3 Concerning Naugrim, Ents and Eagles

[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.

[Findegil]

DE-EX-01: What is more important then the fact that b, d and e agree to each other is that these agrees to Letter no.212. Since Rhona Beare who recieved that letter was a leader of a group of Tolkien fans. It was clear to Tolkien that his answeres would be pronounced in that group. This is of course far from publication, but nonetheless giving the letter an extra portion of priority.

DE-EX-04: The missing "you" was a good chatch. I changed the source info and shortedn it by CD for Concerning the Dwarves and D&M for Dwarves and Men.

DE-EX-07.1: Okay, I can see your concerns. In stating that Eru added the other dwarves we would generate a fact in Middle-earth that has no source in Tolkien. And as much as I think this changed story makes a lot of sense, I agree not to use it.

DE-EX-07.2: I agree to the argument of ArcusCalion that the placement here of the chapter and this passaged from D&M fit best here. The conetent of the chapter must be shifted anyhow, since in its original place the first mentioning of the Dwarves in the narrative (in chapter 13 Of the Sindar) would come before the story of their making. We could of course shift this passage from D&M to the end of chapter 16 where the first encounter of Noldor and Dwarves is reported. But I doubt very much that its incooperation would be smother there.

DE-EX-08: If we would discard this passage because Tolkien did not take it up into his final version, we would need to form some text from LotR, Appendix to contain the information about the female dwarves. In other cases like that we prefered to restore the rejected passages, and I think that is here the better way as well.

DE-EX-09: I don't see that this is redundant with what follows. What I includes from that Letter is: 1. That what was told so far is the Elvish version of the story. 2. That Elves and Men know nothing of the fate of the fëa of the Dwarves after death. Only the second could be said to be redundant to the false belief that Dwarves return to earth and stone. But is that a statment about the dwarvish fëa at all?

DE-EX-10, second footnote: If, as Aiwendil thinks, this is Tolkien think with the pen, then taking the footnote as it is would change Tolkien's uncertainty to one of the author of our text. To avoid that we could edit out the uncertainty.

DE-EX-11: As ArcusCalion I think this is not redundant but complimentary.

DE-SC-06: In the later conception of the Valar it is unthinkable that they would not know about the sun before its making. They might not have precived the importance or greatness of that source of light, but even so the Vision of Eä cased before the dominion of Men began, I don't belive it cased before Men awoke. And anyhow the Ainulindalë was over all. All the Valar therefore must have been a rough idea about the history of Eä to come and must have include some idea about the sun. In addition Yavanna is speaking about Middle-earth and here words are reported by an unknown author in retrospec. So what ever she actually said in reffering to the light to come over that part of the world would in retrospec of the author be interpretable as the Sun.
And about not knowing what to do when the Trees are dead: It is one thing to know roughly what is the final result and quiet another to archive that result when the time for your action comes along, especially if (as we are told they were not) the Valar did not have a clear vision of the time scale of the Music and the Vision. It seems that none of the events in the history could be fortold by the Valar with precise timing.

DE-SC-08: Okay, we will restore that passaged.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Findegil]

DE-EX-07: I found a contradiction that we must adress: In Quendi and Eldar, dated 1959-60, it is said that, the Dwarves 'claimed to have known Beleriand before even the Eldar first came there'. This is contradict, in a way, by the Passage (e) from Concerning the Dwraves, dated 1969-70, that we toke up into our text: "But it is not known when Durin or his brethren first awoke, though some think that it was at the time of the departure of the Eldar over sea." Even so we could argue that 'some think' as a qualifier is enough to make the contradiction bearable, but I would here rather use principle 2b and skip the second half of the sentence.

Beside that I will again break a lance for DE-EX-07.1. How do we think that with the 6 couples and one additional male and the reported unprolific behaevier of the Dwarves with in such a short time as given between the awakening of the Elves and the Eldar reaching Beleriand such a variation like the Petty-Dwarves would be reached? I think that their is no question that these additional Dwarves are needed. The question then is hwo we could take that info up into our text without stating unkown facts like who made these additional Dwarves.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

DE-EX-07, 07.1: For the first one, I think simply removing the second part of the sentence is the safest bet, like Fin suggests. As for the issue with the Dwarves propagating, by the old relation of YT to YS, there is a period of around 700 years from the awakening of the Elves to the time when the Vanyar and Noldor first entered Beleriand. I know we are not necessarily abiding by this timeline due to the uncertainty of the relations, but this is the timeframe imagined (any revisions only make this time period longer, so this is the shortest time frame possible.) I would say that 700 years is plenty of time for the Firebeards and Broadbeams to have exiled the smaller and more deformed of their race (i.e. the Petty Dwarves) and for them to have grown enough. Obviously having an entire race formed from a single pair of people presents a bunch of genetic issues, but as this is a fantasy world that may be overlooked. I would say 700 years is enough time for the pairs story to make sense.

[Findegil]

700 years is for Dwarves not so much. Let assume the Fathers started at once to beget children, since each generation takes 100 sun years get children of their own, generation no 8 would be just born when the Elves entered Beleriand. If we calculate that 3 generations are alive at the same time and each generation would 1.5 times greater as the one before (which is a very high rate considering what we are told about the dwarves):
Generation 6 (the grandparants): 4 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 30.375
Generation 7 (the parants): 4 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 45.5625
Generation 8 (the children): 4 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x1.5 = 68.34375
And this is calculated for both Nogrod and Belegost together. How could they already push out a portion of this? And how could these develop to a smaller varity?

If at all this would function with the 144 S.Y = 1 V.Y. calculation, where generation 106 is just born when the Elves enter Beleriand.

Respectfully
Findegil