A question about problem of ros

Alcuin said:

Fair enough.

Footnote 17 in my copy of Peoples of Middle-earth comprises the better part of 2 whole pages. I count no fewer than six citations by CJRT of this Second Prophecy of Mandos in his footnote before mentioning Andreth and her prophecy concerning Túrin and Ancalagon. The first citation ends,

​

Turambar indeed shall stand beside Fionwë in the Great Wrack, and Melko and his drakes shall curse the sword of Mormakil.​

​

“the Great Wrack” is the Dagor Dagorath. Of the (at least) six references CJRT makes, only this one seems to reference dragons (“drakes”), and none of the others mention Ancalagon at all until the (as I count them) seventh and last. The paragraph you cite reads in whole,

​

In this last reappearance of the mysterious and fluctuating idea the prophecy is put into the mouth of Andreth, the Wise-woman of the House of Bëor: Túrin will “return from the Dead” before his final departure, and his last deed within the Circles of the World will be the slaying of the Great Dragon, Ancalagon the Black. Andreth prophesies of the Last Battle at the end of the Elder Days (the sense in which the term “Last Battle” is used shortly afterwards in this text, p. 371); but in all the early texts (the Quenta, IV.160; the Annals of Beleriand, IV.309, V.144; the Quenta Silmarillion, V.329) it was Eärendil who destroyed Ancalagon.​

​

Since “Andreth prophesies of the Last Battle at the end of the Elder Days (the sense in which the term ‘Last Battle’ is used shortly afterwards in this text, p. 371),” I turned back 4 pages to page 371, where I read,

​

For after the Last Battle and the overthrow of Morgoth, when the Valar gave to Elros and Elrond a choice…​

​

Correct me if I’m wrong, but “the Last Battle” is the end of the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age, not the Dagor Dagorath at the end of the world. I find no other reference anywhere to Túrin Turambar’s having participated in the War of Wrath. Do you? So does this prophecy of Andreth refer to the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age, an event in the (literary conceited) past of Arda, or to the Dagor Dagorath, an event in the future, indeed the very end, of Arda?

This doesn’t fit with the rest of the legendarium. It is disjoint to all the other pieces of the tale as we know them. It must be held spurious.

Click to expand...

Since one of Tolkien's most recent articles is problem of ros, I don't think this idea can be considered fake just because it doesn't fit with other stories.

Hisoka Morrow said:

How this resurrection did take place should be assured first, like the case of Glofindel.

Click to expand...

Not exactly sure what you mean there . . . but anyway (to state what you already know) it's a prophecy! I've already noted elsewhere that if I were writing the end of QS, and dealing with Andreth's prophecy, I'd have Ancalagon die and not say who slew the dragon . . .

. . . and I'd leave said prophecy for some other text. Possibly for even one of those "boring to some" linguistic texts or notes!

Not that anyone cares how I would do it, but I'm just sayin'

Elthir said:

But he would "return from the dead" according to Andreth's prophecy (post 2 above), for the War of Wrath . . . so that's how (and for CJRT's commentary, see post 16).

Click to expand...

We cross-posted, Elthir.

Elthir said:

Yes, as far as I know at this moment, this is the one source for Andreth's prophecy. But it can represent a change of mind in my opinion (Turin prophecy, War of Wrath).

Click to expand...

In all the Second Prophecy of Mandos renditions, Túrin returns from the dead to fight in the Dagor Dagorath, “the Great Wrack.” That’s not what’s at issue.

What’s at issue is the notion that Túrin returns from the dead to kill Ancalagon. Ancalagon appears once and only once, in the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age, and he dies in the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age. Now, in the passage you quote, Christopher Tolkien says that, “in all the early texts ... it was Eärendil who destroyed Ancalagon.”

So, does Túrin returns from the dead at the end of the First Age to kill Ancalagon and at the end of time to kill Morgoth? Or does he return at the end of time to kill Ancalagon – again! because Ancalagon’s already dead, just like Túrin –, when in all the other tellings, he returns at the end of time to kill Morgoth?

1. Does Ancalagon die twice, at the end of the First Age and again at the end of the World?
2. Does Túrin return from the dead twice, at the end of the First Age and again at the end of the World?
3. If at the end of the World Túrin kills Ancalagon instead of Morgoth, what becomes of Morgoth? Does Túrin kill them both?
4. Or maybe, just maybe, Tolkien conflated his long-standing idea that Túrin returns at the end of time to kill Morgoth with his long-standing idea that his great hero Eärendil kills Ancalagon at the end of the First Age?

What makes sense to me is that #4 is correct. Look, I love Tolkien’s work, and I think the man was a genius of the first order, but I also think it is pretty evident he was in failing health in the last months of his life and wrote some things that didn’t altogether fit with what he’d consistently written during the many decades of the rest of his life. I think this business of Túrin and Ancalagon is one of them.

Hisoka Morrow said:

How this resurrection did take place should be assured first, like the case of Glofindel.

Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s a “resurrection”, but a return from the Halls of Mandos. Apparently either Túrin remained in the Halls of Mandos for long ages until the end of Arda, or he was actually sent back into the Circles of the World at the end of time from wherever it is that the spirits of Men go when they leave Arda. (The referent datum in Tolkien’s work is the Elves, who cannot leave Arda, rather Men, who like us, do leave the world when we die.)

Ecthelion Of The Fountain said:

Since one of Tolkien's most recent articles is problem of ros, I don't think this idea can be considered fake just because it doesn't fit with other stories.

Click to expand...

Not “fake”, spurious. It’s an error. It’s a mistake. Tolkien admitted he made mistakes: some can be found in Lord of the Rings. He never published Silmarillion during his lifetime because he could never reconcile all the pieces of his legendarium. It’s not real history: real history fits together because it’s real, it actually happens. Tolkien had to assemble all the pieces of his stories into a consistent whole, but it was just too large a task. Christopher Tolkien didn’t try to do it either (well, with Guy Gavriel Kay in Silmarillion), editing and presenting his father’s works as they stand, trying to rectify the inconsistencies without hiding them. This is an inconsistency, an outlier – in view of the whole corpus of the man’s work, a mistake.

If you like it and it’s your preference, you’re welcome to it! But it stands out to me as a flaw, and JRR Tolkien, God rest the man’s soul and bless him! was a human being just like you and me, and he made mistakes, too.

Alcuin said:

Now, in the passage you quote, Christopher Tolkien says that, “in all the early texts ... it was Eärendil who destroyed Ancalagon.”

Click to expand...

Yes he says that. To my mind he's merely noting the external textual situation here.

Alcuin said:

So, does Túrin returns from the dead at the end of the First Age to kill Ancalagon and at the end of time to kill Morgoth?

Click to expand...

If Andreth's Prophecy is a new idea, as it can easily be, Turin returns from the dead and slays the dragon at the War of Wrath.

What that might mean with respect to Turin's role according to a Mannish Myth (once the Second Prophecy) regarding the End of Days is another matter.

And in my opinion, if we are dealing with a prophecy, then all we need is its utterance. For me, it's not meant to explain how, or from whence, Turin returned from the dead

Alcuin said:

Not “fake”, spurious. It’s an error. It’s a mistake. Tolkien admitted he made mistakes: some can be found in Lord of the Rings. He never published Silmarillion during his lifetime because he could never reconcile all the pieces of his legendarium. It’s not real history: real history fits together because it’s real, it actually happens. Tolkien had to assemble all the pieces of his stories into a consistent whole, but it was just too large a task. Christopher Tolkien didn’t try to do it either (well, with Guy Gavriel Kay in Silmarillion), editing and presenting his father’s works as they stand, trying to rectify the inconsistencies without hiding them. This is an inconsistency, an outlier – in view of the whole corpus of the man’s work, a mistake.

If you like it and it’s your preference, you’re welcome to it! But it stands out to me as a flaw, and JRR Tolkien, God rest the man’s soul and bless him! was a human being just like you and me, and he made mistakes, too.

Click to expand...

It may be a error for you, but it is not a error for me. Because although Tolkien says that he made errors, we have no evidence and support that the prophecy of Andreth is one of these errors. I think it was as follows; After earendil threw the ancalagon from the sky on top of the thangorodrim towers, Turin goes to the ancalagon while he is at war, and just when Ancalagon will wake up again, Turin kills the ancalagon as he did to the glaurung. If you have noticed, in the prophecy, the person who killed Turin Ancalagon is not the person who defeated the ancalagon, Earendil is defeating the ancalagon.

Well, technically QS (HOME V) states that: ". . . Earendil slew Ancalagon the Black, the mightiest of the dragon-host, and he cast him from the sky, and in his fall the towers of Thangorodrim were thrown down."

"Slew" in the constructed Silmarillion too.

Again I haven't read GNOME in full!

Elthir said:

if we are dealing with a prophecy, then all we need is its utterance.

Click to expand...

A prophecy is truly a prophecy only if it comes to pass. Prophets (seers, etc.) may be regarded as reliable before their predictions can be tested based upon their perceived holiness or their connection to a deity. Within Tolkien’s universe, Malbeth the Seer is one such example: No one knew when his prophecy about the Dead Men of Dunharrow might come to pass or perhaps even what it concerned, but apparently Malbeth (of whom we presently know nothing else) already had a reputation for making correct forecasts about the future, or else no one would have bothered to remember what he said. Elrond did and sent word to Aragorn to remind him via his sons, Elladan and Elrohir. I think Andreth would qualify as a “prophet” in this regard, but I still consider the subject spurious, in error.

Otherwise, a “prophet” is no more than some weird guy in a horse-hair cowl and Birkenstocks standing at the corner of Haight and Ashbury with a sign that says “THE WORLD ENDS TUESDAY”. (Or maybe not: It used to be that such folk were considered harmless enough, but that was before the days of the Department of Homeland Security.)

But perhaps that is merely a Mannish tradition of prophecies. Or an Elvish tradition. Or a mixed Mannish-Elvish tradition. Or a late Mannish tradition, clouded by lost and inaccurate remembrances of Elvish traditions taken from Mannish tales that neither correctly understood from the other.

Ecthelion Of The Fountain said:

It may be a error for you, but ... not ... for me. ... [W]e have no evidence ... that the prophecy of Andreth is [an] error[]. I think it was as follows; After earendil threw ... ancalagon from the sky [onto] thangorodrim ..., Turin goes to ... ancalagon ..., and [before] Ancalagon [can] wake up again, Turin kills ... ancalagon as he did ... glaurung. ... [I]n the prophecy, the person who killed ... Ancalagon is not the person who defeated ... ancalagon...

Click to expand...

You are free to rationalize or justify your position by any logical and defensible reasoning you please. You’re adding a lot of your own material to make it work, though.

Elthir said:

Again I haven't read GNOME in full!

Click to expand...

Well get on with it!

Alcuin said:

A prophecy is truly a prophecy only if it comes to pass.

Click to expand...

I wrote: "And in my opinion, if we are dealing with a prophecy, then all we need is its utterance. For me, it's not meant to explain how, or from whence, Turin returned from the dead."

And to possibly clarify further: for me, all we need is its utterance, not the answer to the question
(at least not "directly" from the QS narrator) did it come true. And this relates to my approach to incorporating this prophecy into the legengarium, noting again that it includes not revealing who
killed Ancalagon in Quenta Silmarillion itself.

Or to say it another way: in my opinion don't "answer" whether this prophecy came true or not, ever.
But especially (again all in my opinion) don't answer this question with a text that relates the actual event -- an event that's in the past to the narrator.

I'd prefer to plug this prophecy in some "corner" of the legendarium. Noting that it came in a note to a text about Elvish words, I'd say, yes, do it (something) like that! Report this elsewhere on purpose: Turin slew the dragon -- he "somehow" came back from the dead -- Andreth the wise woman isn't meant to explain her utterance in all ways.

Is it true?

Tolkien's "prophets" seem to have a good record for being accurate, but in any case, in the scenario I'm inventing here, the reader can't just pop over to QS and have the prophecy "confirmed" by the internal writer of that tradition.

🐾