What did Fingolfin's people want to do with 🧝Feanor?

[TheManInTheMoon]

Christopher Tolkien did not note that his father's "remained in Doriath (version)" was a revision

So what? He also didn't note this for a lot of subtle and petty and small seemingly unimportant changes.

The fact remains that the word "long" did not survive from Galadriel staying long in Doriath and Beleriand, as soon as Tolkien wrote Celeborn was the grandson of Elmo from Doriath. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Elthir]

So what? He also didn't note this for a lot of subtle and petty and small seemingly unimportant changes.

Your last response to my post cuts off my full sentence, which was: "Christopher Tolkien did not note that his father's "remained in Doriath (version)" was a revision to the typescript of LQ2 -- and thus he did not explain that "this was changed in 1958".

But yet you claimed this was changed in 1958. So the point was, and still is, that your characterization of the textual scenario was incorrect.

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

I don't care if Christopher specifically explained it or not.

This was changed in 1958: the word "long" did not survive.

Moreover, Christopher removed every mention of "long" in the statements that Galadriel remained long with Melian or remained long in Doriath when he inserted Grey Annals text into published Silmarillion.

He **knew**

 

[Elthir]

I don't care if Christopher specifically explained it or not. This was changed in 1958: the word "long" did not survive.

It doesn't matter whether you care or not, and repeating it doesn't make it so -- the version in question was introduced in a rider to the QS manuscript -- not to the LQ2 typescript, itself made around 1958.

The typist simply copied this in 1958.

There's even a different section for the explanation of any Tolkienian corrections or changes (or whatever) made to "one or the other, or to both, of the copies of LQ2"!

Thus we know, an addition actually made by JRRT to section 101, in (around) 1958, or at least, after the LQ2 typescript existed, was the note against the name Felagund.

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

So when exactly was the statement that Galadriel remained in Doriath written? Because until 1954 Galadriel was not supposed to stay in Doriath until its end, she was supposed to abandon the entire Beleriand. The change of Galadriel staying in Beleriand until its end was only made after Tolkien published Celeborn is a Sinda in 1955.
Hence that statement couldn't have been written any earlier than 1955.

 

[Elthir]

So when exactly was the statement that Galadriel remained in Doriath written? ( . . . ) The change of Galadriel staying in Beleriand until its end was only made after Tolkien published Celeborn is a Sinda in 1955. Hence that statement couldn't have been written any earlier than 1955.

In any case, Celeborn appears as Sindarin in the draft text titled F4 (Appendix On Languages).

And with respect to the text in question, in brief: Galadriel "remained in Doriath" could be the wording on the LQ1 typescript, itself made in 1951.

The problem here (very briefly put) is that there are two riders involved, but they were so alike up to a point that Christopher Tolkien only gives the second version, explaining: "To this point the two forms of the rider differ only in a few details of wording, but here they diverge." And he then gives the second version, as it continues “diverging”.

For possible clarity, this second rider is the one I have been referring to in the thread (the one copied by the typist of LQ2). Anyway, here in WJ we don't get to see the exact wording of the rider as copied in LQ1 (1951), so we don't know what these "few details of wording" refer to specifically.

Anyway again . . .

. . . in The War of the Jewels, Christopher Tolkien notes that without question the revised rider was written at the same time as Of Turgon And The Building of Gondolin, which text Hammond and Scull note under [Hammond and Scull, Chronology]: ?Late 1951 - ?early 1952, which is the same general period they give for JRRT starting his new account of The Fall of Gondolin, incidentally.

I note the question marks here, and this is not the only place in Chronology where H&S employ them. That said, they picked this time frame nonetheless.

And that said, I'm just reporting what Christopher Tolkien and two of the most respected Tolkien scholars have written here -- if you disagree with H&S that's one thing; if you disagree with anything I've reported here, that's another thing.

Or to put it another way: this is (as I read things here) the textual scenario as explained by CJRT and H&S.

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

I'm not disagreeing. I was just not aware of this very well. And I am still confused and not understanding it very well.

So long story short, we don't know for sure when exactly this 'differing wording' that appears in LQ2 was written? Are both versions written in 1951?

Celeborn appears as Sindarin in the draft text titled F4 (Appendix On Languages)

This is the one from 1951 right? I guess Tolkien immediately forgot about it. Or else he would've revised that Galadriel speech in FotR about Celeborn.

Man G&C backstory is a mess.

 

[Elthir]

So long story short, we don't know for sure when exactly this 'differing wording' that appears in LQ2 was written? Are both versions written in 1951?

As far as we know, the wording "remained in Doriath" could be in both riders* -- the one copied in 1951 (LQ1), and the second one copied in 1958 (LQ2).

But with respect to LQ1, maybe, maybe not.

All we know is that the two riders were similar enough with respect to this section that CJRT quoted the second one, adding only that the riders differ only in a few details of wording. And so we don't know if these few details of wording refer to the sentence in question, or something else entirely.

But in any case, the second rider -- which we know has "remained in Doriath" in it -- has been dated by Hammond And Scull as ?Late 1951 - ?early 1952 -- and this time frame seems at least based in part on Christopher Tolkien's statement that the second rider was written at the same time as Of Turgon And The Building of Gondolin.

This is the one from 1951 right? I guess Tolkien immediately forgot about it. Or else he would've revised that Galadriel speech in FotR about Celeborn.

My guess for F4 would be 1951 as well. CJRT hints that this version may well be associated with the Grey Annals and the Excursus on the Languages of Beleriand. He also relates that it was not the last version, in any event. And I wouldn't be surprised if, after the Excursus, Tolkien updated this Appendix with F4.

Odd as it might sound, Tolkien had "finished" (the writing of) The Lord of the Rings (well mostly "finished" if I'm being pedantic), before he landed on the true . . . history of Sindarin!

And with respect to Galadriel's "ere the fall of Gondolin" I don't know what JRRT was thinking, or not thinking, about this. He had a chance to revise this for the Second Edition in any case, but didn't. Did he remember it was there? I would have preferred he adjust this sentence rather than the (ultimate) Finrod > Finarfin thing . . .

. . . especially considering that JRRT's problem with Finrod (as expressed in PE17 anyway) was that he shouldn't have received a Sindarized name (as a character who had remained in Aman), and then Tolkien ultimately characterized Finarfin as a Sindarized name in any case!

That said though, in general, alliteration is nice!

__________
*just to note it here, the rider copied in LQ1 (1951) was lost, and thus its particular wording is only preserved in LQ1.

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

So what you are saying is that it is possible that Celeborn was a Sinda in Tolkien thought, even in 1954, yet he forgot about revising his Nandorin origin in FOTR (both first and second editions).

If Celeborn was a Sinda when Tolkien wrote Grey Annals and LQ in 1950-1952, then why he isn't mentioned in GA and LQ? Why his first appearance as a Sindarin Prince who fell in love with Galadriel in Beleriand is from 1955? Why Galadriel ceases to exist in GA after early 400? We don't see her in Beren and Luthien tale, we don't see her in Turambar tale... It's just weird to not see her in such great detailed tales. Perhaps because Tolkien was still thinking Galadriel left Beleriand ere fall of Nargothrond. Hence, in GA, we don't see Melian's bestfriend in around 420-500 when so many great events take place in Doriath.

 

[ZehnWaters]

(Celeborn the Nando).

I was always a fan of Celeborn the Valinorin Teleri, honestly.

 

[Elthir]

For myself, I'll have no "Teleporno" the Teler from Aman

I'll have Celeborn the Sinda!

 

[ZehnWaters]

For myself, I'll have no "Teleporno" the Teler from Aman

I'll have Celeborn the Sinda!

lol I just liked the idea of a someone besides a Nokdor being in Middle-Earth. Also the idea of Galadriel sailing after Fëanor to get revenge is amusing to me. I also like the idea that someone had planned to go back to Middle-Earth BEFORE the Rebellion (beyond just thinking about it)

 

[Elthir]

Christopher Tolkien tried in the published Silmarillion to fit together a seamless tale, ( . . . )

If I had to create a version, generally speaking, I'd follow CJRT's lead for the constructed Silmarillion, including leaving out Galadriel fighting at Swanhaven.

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

Also the idea of Galadriel sailing after Fëanor to get revenge is amusing to me

Galadriel had no intention of revenge in that version.

Also, Galadriel sailed before Feanor does.

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

leaving out Galadriel fighting at Swanhaven

Blasphemy! Galadriel fought in Alqualonde in all versions written by JRR himself.

BTW, you didn't answer why...

Tolkien didn't mention Celeborn in Grey Annals and LQ and kinda suggested that Galadriel left Beleriand to meet Celeborn of the Nandor (by saying she dwelt "long").

Why....

Tolkien still referred to Celeborn as a Nando in 1954 and not until he published Celeborn is a Sinda in 1955 that he finally wrote about Galadriel and Celeborn meeting in Doriath and not leaving Beleriand until the end of FA.

Perhaps because he immediately forgot that he had turned Celeborn into a Sinda in that language text in 1951.

 

[Elthir]

Blasphemy! Galadriel fought in Alqualonde in all versions written by JRR himself.

Disagree. Not in the version found in The Annals of Aman, nor in the revised version of Of The Flight of the Noldor in Quenta Silmarillion (see chapter 7, The Later Quenta Silmarillion I, Morgoth's Ring)

BTW, you didn't answer why...

You're basically asking me to try and read Tolkien's mind, and I already spent enough time (as I choose to spend it) explaining the textual scenario -- make of it what you will.

 

[ZehnWaters]

Galadriel had no intention of revenge in that version.

Also, Galadriel sailed before Feanor does.

Wasn't that half the reason she left? I mean, she'd been planning on going before the Rebellion even took place (that's why she and Celeborn had a ship ready) but I thought she ended up leaving after the First Kinslaying to seek after Fëanor (with all her previous motivations still extant, but secondary).

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

Not in the version found in The Annals of Aman,

Marginal note against the participants of the second host in the Kinslaying

nor in the revised version of Of The Flight of the Noldor in Quenta Silmarillion (see chapter 7, The Later Quenta Silmarillion I, Morgoth's Ring)

We don't see Galadriel at all in that chapter, until Helcaraxë. We don't know what was her part in the Kinslaying in that version.

So I correct myself: Galadriel is explicitly stated to have fought against the Noldor in 90% of her many versions.

You're basically asking me to try and read Tolkien's mind, and I already spent enough time (as I choose to spend it) explaining the textual scenario -- make of it what you will.

Thanks. Yeah it's impossible to figure this out.

 

[TheManInTheMoon]

Wasn't that half the reason she left? I mean, she'd been planning on going before the Rebellion even took place (that's why she and Celeborn had a ship ready) but I thought she ended up leaving after the First Kinslaying to seek after Fëanor (with all her previous motivations still extant, but secondary).

You are confusing Shibboleth version with Unstained Galadriel version.
She left DURING the Kinslaying, being terrified of sins of Feanor and the sudden despair of the darkening of Valinor. She got to Middle-earth sooner than Feanor. She landed at Cirdan's place. And she absolutely didn't have any motivation of killing Feanor in this version. It's not stated. The closest thing stated to that is "she was in every way opposed to him" and "she was an enemy of Feanor". But "her reasons were legitimate". Hence you can't interpret this as she being motivated to kill Feanor, such murder or revenge is not "legitimate".

The version where it is stated "now she was filled with desire to follow Feanor to whatever land he might come and to thwart him in all the ways that she could" is the one where Galadriel took part in the Rebellion and rejected Mandos and crossed the Helcaraxë.

 

[ZehnWaters]

You are confusing Shibboleth version with Unstained Galadriel version.
She left DURING the Kinslaying, being terrified of sins of Feanor and the sudden despair of the darkening of Valinor. She got to Middle-earth sooner than Feanor. She landed at Cirdan's place. And she absolutely didn't have any motivation of killing Feanor in this version. It's not stated. The closest thing stated to that is "she was in every way opposed to him" and "she was an enemy of Feanor". But "her reasons were legitimate". Hence you can't interpret this as she being motivated to kill Feanor, such murder or revenge is not "legitimate".

I never said anything about murder or killing. I said "revenge". Being his enemy and opposing him in every way is a form of revenge.

The version where it is stated "now she was filled with desire to follow Feanor to whatever land he might come and to thwart him in all the ways that she could" is the one where Galadriel took part in the Rebellion and rejected Mandos and crossed the Helcaraxë.

Hm. I'll need to break back out my books.