Navigating References in The Lhammas

[Duguay]

Hello Tolkien Lore Masters. I've resumed my scattered readings through parts of THoMe, and I've hit a snag. Normally, I've been able to learn to navigate the labyrinth of essays, commentaries, narratives and references. Right now I'm looking in on The Lhammas. My intention has been to read The Lhammas, then shift to corresponding essays/texts about the development of language when the Elves meet Orome, and the linguistic customs of the Valar when speaking to their long-time Elvish guests in Valinor. Basically a look at the earlier concept of the development of Qenya/Quenya, before and during the Elves' stay in Valinor.

In the past I've been able to figure out the references that Christopher Tolkien includes (compare with this earlier section, see note 8 under Essay X, ect). However, within The Lhammas, he keeps referencing to §5 or §6, or commentary to §5. Most recently I think it's been see reference §2. The early introduction to The Lhammas talks about the Quenta and the Quenta Noldorinwa...this has left me confused if I'm supposed to be looking for these references in Volume IV The Shaping of Middle-earth, or the volume containing The Lhammas, The Lost Road. There are places earlier in The Lost Road that use the "§" sign, and there are places later on in the book that also use it, but I'm not finding a match that corresponds with what's being discussed in The Lhammas. So finally I dug out the copy of The Shaping of Middle-earth, tried to look for the §, and still not matching with The Lhammas's topic.

This is the first time I've been lost like this. Why couldn't Christopher Tolkien have made these cross-references more clear? Volume and page number, or at least use the essay section name that he has used (as he's done in all the other THoMe books that I've read out of so far!), and I could find it, but these stupid § markings are meaningless and only lead to multiple non-relevant dead-ends. I'm very irritated with Mr. Christopher right now!

 

[Elthir]

Hullo! I'll be using QN to refer to the Qenta Noldorinwa (1930), and QS to refer to the Silmarillion that was (as described in the Preface to The Lost Road anyway) nearing "completion" at the end of 1937.

Anyway, as I read "the runes" here, in the introduction to The Lhammas the (section sign) § refers to the sections of The Lhammas; in other words, § 5 and § 6 are not meant to also correspond to any sections in QN or QS.

In § 5 the reference "as is said in the Qenta. . ." (about the cleft in the mountains) only appears in Lhammas A, so we only find that in the commentary to the Lhammas (since B is used as the primary text). In § 6 we find the reference in Lhammas B itself: "It is elsewhere told how Sindo, brother of Elwe, Lord of the Teleri. . ."


🐾 (pause)

And that said, if you are also referring to the section 2 parenthetical addition in the commentary, in my opinion, this does refer to section 2 of QN, since the Ilkorindi are indeed described there. Note that CJRT here uses the phrasing: "the Ilkorindi or Dark-elves are there (§ 2) defined. . ." with "there", as I take it, referring QN itself.

In shorter, in my opinion:

Section 2 parenthetical note -- refer back to QN for description of the Ilkorindi.
Sections 5 and 6 refer to The Lhammas sections. . .

. . . with 5 to Lhammas A (noted in commentary), and 6 to Lhammas B.

Or scrambled yeggs

 

[Duguay]

Oooooohhhhh! I think I get it now. Thank you, thank you @Elthir!

I think part of the problem was my reading approach. I was already treating the extensive commentary sections as kind of like extended notes. So after reading section 1, I would read the corresponding commentary before returning to the Lhammas B and continuing with section 2 of the actual Lhammas. I was trying too hard and outsmarted myself.

Thank you for helping me re-center myself, much appreciated.

 

[Elthir]

👍

Just to add: generally speaking, to me "Quenta" seems to be a shortening for Quenta Silmarillion,
so sometimes I have to remember that Christopher Tolkien used Q or "Quenta" to refer to Qenta Noldorinwa, which is why I used QN instead.

Anyway. . .

. . . Ilkorindi?

The Unwell Korindi?