Top 10 warriors in middle earth history (ranked)

[Elthir]

So, despite Athrabeth being a post-LotR text, it doesn't mention her prophesy at all.

Well . . . Finrod didn't ask if she had yet uttered any prophecies concerning Túrin

Or total guess, Tolkien hadn't thought of it yet, The Problem of Ros being a late text in the aptly named Late Writings section. That said, in an author's note to the commentary to the Athrabeth, we find Tolkien musing about how the Elves thought the World might end, and re-characterizes the Dagor Dagorath as a Mannish Myth.

Strange then that the updated QS (written post-LotR) includes it, and even adds Beren to the mix (no mention of Ancalagon here!). ( . . . ) I've left some stuff struck through because I'm still trying to make sense of all this!

I doubt even Christopher Tolkien could say for sure what the Andreth Prophecy might mean with respect to other "End of Days" references that came before it.

And I realize that all you said was "updated QS" -- and in one sense that's true, given that some changes made later are "updating" certain sentences. But if I may add . . .

. . . as I've mumbled before, Christopher Tolkien warns the reader that the post-Lord of the Rings corrections to this conclusion of QS need not amount to a final approval of content -- and that
(as I read his commentary), he'd find it both "remarkable" and not easy to interpret, if these "cursory correction" did amount to a final approval of content.

I'd also guess that these korrections came well before the Andreth Prophecy, but that aside, taking the first of these corrections to this conclusion of QS, for example:

Section 6:

Tolkien changes "Ingwiel son of Ingwe" to "Finarphin son of Finwe" as the leader of the Noldor . . . okay but section 6 begins by saying that the "sons of the Valar" prepared for battle, and that the captain of their host was "Fionwe son of Manwe."

An already rejected name and conception left to stand, not only in the same section, but in the sentence immediately preceding the change of Ingwiel to "Finarphin" (not Finarfin, which helps a bit with dating this correction). Moreover, in a typescript version Tolkien lets the passage stand, but changed Ingwiel to Ingwion . . .

. . . and so what he left standing in the typescript was that Ingwiel/Ingwion appears to be the leader of the Noldor. Thus in the constructed Silmarillion, Finarfin appears.

I didn't look for examples beyond section 6, but I'm going to heed Christopher Tolkien already

 

[m4r35n357]

Well . . . Finrod didn't ask if she had yet uttered any prophecies concerning Túrin

True. Interesting though, or amusing, that Andreth prophesied about Turin (who had not been born) killing a dragon that hadn't been created, having a conversation with Finrod in which he predicts the death of his Uncle

The perils of relying on mortal (or Elvish) prophesies . . . I say leave it to Mandos!

I doubt even Christopher Tolkien could say for sure what the Andreth Prophecy might mean with respect to other "End of Days" references that came before it.

And I realize that all you said was "updated QS" -- and in one sense that's true, given that some changes made later are "updating" certain sentences. But if I may add . . .

. . . as I've mumbled before, Christopher Tolkien warns the reader that the post-Lord of the Rings corrections to this conclusion of QS need not amount to a final approval of content -- and that
(as I read his commentary), he'd find it both "remarkable" and not easy to interpret, if these "cursory correction" did amount to a final approval of content.

Point taken. It is not just a case of corrections though, there is also a lot of text that is preserved unchanged through three generations of the text (1930-1937-195?). I also consider the Tale of years as part of the "Silmarillion tradition" (as compressed Annals), and that corroborates my prejudices (see, I can admit it!).

I didn't look for examples beyond section 6, but I'm going to heed Christopher Tolkien already

I'm not really bothered about the name changes (I'm well used to keeping track of that by now!), just the structure. I do consider it significant that these "minor" changes were made to the manuscripts without any indication of planned structural change though.

Just to reiterate about CT, he did write that he did not know about the Later Annals when he constructed his Silmarillion.

 

[Elthir]

( . . . ) I do consider it significant that these "minor" changes were made to the manuscripts without any indication of planned structural change though.

What do you mean by structural change here?

 

[m4r35n357]

OK but to go round this roundabout again, and not that you said otherwise, but that doesn't negate Christopher Tolkien's "be wary" with respect to this text being considered fully updated in the 1950s > Tolkien had already revised the concept of the Valar having children, yet that idea was "preserved" in this text?

In any case, to put a stamp on it, I've not argued, nor has Christopher Tolkien said (in my opinion), that the Dagor Dagorath had definitively disappeared.

Let's not then, unless you really want to

So do I (generally speaking), but I'm with Christopher Tolkien that the Annals had merged with Quenta Silmarillion, and that the Tale of Years was taking over for the Annals.

No argument there. But again there were no changes in the TOY, apart from birthdays, before 500. No changes to the War of Wrath in either the QS or the Annals/Tale of Years. Small change to Doriath (Sons of Feanor defeated the Dwarves at Sarn Athrad, Melian taking the Necklace directly to Ossiriand then a brief note mentioning Ents).

What do you mean by structural change here?

Plot changes.

 

[Elthir]

By the way, I edited my post above -- before you posted -- you must have copied and pasted before that, or something. Anyway.

No argument there. But again there were no changes in the TOY, apart from birthdays, before 500. No changes to the War of Wrath in either the QS or the Annals/Tale of Years. Small change to Doriath (Sons of Feanor defeated the Dwarves at Sarn Athrad, Melian taking the Necklace directly to Ossiriand then a brief note mentioning Ents).

If so (I'm not going to check), what's the argument behind stating this (see below)?

Plot changes.

Okay, and are you arguing that we should consider the conclusion to Quenta Silmarillion as fully updated in the 1950s? Again, not that you said otherwise, but for example, it seems to me that the
basic plot can easily remain when Tolkien characterized the Second Prophecy as a Mannish Myth.

Or is it about Túrin's role in the End of Days myth?

But if so, that (at least arguably) became muddied due to Andreth's prophecy, arising in a text dated
"1968 or later" according to Christopher Tolkien -- so I wouldn't expect to find changes regarding
Túrin in this conclusion to Quenta Silmarillion.

Not that Tolkien's addition "and Beren Camlost" was clear in the 1950s, in any case.

 

[m4r35n357]

If so (I'm not going to check), what's the argument behind stating this (see below)?

That there were very few of them.

Okay, and are you arguing that we should consider the conclusion to Quenta Silmarillion as fully updated in the 1950s? Again, not that you said otherwise, but for example, it seems to me that the
basic plot can easily remain when Tolkien characterized the Second Prophecy as a Mannish Myth.

Yes, considering JRRT expected CT to get the Simarillion published somehow, I can't believe that he withheld anything!

Or is it about Túrin's role in the End of Days myth?

Well yes to that too because that is the OT!

Not that Tolkien's addition "and Beren Camlost" was clear in the 1950s, in any case.

A lot of it is not clear

 

[Elthir]

Yes, considering JRRT expected CT to get the Simarillion published somehow, I can't believe that he withheld anything!

Well, about this, I'll have to disagree to agree

 

[m4r35n357]

Well I probably pushed that harder than i intended, but I'm just being practical