Oversight, or changing conceptions?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

We know two things about Tolkien as a world-builder. 1) that his thinking developed over time and he continued tinkering with his creation; as CT said "No work of my father's could truly be said to be 'finished' until it was physically taken out of his hands.'" 2) that as meticulous and convincing as Tolkien's craft was, he did make mistakes, most of which are well known to geekdom (Sam's two birth-years, anyone?)

And then we have this, from Appendix A (both editions): "There were three unions of the Eldar and the Edain: Luthien and Beren; Idril and Tuor; Arwen and Aragorn."

But what about Mithrellas?

Either Tolkien simply goofed, or he hadn't thought through his early quick comment about Imrahil, or there's a way to make it all reconcile- but again, at what stage of the mythos? It's easy enough to say Mithrellas was 'only' a Sylvan elf and thus not Eldarin, in other words an Avar, which certainly is what the Elves of Mirkwood and arguably the 'natives' of Lorien originally were; but it seems that Tolkien upgraded the Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood to Nandor (= Eldar) at a fairly early date, again arguably even before the LR depending on an obscure passage. So that's no dodge.

Unless one wants to suggest that Tolkien when he was being loose seems often to have used "Eldar" to mean "Elves of Beleriand and Aman."

[Mithadan]

It is possible that Tolkien viewed the Mithrellas tale as "legendary" though perhaps likely. Or this question may turn on Tolkien's intent when he used the word "union." The three "unions" appear to have extended beyond mortality (not sure how to phrase this simply). Luthien took the fate of Men. Tuor was deemed to be of Elven-kind (or, alternatively, they are both sleeping on one of the Shadowy Islands), and if so this was only done with the approval of the Valar. Arwen also assumed the fate of Men. They were not parted by death.

Mithrellas was not bound by the fate of Men. She may actually have left her "spouse." So they were separated by the Man's death, unlike the others.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Also, from that same tale: why Imrazor "the Numenorean?" This was almost two thousand years after Numenor had ceased to be; and I would suggest he wasn't any more of Numenorean descent than any other aristocrat of Gondor.

[Galin]

According to The Lord of the Rings, first and second editions, the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood and Lorien were not Eldarin, nor their languages Eldarin (Appendix F).* Also according to The Lord of the Rings, the Eldar are those Elves that crossed the Sea plus the Sindar only.



Thus for me, Mithrellas is:

A) not Eldarin (not a "High Elf" first edition**)
B) part of a legend in any case


And Tolkien's footnote to the second edition about Sindarin being spoken in Lorien can, in my opinion, be taken to mean that some Elves also spoke Sindarin in Lorien, but with an accent.


In my opinion a measure of oversight and changing conceptions are involved here, but for me, what matters in the end is the picture that Tolkien himself drew. For some reason, Tolkien's posthumously published ideas about the Nandor being "Eldar" seem to have overshadowed Tolkien's published conception of what the term Eldar referred to . . .

. . . but not for me


__________

*In draft texts Tolkien employs the term Avari but does not ultimately publish it, opting for "West-Elves" (Eldar), and "East-elves" (which need not mean Avari).


**The union of Eldar and Edain is a revision from the first edition, which had "High Elves and Men" rather.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not disposed to impose a rather artificial bright line of Publication as the be-all of 'canonicity,' especially since there are mistakes and inconsistencies even in the works that were published in Tolkien's lifetime.* In any event, if that is the line then it's impossible to talk about ""Nandor" or the definition of "Eldar," since all of that only appeared in print after his death. For that matter, so did Mithrellas.

It's not like Tolkien said in 1966 "OK, this is all I'm going to publish, everything else is just unreliable background stuff not to be taken seriously." He was, in his own mind anyway, trying to drive The Silmarillion towards a published form, which he died before completing. But he was stuck in a software developer's conundrum: how to upgrade the product while maintaining backwards compatability.

Where it comes to First Age matters, I would give precedence to QS/Annals materials over the LR appendices. This was, to Tolkien, THE account of the Elder Days, to which the LR just alluded in places, with some quicky sketches in the Appendices. While it's true that Tolkien in his later years had more freedom to alter the FA materials, post-66 he did surprisingly little of it; and the 2nd Ed LR was, at least in theory, altered to conform to TS as it stood at the time.

It's also the case that T was quite capable of retaining the same text while changing meaning out from under it. There is no question whatsoever that when he wrote the Lorien chapters the Elves of Lorien spoke their own Silvan language; the idea that it was just accented Sindarin was a later ret-con. (For that matter, Sindarin itself in the LR was a ret-con; the language at the time of writing was Noldorin).

______________
*For example, your own citation of "High Elves" was clearly a published mistake on Tolkien's part, since Luthien was not one and never was. Also the "House of Finrod" mistake which stood for years in LR printings.

[Huinesoron]

While totally accepting your point about publication not being the be-all and end-all, I think it's unfair to ask Appendix A to use a different definition of 'Eldar' to the one provided in Appendix F (which specifically excludes the population of Lorien). They're in the same book, after all!

Given Tolkien's known obsession with keeping the published material accurate, my guess is he just forgot he'd specified the Lorien elves as non-Eldar. Alternately, we can go back to your original proposal: 'Eldar' had variable meaning. Wasn't it originally applied to all the Quendi, and then purloined by the Elves of the March? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Edain started using it as shorthand for 'Elves once of Beleriand'.

As for Imrazor... it's because Gondorians are racist. No, really! 'Numenorean' is used as a synonym for 'Dunadan' (by Bilbo, I think?), so what the name really means is 'he was a proper Gondorian, not one of the lesser races'.

In fact, I see that UT specifically says of Mithrellas that she was 'of the lesser Silvan race (and not of the High Elves or the Grey)', so the 'lesser race' idea is right there. What's the most convenient term for 'Noldor + Sindar'? I don't know a better one than 'Eldar'.

hS

[Galin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I'm not disposed to impose a rather artificial bright line of Publication as the be-all of 'canonicity,' especially since there are mistakes and inconsistencies even in the works that were published in Tolkien's lifetime.*

Yet I'd say Tolkien himself considered already published material as canon -- which doesn't seem artificial to me, but sensible when one is building a Secondary World. It's not even a Tolkien issue. It's a writer's issue.

And even when Tolkien decided to make a change -- if he is "knowingly" altering something already in print (like the way Bilbo came by the One, for instance) -- I submit that he's treating already published texts as canon. In other words, text already in print is simply not the same animal compared to texts that can be changed over and over again without undermining the world of Middle-earth.

And if Tolkien thinks a given already-in-print alteration "needs" to be, why does he often invent an internal reason for the seeming inconsistency? You don't need to do that if you are altering something that no one has read about yet. Different animals.

And I know Tolkien desired purposed inconsistencies within his legendarium, but that is about art and choice -- it's not about the simple fact that private texts exist -- texts that readers only now know about due to Christopher Tolkien's decision to publish them -- which is not a negative comment in any way concerning his choice to publish these papers.

In any event, if that is the line then it's impossible to talk about ""Nandor" or the definition of "Eldar," since all of that only appeared in print after his death. For that matter, so did Mithrellas.

I can talk about anything Tolkien wrote while considering what he published as canon. And not that you said otherwise, but I can add to the canonical world of Middle-earth with posthumously published texts.

And I think the definition of Eldar is rather clear in The Lord of the Rings. Plus the legend of Elvish blood in the line of Dol Amroth seems clear enough too . . . so here I have no problem speaking of Mithrellas, as it doesn't contradict author published text obviously . . . noting too, that in some versions of the legend, the Elf was Nimrodel herself.

It's not like Tolkien said in 1966 "OK, this is all I'm going to publish, everything else is just unreliable background stuff not to be taken seriously."

Of course not. Nor am I saying that.

But what Tolkien did note, for example, was that he could not make ros a Beorian word after realizing it was noted as a Sindarin word in the Appendices, and thus he tossed out a few pages of nice, late "lore" because of a detail in the Appendices that many folks might not even read.

Where it comes to First Age matters, I would give precedence to QS/Annals materials over the LR appendices. This was, to Tolkien, THE account of the Elder Days, to which the LR just alluded in places, with some quicky sketches in the Appendices.

It certainly is more detailed. But what if contradictions occur?

Christopher Tolkien wrote: "It was the "moon-runes" that Elrond declared (at the end of the chapter A Short Rest) to have been invented by the Dwarves and written by them with silver pens, not the Runes as an alphabetic form -- as my father noted with relief.

I mention all this as an illustration of his intense concern to avoid discrepancy and inconsistency, even though in this case his anxiety was unfounded." Christopher Tolkien, note 8, Of Dwarves And Men, The Peoples of Middle-Earth

Discrepancy and inconsistency with what? Why would Tolkien be intensely concerned to avoid inconsistencies with a text no one had ever read, or will read? He's reasonably concerned rather with unwanted inconsistencies in print.

And why, for example, do you think Christopher Tolkien's opinion is that his father would surely have felt bound by Celebrimbor the Feanorian?

It's also the case that T was quite capable of retaining the same text while changing meaning out from under it. There is no question whatsoever that when he wrote the Lorien chapters the Elves of Lorien spoke their own Silvan language; the idea that it was just accented Sindarin was a later ret-con. (For that matter, Sindarin itself in the LR was a ret-con; the language at the time of writing was Noldorin).

I realize that we have ret-cons, and as I stated in my post above, I think both oversight and changing conceptions play a part here. That said, I'm not at all sure Tolkien's footnote was the best way to go here . . .

. . . but I accept it, as it's published by the author

And if it hadn't been, would it be a necessary "fact" that the East Elves of Lorien spoke Sindarin with such an accent that Aragorn and Boromir couldn't understand the songs about Mithrandir? Or, since it is published, is there any way I can interpret the footnote that for me, seems less jarring given the text that was never revised in both Appendix F and the tale proper?

For example, your own citation of "High Elves" was clearly a published mistake on Tolkien's part, since Luthien was not one and never was.

Depends upon how "High Elves" is defined

Also the "House of Finrod" mistake which stood for years in LR printings.

Well, we know Felagund was Inglor at the time, and I'd rather say that the "mistake" here is Tolkien changing the name of Finrod to Finarfin for the second edition -- especially given the reason he objected to this Elf being called "Finrod" -- having a Sindarin name, as noted in PE17.

In short: in my opinion Tolkien created an unnecessary inconsistency between the first and second edition here, as Finarfin remains a Sindarized name according to The Shibboleth of Feanor.