Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However, in trying to assign weight to various things Tolkien wrote down, one can't go exclusively by chronology, because it's certainly the case that T had in his mind, and committed to paper, everything from considered ideas worked out in great detail with full commitment, to on the other hand passing notions he jotted somewhere and soon rejected or forgot. To me the "nette remark" smacks more of the latter than the former.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Second post because utterly unconnected to the first:

While Tolkien wavered as to precisely the rates at which Elves (and Numenoreans) matured, the consistent thread in all of these writings is that these longeval races nonetheless grew from birth to first maturity (~20 years in human terms) at a much faster rate than the rate of their aging, compared to humans. Roughly speaking, we spend a quarter of our lives (0-20) growing up, and then the remaining 3/4 (20-80) decaying. For both Elves and Dunedain, though, while Tolkien vacillated on what the ratio was it was much, much greater than 1:3. Aragorn's was about 1:10, and Elves naturally way, way more.

This reflects back to a position I have long held, which was a minority position even before PJ cast a teenager to play Frodo and carved it in pop-culture stone: Frodo was not physically a teenager at 33 (and thereafter, because Ring). He was 33 in our regular human terms.* Hobbits, like Dunedain and Elves would fit the pattern: growth to adulthood at our rate, but slower decline thereafter. In ratio terms 1:4, since the average Hobbit life expectancy ("as often as not") was 100.

I have always thought that Hobbits coming of age at 33, (besides the maths of one gross), was the university don's droll little joke-- No society as sensible as the Shire would ever consider young people in their twenties to be "adults!"

*Mentally and emotionally, of course, he was 50, a middle-aged bachelor, not an ingenue. PJ never understood that.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Galin

Admittedly, I'm making a broader statement here about Tolkien's possible mindset in the later phases of his writing. We can't know, but what I'm suggesting is that by the time this idea (Feanor asking for Galadriel's hair) rolled into JRRT's mind, much of what he'd written nearly 10 years earlier could have been forgotten . . .

. . . or replaced with something simpler. And if so, when Tolkien wrote The Shibboleth of Feanor, can we even be certain he had not reverted to the old date of Galadriel's birth in the Annals of Aman and injected the new ratio. I agree it would undo much of what he thought 10 years before (if he even remembered it) and even 3 years before (if he remembered that), but for all we know, an older Tolkien might have undone certain things for simplicity, or undone certain things because he no longer had his old texts to hand in any case, and was "creating anew" so to speak.

In fact, we know that by about the time of the writing of "The Shibboleth of Feanor", Tolkien had either rejected or forgotten* much of what he had developed over the course of the many "Time and Ageing" texts of c. 1959, since in the two texts given in ch. XIX, "Elvish Life-Cycles", he presents a completely different approach to Elvish longevity in the form of cycles of renewal. On its own, this doesn't specifically invalidate the date he had arrived at for Galadriel's birth, but taken together with the new element of Galadriel's hair as inspiration for the Silmarils, it certainly suggests very strongly that Tolkien did not consider the final form of the c. 1959 chronology to be fixed or correct.

*It is fairly clear that in the writings from this time period, Tolkien had occasional lapses of memory. Nonetheless, I think it unlikely, given the amount of time he had evidently devoted ten years earlier to working out the details of Elvish growth and ageing, that this can be attributed simply to forgetfulness.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

In fact, we know that by about the time of the writing of "The Shibboleth of Feanor", Tolkien had either rejected or forgotten* much of what he had developed over the course of the many "Time and Ageing" texts of c. 1959, since in the two texts given in ch. XIX, "Elvish Life-Cycles", he presents a completely different approach to Elvish longevity in the form of cycles of renewal.

Well, that's what I get for skipping around! Hadn't read XIX yet (still haven't read XX) even though I've jumped to much later sections of the book. As I say, I'd been aware of the nette remark since Vinyar Tengwar, and indeed, looking at text II in XIX for example -- erm, now that you point it out --

Elves lived in life-cycles? sc. birth, childhood to bodily and mental maturity (as swift as that of Men) . . ."

So, so far, for me, still going with the external chronology and the nette description.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Galin

So far, in my head anyway, Tolkien's "final" thought here is based on the "nette remark" (I had thunk so before NOME actually, given that this was published in VT) -- and now in combination with XVI (from NOME), but if you think the two are internally consistent I'd like to see more of your argument as to why.

Unfortunately my claim is weakened (though not destroyed) by a misreading of the text. Most of "Eldarin hands..." is spent discussing Common Eldarin, and so the meanings and details it gives can be attributed only to that period when the elves spoke CE. So, for instance, "No distinction was felt between right and left by the Eldar" could be treated as referring only to the eldest days, if one were really concerned by the conflict with Maedhros' "learned to wield his sword with his left hand".

But the "nette remark" isn't one of these: it's referencing the Quenya word nette, a descendent of the CE neter. So I was wrong.

The reason I wasn't completely wrong is that the main text goes on to highlight how old a word "nette" is - appearing very closely in Sindarin and Telerin. So it could still be a word from the period of the March, which means that "the growth of Elvish children after birth was little if any slower" could still mean "in the period when this word was formed" - ie, the March.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

However, in trying to assign weight to various things Tolkien wrote down, one can't go exclusively by chronology, because it's certainly the case that T had in his mind, and committed to paper, everything from considered ideas worked out in great detail with full commitment, to on the other hand passing notions he jotted somewhere and soon rejected or forgot. To me the "nette remark" smacks more of the latter than the former.

This is an important point to remember when trying to mind-read Tolkien. And ultimately, despite all the work he put into them, I think all his First Age timelines fall into the "transient" category: he was perfectly happy to change the dates, and indeed the entire dating system, repeatedly. (Heck, at one point in NoME he even considered changing the published, LotR Tale of Years!) So the 'definitive timeline' concept is one Tolkien never really had in his later years.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

In fact, we know that by about the time of the writing of "The Shibboleth of Feanor", Tolkien had either rejected or forgotten* much of what he had developed over the course of the many "Time and Ageing" texts of c. 1959, since in the two texts given in ch. XIX, "Elvish Life-Cycles", he presents a completely different approach to Elvish longevity in the form of cycles of renewal. On its own, this doesn't specifically invalidate the date he had arrived at for Galadriel's birth, but taken together with the new element of Galadriel's hair as inspiration for the Silmarils, it certainly suggests very strongly that Tolkien did not consider the final form of the c. 1959 chronology to be fixed or correct.

*It is fairly clear that in the writings from this time period, Tolkien had occasional lapses of memory. Nonetheless, I think it unlikely, given the amount of time he had evidently devoted ten years earlier to working out the details of Elvish growth and ageing, that this can be attributed simply to forgetfulness.

Okay, yeah, I totally misread the date on 1.XIX and had it down as yet another 1959 piece... Okay, quick timeline on Elvish aging:

- 1959a: NoME 1.IX,X. Growth from birth was 1:144 in Aman, 1:100 outside; Galadriel is said to be 20 at the exile, or "in years about 20 x 144 = 2880". Pregnancy was briefly calculated to be 900 months (75 years). At another point, growth-years were 1:10 in Middle-earth, 1:100 in Aman, and 1:50 for Aman-born elves in Middle-earth.
- 1959b: NoME 1, most text before 1.XV. 9-12 year pregnancy, maturity at 1:12 rate, and then 1:144 (sometimes 1:100 in Middle-earth). In some texts, in later Ages the mature rate quickened even more: 1:48 "in these latter days" (1.IX). At a later date, Tolkien specifically noted that the increased rate should not happen.
- 1959c: NoME 1.XVI,XVII. 1 year pregnancy, to maturity at 1:1 rate, then at 1:144. Tolkien states that slower growth is "unlikely".
- 1965: NoME 1.XVIII. In Middle-earth, "the Growth Years were relatively swift". 3 year pregnancy, grow to 24 at 1:3 rate, then 1:144 after that. The return to Middle-earth was at these rates.
- 1967-8: NoME 2.III, the "nette remark". Growth after birth is "little if at all slower than that of the children of Men". If referring to a specific time-period, it's probably the Great March, but could be Third Age (the "writer" seems to be Gondorian).
- 1969: NoME 1.XIX, Text 1. Elves age in cycles, and none had actually entered a new cycle before the end of the Third Age.
- 1970: NoME 1.XIX, Text 2. "birth, childhood to bodily and mental maturity (as swift as that of Men)". Cycles, with the first being the bearing and raising of first set of children, followed by a "youth-renewing" and then a second set of children. This renewal weakened over time, until by the end of the Second Age such renewals were rare.

It's clear that elves in Middle-earth, probably both before and after the sojourn in Aman, should be viewed as having a 1-year gestation, 24 years to full-grown, and then a 1:144 rate thereafter. The outstanding question is whether Tolkien intended this to apply in Aman, under the Trees. Every time he wrote separately about that period, he gave it a longer growth rate; but the specific note in 1.IX saying "No quickening" would seem to negate this. On the other hand, the 1965 1.XVIII seems to imply a quickening took place: "The [Growth-Years] were relatively swift, and in Middle-earth = 3 loar". And the 1970s 1.XIX indicates that elves were reaching "old age" sooner as time passed, implying some form of quickening still existed.

The view that Galadriel was "young and eager" at the exile was long-held; her specific age of 20 is mentioned in multiple texts from 1959, as well as the 1965 text. I think it's dangerous to assume Tolkien tossed this out when he came up with the hair story, especially since the Shibboleth itself discusses her ill-will towards Feanor in conjunction with "from her earliest years".

Given that the 1:3 rate is from a text mostly discussing Middle-earth, I think we have to assume that it was forgotten entirely. That makes the only options for growth in Aman either 1:1, or 1:12. At 1:12, Galadriel would be born around 5233, giving 240 years for Feanor to be inspired, harass her, make some jewels, make a sword, get kicked out, and come back. That's... feasible.

It would mean that the Silmarils took ca. 1 growth-year to make, which is nicely poetic; and that Feanor was exiled for 1 growth-year, ie, "go away for as long as it took Miriel to bear you".

(Unless there's a later source for how long either of those things took; I think both those dates come from the Annals of Aman.)

hS

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Huinerson

Okay, yeah, I totally misread the date on 1.XIX and had it down as yet another 1959 piece..

An easy mistake to make! Though Hostetter did a fine job for the most part in putting this book together, I do miss Christopher Tolkien's way of very clearly laying out the relations of the texts, and noting the appearance of important new ideas.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

An easy mistake to make! Though Hostetter did a fine job for the most part in putting this book together, I do miss Christopher Tolkien's way of very clearly laying out the relations of the texts, and noting the appearance of important new ideas.

Agreed. Hostetter did an amazing job, and I'm incredibly glad to have the book; but I'm always being caught out by the handful of Part 1 texts which are conceptually later than chapters which follow them! I think he was following Tolkien's numbering, or at least ordering, but 1.XIII consists of four texts, numbered 1, 2A, 2B, and 3; 1 is the latest of the set, 2B seems to include Tolkien making decisions adopted in 2A, and 3 is dated with reference to the following chapter, but not to either of the other texts! This is why I keep making potted timelines - I'm trying to get my head round it all!

(Actually, that would be a more useful timeline than the one I started this thread with: a chronology of when the NoME texts were all written, and how they fall into HoME. Hmm...)

hS

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Unfortunately my claim is weakened (though not destroyed) by a misreading of the text. Most of "Eldarin hands..." is spent discussing Common Eldarin, and so the meanings and details it gives can be attributed only to that period when the elves spoke CE. So, for instance, "No distinction was felt between right and left by the Eldar" could be treated as referring only to the eldest days, if one were really concerned by the conflict with Maedhros' "learned to wield his sword with his left hand".

On this point, GA simply notes: "Thereafter Maedros wielded his sword with his left hand." while QS note that he: "lived to wield his sword with left hand more deadly than his right had been."

Okay, after a very brief bit of research on the web, with nothing answering my question specifically, I'll just toss it out here: if one is truly ambidextrous, but chooses a specific hand to learn a skill -- such as sword fighting -- won't the person be better at this with the chosen hand? And if so, wouldn't Maedros, despite being ambidextrous, have to do some amount of training to get just as good, or better, at swordplay, as he had been with his right hand.

I guess one might wonder why he didn't initially train equally with both hands, but that's avoiding the question

The reason I wasn't completely wrong is that the main text goes on to highlight how old a word "nette" is - appearing very closely in Sindarin and Telerin. So it could still be a word from the period of the March, which means that "the growth of Elvish children after birth was little if any slower" could still mean "in the period when this word was formed" - ie, the March

If we take this as so, if the nette remark refers to an early period of the March, what time period does Elvish Ages and Numenorean refer to? In EA&N the GYs were said to be: "relatively swift and in Middle-earth = 3 loar. The LYs were very slow and in Middle-earth = 144 loar."

So while the word swift here appears to refer to/contrast to the 1:144 Life Years, the March of the Quendi was in Middle-earth in any case.

Or have you changed your mind that the "nette remark" and EA&N can be pressed into one internal narrative, considering this . . .

It's clear that elves in Middle-earth, probably both before and after the sojourn in Aman, should be viewed as having a 1-year gestation, 24 years to full-grown, and then a 1:144 rate thereafter.

I'm not arguing. I'm just wondering what to do with EA&N here. I lean toward tossing it out (for my "final" mindset on the matter) -- even if EA&N can be stitched in without contradiction -- I'm not sure it needs to be, and the "as swift as that of Men" from XIX is steering me toward that end.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

A while back, I put together an incomplete document summarizing the dates of all the HoMe texts, and I've started to add the NoMe texts to it as well. If I finish, I'll let you know.

That would be excellent.

Originally Posted by Galin

If we take this as so, if the nette remark refers to an early period of the March, what time period does Elvish Ages and Numenorean refer to? In EA&N the GYs were said to be: "relatively swift and in Middle-earth = 3 loar. The LYs were very slow and in Middle-earth = 144 loar."

So while the word swift here appears to refer to/contrast to the 1:144 Life Years, the March of the Quendi was in Middle-earth in any case.

"Elvish Ages and Numenorean" is... actually a bit of a pain. It seems to cover everything: Galadriel's return to Middle-earth, the death of Arwen, but also Celeborn's aging between the March and the fall of Morgoth.

Originally Posted by Galin

Or have you changed your mind that the "nette remark" and EA&N can be pressed into one internal narrative, considering this . . .

I'm not arguing. I'm just wondering what to do with EA&N here. I lean toward tossing it out (for my "final" mindset on the matter) -- even if EA&N can be stitched in without contradiction -- I'm not sure it needs to be, and the "as swift as that of Men" from XIX is steering me toward that end.

I still think it's possible to reconcile "Elvish Ages" as the post-March data, with the "nette remark" as pre-March. So those two can be reconciled with each other. The trouble, as you rightly note, is NoME 1.XIX, which is explicitly discussing the post-March period (it mentions the Second Age), and so directly contradicts "Elvish Ages".

So - despite the birth-dates in Galadriel's line being the original cause of Tolkien's messing about with aging rates, and "Elvish Ages" being his final word on the subject - I think we reluctantly have to accept that "Elvish Ages" was forgotten or rejected. That leaves us with the very simple picture that elves in Middle-earth have always reached full growth in about 24 solar years (per "Generational Schemes", the "nette remark", and "Elvish Life-Cycles").

So in the wide view: yes, my mind has changed.

Elvish aging in Aman is... unresolved, and basically hinges on whether one chooses to accept that Tolkien's repeated citing of Galadriel as effective-age 20 at the exile (NoME 1.IX, X, XI, & XVIII) still holds true when she's also the inspiration for the Silmarils. I think it does; and the last explicit "slower aging in Aman" text appears to be NoME 1.XI, "Ageing of Elves", which sets a 1:12 growth rate.

(It's worth noting that the 1:1 rate was introduced in NoME 1.XVI, which states that "All the elaborate calculations based on... 12:1... are both cumbrous, and in early narrative (Awakening, and Finding, March, etc.) quite unworkable. Also unlikely." That puts aging in Aman into a grey area, after the "early narrative"; and I don't believe it is ever explicitly brought out of this uncertainty.)

hS