is a quintessential case for principle 2b - an unworkable projection. If Tolkien had developed this idea more fully, he would have had to say where these new dwarves came from - i.e. how and by whom were they made? Without that story, it is merely a projected revision. Moreover, it is not here said that Iluvatar is the one who laid them to sleep near to the Fathers, and it seems to me unwarranted to alter passage a of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ in this way.

DE-EX-07.2: In this long addition from ‘Dwarves and Men’, I worry more about the anachronisms. The whole passage comes very much from a later point of view. It does contain good information that I think we would definitely like to include somewhere, though. I wonder if it would work better later, when Dwarves first enter Beleriand and meet the Sindar. Of course, the ‘Third Age’ reference would still be an anachronism, but that could be either tolerated or removed.

Actually, this brings up a fundamental point that I don’t think we’ve discussed. We have so far assumed that we are following QS77 in moving the creation-story of the Dwarves to just after the building of Valinor and combining it with ‘The Ents and the Eagles’. But is there not something to be said for the option of following Tolkien’s placement of it in LQ? That is, not telling about the creation of the Dwarves until after the flight of the Noldor, when it is then told retrospectively? Of course, that would leave ‘Ents and Eagles’ somewhat homeless. I’m not necessarily arguing that we should do that, but we should at least think about it and be able to enunciate why we are following QS77 in this regard.

DE-EX-08: This is a debatable one - on the one hand, Tolkien left this information out of the revised version of this text, which normally I would say means we should consider it rejected. But on the other hand, in LotR appendix A we have closely matching information on dwarf-women, so it seems the ideas here were not rejected.

DE-EX-09: I don’t see much value in this addition. It doesn’t really add anything beyond what is immediately after stated about Dwarvish and Elvish beliefs.

DE-EX-10: I think this is good. But the footnotes (particularly the second one) strike me as very much informal commentary/speculation by Tolkien, and I think we may want to reconsider including them.

DE-EX-11: This addition seems completely redundant with what was said before, and I would remove it.

DE-EX-12: This looks good, and in this case I think the footnote is fine.

DE-SC-05: I missed this footnote, but I agree it should be included.

DE-SC-06: I think I’m still inclined to omit this half sentence. Yes, it’s true that it is explicitly looking forward in time, but Yavanna’s reference to the sun makes it sound as if the sun is something already known and familiar to both her and Manwë, which I don’t think can be the case.

DE-SC-08: On reflection, I think I agree we should omit this, as in Findegil’s draft, since Tolkien rejected it.

[ArcusCalion]

DE-EX-01: I would say that simply logically, the Dwarf women would need to be there. If there were no dwarf-women that were laid to rest with the fathers, then the Dwarves could not have begun their race. It seems to me like a logical fallacy from Tolkien's part to suggest that they did not have spouses, and if he omitted it I cannot think that he was suggesting they did not exist, but rather simply chose not to mention them. Therefore, I think we can assume that the dwarf-women story was not rejected, simply because it cannot be rejected, on a simply logical basis.

DE-EX-03,04,05,06: I think it is a good combination, since as you said it reads well, and I would personally consider an actual text by Tolkien as a better primary document than the Letter. Fin's inclusion of the pieces of dialogue that are not in the other version seem like simply filling in the gaps, and I think it flows well.

De-EX-07: As I said above, I think we cannot reject the dwarf-women. In terms of forward references, this was a main point of contention between Fin and I in the inclusion of the D&M material. But overall I think he has convinced me that it is better to include it in its natural place, and a few forward references are not bad.

DE-EX-07.1: I think this argument makes sense, so I agree with you.

DE-EX-07.2: This addition contains a wealth of information that is definitely needed for inclusion. As it is, this whole chapter is a treatise on the Dwarves as a people, and I think it does belong here. If it does not belong here, then it belongs in the Third or Second Age material, but I think that is too late a placement certainly. I think losing the Third Age references as Fin has done is simple enough, and does not lose too much information that would be good to include. If we really decide the two minor points are worth including later we can do so as well, but I think we wont need to.

As for the placement of the chapter, I believe the reason for its inclusion here is to a) allow for a part 1 of the Ents and Eagles text, which assumes knowledge of the creation of the Dwarves and b) because the creation of the dwarves happens chronologically at this time, and therefore makes most sense to include here. If we include it later, it would be as a flashback, and then as you said, the problem of where to include the Ents and Eagles chapter becomes quite thorny. As it assumes the creation of dwarves is known, we cannot place it before that tale is told, which would mean it must be told sometime after the Coming of the Noldor. This is an issue, as it helps also to set up the Eagles of Manwe which come into play when Fingon rescues Maedros on Thangorodrim, and needs to be before it. Thus, I think we must stick with this placement of the chapter. It will make this chapter unusual due to its nature, but it will be unusual no matter where it is placed.

DE-EX-08: I am in favor of retaining the addition, since, as you said, the ideas were not actually rejected.

DE-EX-09: If you think it is redundant then I am not opposed to removing it.

DE-EX-10: While the footnote is somewhat off in style, I do think it contains information not found elsewhere which would be a bad thing to lose.

DE-EX-11: How is this redundant?

De-EX-12: agreed.

DE-SC-05: agreed.

DE-SC-06: I think yoou are right, as it makes the Sun look expected at the least, when in SM they struggle to think of what to do when the trees die.

DE-SC-08: agreed.