“It Always Had Been a Vast Globe...”

[Elthir]

I was clicking on the attachment in post 18, but in any case, the links in post 20 work fine.

Thanks!

 

[Elthir]

Amalcarin, as I didn't see any reference to the "Treebeard case", have you reconsidered it? Or maybe you found holes in it and are too polite to say so? Or maybe I just missed it somehow.

Anyway, back in the dark days of 2014 (see the link below - if it works), starting at post 75, I had a short discussion with Jim Allen (Jallanite) with respect to certain references published in The Lord of the Rings.

If you're interested in his commentary, you might also catch me streeeeetching a bit to try to explain some "Bombadil bent seas" commentary. . . in my defense :cough: I was much younger then!

Also, there's some early commentary from Robert Foster that I find interesting, as I own a much treasured A Guide To Middle-Earth > the version that came out before the 1977 Silmarillion was published. The book still takes into account everything Tolkien himself had published of course, and although I can't say I've gone back and read (especially recently) every entry in the book with respect to matters of Sun/Moon/Earth, I did look up certain references in it.

First off, there's no entry in the pre-Silmarillion version to the "Bent Seas" or to the "Change of the World" (not in those words anyway), but in his post-Silmarillion The Complete Guide To Middle-Earth, Robert Foster does include an entry for: Bent World "(Arda (q.v.), so called after it was made spherical at the Change of the World (S 303; B 378)" and an entry for "Change of the World" which includes, at the end: ". . . and Arda became a globe."

And below are a few entries from both books. Obviously, given my opinion on this matter, I don't necessarily agree with all of Foster's descriptions here, but it gave me something to do in any case!

R. Foster A Guide To Middle-Earth (published before The Silmarillion)

Sunless Year "Probably the time when the Undying Lands were darkened by the Shadows."

Shadows "The eternal twilight of Valinor, summoned by Varda at the decree of Manwe after the destruction of the Two Tress and the revolt of the Noldor (. . .)"

Twilight "Figurative name for the Undying Lands, derived from their darkened state after the rebellions of Morgoth and the Noldor."

Twilight (II) "A period early in the First Age of Middle-earth, perhaps the domination of Morgoth."


R. Foster, The Complete Guide To Middle-Earth (published after The Silmarillion)

Sunless Year "Probably the Long Night, the time when the Undying Lands were darkened by the Shadows."

Twilight "Probably the period of the Sleep of Yavanna, when Morgoth's creatures (such as the trolls) were bred to live in Darkness.

Twilight (II) "The state of the Elves at the end of the Third Age. The term is especially apt in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen because of her epithet Undomiel. Cf. the Evening and the Fading Years."

Also. . .

CAUTION

. . . clicking on threads over at the Barrow Downs forums now seems to come with a "not secure" warning, and sometimes I have to click multiple times to "get in". The forum is still active, but I don't post there much these days. I'm not even sure this will work, but here goes!

Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring? - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Page 2- Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring? Novices and Newcomers

forum.barrowdowns.com

EDIT the link worked the first time for me. . . and a second time too, but only after encountering a "resource limit is reached" message (or something like that), after which I hit "refresh" a few times and then got in.

 

[Amalcarin]

Amalcarin, as I didn't see any reference to the "Treebeard case", have you reconsidered it? Or maybe you found holes in it and are too polite to say so? Or maybe I just missed it somehow.

Anyway, back in the dark days of 2014 (see the link below - if it works), starting at post 75, I had a short discussion with Jim Allen (Jallanite) with respect to certain references published in The Lord of the Rings.

If you're interested in his commentary, you might also catch me streeeeetching a bit to try to explain some "Bombadil bent seas" commentary. . . in my defense :cough: I was much younger then!

Also, there's some early commentary from Robert Foster that I find interesting, as I own a much treasured A Guide To Middle-Earth > the version that came out before the 1977 Silmarillion was published. The book still takes into account everything Tolkien himself had published of course, and although I can't say I've gone back and read (especially recently) every entry in the book with respect to matters of Sun/Moon/Earth, I did look up certain references in it.

First off, there's no entry in the pre-Silmarillion version to the "Bent Seas" or to the "Change of the World" (not in those words anyway), but in his post-Silmarillion The Complete Guide To Middle-Earth, Robert Foster does include an entry for: Bent World "(Arda (q.v.), so called after it was made spherical at the Change of the World (S 303; B 378)" and an entry for "Change of the World" which includes, at the end: ". . . and Arda became a globe."

And below are a few entries from both books. Obviously, given my opinion on this matter, I don't necessarily agree with all of Foster's descriptions here, but it gave me something to do in any case!

R. Foster A Guide To Middle-Earth (published before The Silmarillion)

Sunless Year "Probably the time when the Undying Lands were darkened by the Shadows."

Shadows "The eternal twilight of Valinor, summoned by Varda at the decree of Manwe after the destruction of the Two Tress and the revolt of the Noldor (. . .)"

Twilight "Figurative name for the Undying Lands, derived from their darkened state after the rebellions of Morgoth and the Noldor."

Twilight (II) "A period early in the First Age of Middle-earth, perhaps the domination of Morgoth."


R. Foster, The Complete Guide To Middle-Earth (published after The Silmarillion)

Sunless Year "Probably the Long Night, the time when the Undying Lands were darkened by the Shadows."

Twilight "Probably the period of the Sleep of Yavanna, when Morgoth's creatures (such as the trolls) were bred to live in Darkness.

Twilight (II) "The state of the Elves at the end of the Third Age. The term is especially apt in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen because of her epithet Undomiel. Cf. the Evening and the Fading Years."

Also. . .

CAUTION

. . . clicking on threads over at the Barrow Downs forums now seems to come with a "not secure" warning, and sometimes I have to click multiple times to "get in". The forum is still active, but I don't post there much these days. I'm not even sure this will work, but here goes!

Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring? - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Page 2- Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring? Novices and Newcomers

forum.barrowdowns.com

EDIT the link worked the first time for me. . . and a second time too, but only after encountering a "resource limit is reached" message (or something like that), after which I hit "refresh" a few times and then got in.

I did add a reference to Treebeard’s words. You see, just the day before yesterday the website where my article is hosted began moving to a different host (I did not know anything about that beforehand), so it is currently unavailable, and at the same time the latest copy of my article on the Internet Archive made on 4 November suddenly disappeared for reasons unkonwn to me, leaving behind a rather outdated version (I guess it is what you read, given that you did not see the Treebeard reference). So I had to deal with all this mess yesterday. Given that I do not have a working PC right now, I literally lost the latest version of my article for a time, but I was able to recover the text with help of the owner of the site where it was hosted, and I spent all the yesterday’s evening creating a new copy on GoogleDoc. Here it is. I am sorry that you evidently had to spend your time reading an outdated version.

Concerning the readings from the first edition of R. Foster’s Guide – yes, I did find out about them from your messages on here long ago and saw them. I understand their significance for showing that the few references to the Flat World cosmology in LotR were not readily interpretable before the Silmarillion was published, but I do not think it matters that much if we accept the cosmology of the Silmarillion as a tradition inside the “multi-perspective legendarium” anyway.

 

[Elthir]

Concerning the readings from the first edition of R. Foster’s Guide – (edit for brevity) but I do not think it matters that much if we accept the cosmology of the Silmarillion as a tradition inside the “multi-perspective legendarium” anyway.

True! The Foster stuff was really more for possible interest, but as I get older it gets more difficult to remember if I'm posting stuff I've already posted elsewhere!

And no problem about me reading your older article. I wanted to read it again in any case! And I just wondered if maybe you'd found a "knot" in the Treebeard material and decided to "leave" it out.

the puns are for Ent . . . if he reads this 🍂

 

[Elthir]

Amalcarin, after reading your work posted over at Barrow Downs (excellent of course), I started thinking about the Treebeard section again, and I went to Hammond and Scull's The Lord of the Rings A Readers Companion to document what they say, and also do not say, about Treebeard's Great Darkness, and something hit me. . .

by the way, the nice response there from avrorafrix at least seems (due to an edit) to have turned into a partial advertisement

. . . unless I'm off about something, it appears to me that Treebeard's chronology, taken as a whole (if indeed truncated history and not fully detailed in any case) doesn't work perfectly with the chronology of the Elder Days as set out in the constructed Silmarillion. In other words, if we go with the Great Darkness being Morgoth's return to Angband, then, as I see things, I have a problem reconciling (some) Elves passing "away over the Sea", given the ban and the Hiding of Valinor. . .

. . . and if I go with the Darkness being the earlier influence of Utumno (as I did earlier in this thread), then I think I have a problem with respect to even certain "old Elves" (as Treebeard states) teaching The Trees to speak, as, at some point, the Ents "learned of the Elves and spoke to the Trees". . . but before the Darkness of Utumno "spread now ever southward over Middle-earth" (The Silmarillion)?

Tulkas wanted war with Morgoth before the Elves even awoke, in the Silmarillion timeline!

I'm not now saying that the "Treebeard Chronology" can't be used in any way towards the argument, but is it not "vulnerable", at least, to the response that it's being used selectively if we point to the received chronology to make part of the case?

In the end, I think these meads in the sunshine must be very early in any event, indeed "when the world was young, and the woods were wild and wide", and indeed earlier that a Great Darkness (influence of Morgoth), but, unless there's some other chronology (from The Nature of Middle-Earth or "something"), that fits the details here, perhaps an argument could be made more generally, without making specific reference to the QS chronology (obviously a "later Sun" tradition in any case).

Or do you think this much (or too little) ado about nothing

__________

And if I haven't missed anything, my approach to canon also raises its little head here: text actually published by Tolkien himself being king in my book, do I hold Tolkien to Treebeard's chronology?

I realize JRRT once noted that Treebeard's knowledge is limited, but I'm reluctant to employ this outside of where Tolkien himself appears to employ it - in context (in a draft letter to Peter Hastings), about "making" orks - unless there's a compelling reason.

Moreover, in the same draft letter although Tolkien notes that Treebeard is a character in the story, and there's quite a lot he does not know or understand, he does note that the Ent has a "great memory" (and some earthy wisdom)

And given this, I'd think Treebeard should get the key points of chronology correct.

 

[Amalcarin]

Amalcarin, after reading your work posted over at Barrow Downs (excellent of course), I started thinking about the Treebeard section again, and I went to Hammond and Scull's The Lord of the Rings A Readers Companion to document what they say, and also do not say, about Treebeard's Great Darkness, and something hit me. . .

by the way, the nice response there from avrorafrix at least seems (due to an edit) to have turned into a partial advertisement

. . . unless I'm off about something, it appears to me that Treebeard's chronology, taken as a whole (if indeed truncated history and not fully detailed in any case) doesn't work perfectly with the chronology of the Elder Days as set out in the constructed Silmarillion. In other words, if we go with the Great Darkness being Morgoth's return to Angband, then, as I see things, I have a problem reconciling (some) Elves passing "away over the Sea", given the ban and the Hiding of Valinor. . .

. . . and if I go with the Darkness being the earlier influence of Utumno (as I did earlier in this thread), then I think I have a problem with respect to even certain "old Elves" (as Treebeard states) teaching The Trees to speak, as, at some point, the Ents "learned of the Elves and spoke to the Trees". . . but before the Darkness of Utumno "spread now ever southward over Middle-earth" (The Silmarillion)?

Tulkas wanted war with Morgoth before the Elves even awoke, in the Silmarillion timeline!

I'm not now saying that the "Treebeard Chronology" can't be used in any way towards the argument, but is it not "vulnerable", at least, to the response that it's being used selectively if we point to the received chronology to make part of the case?

In the end, I think these meads in the sunshine must be very early in any event, indeed "when the world was young, and the woods were wild and wide", and indeed earlier that a Great Darkness (influence of Morgoth), but, unless there's some other chronology (from The Nature of Middle-Earth or "something"), that fits the details here, perhaps an argument could be made more generally, without making specific reference to the QS chronology (obviously a "later Sun" tradition in any case).

Or do you think this much (or too little) ado about nothing

__________

And if I haven't missed anything, my approach to canon also raises its little head here: text actually published by Tolkien himself being king in my book, do I hold Tolkien to Treebeard's chronology?

I realize JRRT once noted that Treebeard's knowledge is limited, but I'm reluctant to employ this outside of where Tolkien himself appears to employ it - in context (in a draft letter to Peter Hastings), about "making" orks - unless there's a compelling reason.

Moreover, in the same draft letter although Tolkien notes that Treebeard is a character in the story, and there's quite a lot he does not know or understand, he does note that the Ent has a "great memory" (and some earthy wisdom)

And given this, I'd think Treebeard should get the key points of chronology correct.

Hmm, I guess you are right, Treebeard’s chronology is not very clear. But I do make a disclaimer: “What exactly is meant is up to interpretation, but if...”, – so perhaps the argument can stay as it is.

 

[Elthir]

Hmm, I guess you are right, Treebeard’s chronology is not very clear. But I do make a disclaimer: “What exactly is meant is up to interpretation, but if...”, – so perhaps the argument can stay as it is.

True. I don't want the Treebeard part to possibly undermine (even in some small measure) the rest, but I leave it to you, of course.

👍

 

[Amalcarin]

by the way, the nice response there from avrorafrix at least seems (due to an edit) to have turned into a partial advertisement

Do you think anything should be done about this? I expressed approval to that message in its original form, but would not want to let it appear as if I did so for an advertisement.

 

[Elthir]

Do you think anything should be done about this? I expressed approval to that message in its original form, but would not want to let it appear as if I did so for an advertisement.

You quoted the original message, approving only that part - that's how I see it anyway; but I suppose, if you wanted, you could add a clarifying edit to your post.

 

[Amalcarin]

@Elthir, what do you think of the idea that the Númenórean/Bilbo transmission does not necessarily erase the role of Ælfwine from the framework of the legendarium and may just result in Ælfwine discovering a copy of the Mannish Red Book preserved by the Elves in Eressëa, a precedent of which can be seen in Ælfwine discovering the Mannish Narn i Chîn Húrin preserved by the Elves in Eressëa in the essay Ælfwine and Dírhaval? This is an idea I have been encountering from time to time, and while I am not aware of any positive evidence that Tolkien ever thought of it, it has the advantages of explaining how the Red Book was preserved through millennia before ending up in Tolkien’s hands, and how Tolkien was able to learn Westron in order to translate The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (Ælfwine could have provided him with some translations, maybe of the Silmarillion, that he could then use as a Rosetta Stone).

 

[Ricardo]

My 2 cents. Tolkien was obviously uncomfortable with the original description of the Universe and wanted to adhere more to logic and scientific evidence.

I agree that he did not abandon the idea of a round world from the beginning, with the sun and the moon existing always but, I think he had a lot of difficulties fitting it with existing texts. He still had the hope that he could finish the Silmarillion before he died, if he went through with this change that would have probably added 10 years to revise the texts.

As Christopher Tolkien pointed out, there were too many things tied to the original conception, it would have all fall apart.

I know that Tolkien said it, but I really don't like the concept that some things were mannish myths, and some elvish myths. This IMO put the reader on the perspective of someone studying or researching those myths or stories, rather than immerse the reader in that fantasy world.

Yes, the mannish myths and all help explain a lot of things, but if we favor the fantasy side, Iluvatar's will and power can also explain anything.

Since there isn't a final word in these matters, I think it's up to the reader to choose, and I personally prefer to stick to the original mythology, it is in my opinion a lot more beautiful, a lot more magic.

I am not sure why Tolkien was so concerned in adhering to scientific evidence, after all, there were too many other things that definitely don't.

We don't have dragons, or hobbits, or dark lords (at least the way Morgoth and Sauron are described), no balrogs, no hobbits, no elves. None of those things exists and are clearly against scientific evidence, so I prefer to keep the whole legendarium as a beautiful fantasy world, even if unrealistic.

 

[Ricardo]

I forgot to say, no ents, no dwarfs, no giant eagles, no magical swords, no wizards, no orcs, no trolls.

 

[Elthir]

Amalcarin, I encountered a similar idea in Tolkien's Legendarium, Essays on The History of Middle-Earth (Flieger and Hostetter), specifically in Charles Noad's contribution On The Construction Of The Silmarillion.

At the end of his essay, Noad writes: " (. . .) we could understand why Ælfwine made his voyage in the first place. He would have known of the Hobbits as they survived in tenth-century Britain, and, learning from them about the Red Book and its contents (the single volume of Bilbo's and Frodo's memoirs), have been inspired by its hints about the histories of the Elves to seek the Straight Road to the West, there to learn the lore of the Elves and recover it for the race of Men."

Okay, possibly

As you say, I too am currently unaware of any positive evidence that Tolkien ever thought of this, or the idea you've been encountering. In Noad's version Ælfwine is still in play with respect to bringing back lore, and with Old English also in play again, we could, as you say, imagine Tolkien's Rosetta Stone here.

I'm not sure yet how I feel about Ælfwine finding a version of the Red Book in Eressea — but indeed the advantage with respect to preservation seems notable when one wonders how any very ancient material survived long enough to land in JRRT's hands.

With respect to languages: the following idea still banging around in my skull chamber is also without any positive evidence (that I'm aware of), but possibly JRRT's Rosetta Stone could be found in (what I'll call here) "genetic dreaming", or inherited memory. As Tolkien bequeathed his dream of the Great Wave to Faramir, for example, maybe we can flip this (so to speak), imagining JRRT receiving snippets of inherited memories, either received through dreams or (even if brief) visions, going even further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon Elf-friend himself.

Maybe something like:

"I don't think there are any really new words here. There are a lot of interesting grammatical details; but I won't bother you with those, interesting as they are to me — and they seemed to have touched off something in my memory too, so that I now know more than is actually contained in the fragments." Loudham, The Notion Club Papers, Part II Sauron Defeated

__________

As an aside, just for anyone who might be interested, in this same essay Mr. Noad thinks that the Notion Club Papers hinted at a possible resolution to the flat world/round world matter — the idea being that of "two distinct pasts", the historical and the mythical ("secondary planes and degrees") merging at the fall of "Atlantis". Noad suggests that before the fall of Númenor, the universe of the Ambarkanta was real — and yet after this event, "our universe" is the new reality, and the question of how "one can be the antecedent to the other" is simply left as an "unfathomable mystery."

Presented only as a possibility in any case. And as you know, I go with multi-perspective traditions rather.

 

[Ricardo]

this discussion is starting to look a lot like the Theory of Relativity and Quantum physics. Alternate realities theories could blow up your mind.

 

[Amalcarin]

I think you are exaggerating. There is nothing so complicated here, just a normal discussion at the level of The History of Middle-earth readers.

 

[Amalcarin]

Since there isn't a final word in these matters, I think it's up to the reader to choose, and I personally prefer to stick to the original mythology, it is in my opinion a lot more beautiful, a lot more magic.

I would say there is enough evidence to determine Tolkien’s final view, and, in absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, I do not consider the claim that he might have changed his mind had he lived longer anything more than unprovable what-if. But from what I have seen, many people do not even pretend to give much weight to Tolkien’s final intentions when those are not to their liking, and no one can forbid them to do so, of course, as long as it is about their preferred ways to engage with the legendarium and not academic discussions. Anyway, I do like the original mythology, too, and I am glad that Tolkien decided to retain it as such even when the Round World cosmology prevailed.

 

[Ricardo]

I think you are exaggerating. There is nothing so complicated here, just a normal discussion at the level of The History of Middle-earth readers.

I know, I was not being serious. Yet, dealing with multiple realities becomes a bit complex, like what happened to someone who lived in both realities. If I understand correctly, it's like when the world changed post Numenor's fault, the whole reality was like retroactively changed, would that alter the memories of those who were alive when the old reality existed?

It seems going the way that reality is what is described by observers, a concept that is very tricky. As capable and knowledgeable Tolkien was, I don't think this was his field of expertise.

Maybe I am overthinking it though and I prefer to stick to the original conception.

 

[Ricardo]

I would say there is enough evidence to determine Tolkien’s final view, and, in absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, I do not consider the claim that he might have changed his mind had he lived longer anything more than unprovable what-if. But from what I have seen, many people do not even pretend to give much weight to Tolkien’s final intentions when those are not to their liking, and no one can forbid them to do so, of course, as long as it is about their preferred ways to engage with the legendarium and not academic discussions. Anyway, I do like the original mythology, too, and I am glad that Tolkien decided to retain it as such even when the Round World cosmology prevailed.

I couldn't agree more. Nobody of course knows what was in Tolkien's mind, but we don't really know what his intentions were or would have been.

In the History of Middle Earth and some essays in Nature of Middle Earth you can see how much Tolkien changed his ideas throughout the years.

From the Legendarium perspective, I prefer to stick to what was published, and fill in the blanks, either with other sources (history of middle earth, nome, unfinished tales) when compatible and in some cases, using our own imagination.

 

[Amalcarin]

I know, I was not being serious. Yet, dealing with multiple realities becomes a bit complex, like what happened to someone who lived in both realities. If I understand correctly, it's like when the world changed post Numenor's fault, the whole reality was like retroactively changed, would that alter the memories of those who were alive when the old reality existed?

It seems going the way that reality is what is described by observers, a concept that is very tricky. As capable and knowledgeable Tolkien was, I don't think this was his field of expertise.

Maybe I am overthinking it though and I prefer to stick to the original conception.

Ah, I had misunderstood what you were referring too. It makes sense now. But neither I nor Elthir (as he himself noted) subscribe to that idea. We subscribe to Tolkien’s own final (as far as all available evidence goes) idea of a multi-perspective legendarium reconciling the Round World cosmology and the Flat World mythology.

From the Legendarium perspective, I prefer to stick to what was published, and fill in the blanks, either with other sources (history of middle earth, nome, unfinished tales) when compatible and in some cases, using our own imagination.

That is what I am doing, too. And I would argue (and do argue in my article in its more recent form – not in the opening message of this thread) that the Round World cosmology has at least no less support in Tolkien’s published works, letters and interviews than the original Flat World cosmology.

 

[Ricardo]

That is what I am doing, too. And I would argue (and do argue in my article in its more recent form – not in the opening message of this thread) that the Round World cosmology has at least no less support in Tolkien’s published works, letters and interviews than the original Flat World cosmology.

Yeah, I agree, the main problem for me with the latest conception is the compatibility with the rest of the stories and I imagine (don't know) that it might have prevented Tolkien from going ahead. Similar to the stories about the parentage for Gil Galad, changing to Tolkien's latest ideas would have required changes to the Silmarillion, but not as big as the round world change.

The idea of 2 realities would help reconcile the different stories, but would still be a massive undertaking.