Word origin of Numenor : Numa Pompilius
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
far as Numa Pompilius, yet there is great diversity amongst historians
concerning the time in which he reigned"
http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/numa_pom.html
(Plutarch the Greek wrote a series of books linking Roman and Greek
worlds together, "Parallel lives of Greeks and Romans," showing how
every major Roman man was predated by some equally illustrious Greek. I
would say one should write a book "Parallel histories of the Lord of the
Rings and the Lord of the worlds" or something.! )
The word Numenor always reminded me of an ancient kingdom, and it seemed
real....because of a single king in ancient Romanhistory: Numa Pompilious.
All the noble families of Rome claimed descent from Numa Pompilius,
Plutarch says in the webpage ref'd above. Numa reigned at the time
before Rome was established as the sole power in Italy, and so belongs
to a really remote past for some. ca 700BC.
To Romans he would have been a relic of their medieval times.
Anyways, the name Numa sticks out like a beacon when I see the word
Numenor. Maybe Numenor might be similar to the Etruscans--a civilized
people who assimilated, and left their culture around everywhere.
Hasan
John Yohalem
"Hasdrubal Hamilcar" <syed_hasa...@rogers.com-nospam> wrote in message
news:vr6ja.33637$7Im....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> The word Numenor always reminded me of an ancient kingdom, and it seemed
> real....because of a single king in ancient Romanhistory: Numa Pompilious.
>
>
> Anyways, the name Numa sticks out like a beacon when I see the word
> Numenor. Maybe Numenor might be similar to the Etruscans--a civilized
> people who assimilated, and left their culture around everywhere.
>
Since Tolkien specifically eschewed the Mediterranean in his creations, I
don't see it. As coincidental and unreal as the connection of "Ithilien"
with "Italy." Both ignore the way Tolkien created names: from languages he
had created previously. Numenor derives from the Quenya for "West"; it means
"Western land." Can you think of anything about Numa that associates him
with the West? I didn't think so. The word existed in Quenya for years
before Tolkien even imagined what might happen after the End of the First
Age to the descendants of Beren and Luthien. And then they dwelt in the
West, so their land was called Numenor.
It is just as likely that he called "Hollin" Hollin because its mountainous
landscape reminded him of Holland, or named Rohan out of regard for a Breton
family.
Tsar Parmathule
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
I agree its from Elvish, but what of the superficial resemblance then?
Maybe Tolkien could have chosen an elvish word that sounded like
"Crapenor" -- that may have been more authentic but less beautiful. So
he did choose Numenor--and that is why I am considering what led
unconsciously or deliberately to that that choice of borrowing from the
sounds of commonly known old lore.
Letter 337
"I fear you might be right that the search for the source of the lord of
the rings is going to occupy academics for a generation two. I wish
this need not be so. To my mind it's the particular use of a particular
situation of any motive, whether invented, deliberately borrowed, or
unconsciously remembered that is the most interesting thing to consider."
I also think of the old Etruscan king, all I remember about them is that
they all seemed to be named Tarquin. Tarquin the proud, Tarquin
superbus, Tarquin the great etc. Compare with the names of the kings of
Numenor, Tar Elendil, Tar this and that. Tolkien knew history and he
either deliberatly borrowed from this history--a few superficial
resemblances, or contrived it so that his history could be defended as
plausible by reference to the other authentic ancient history of the
world. I think he might have been under some pressure to keep a
pretence of plausibility for the sake of his academic career.
Hasan
A Tsar Is Born
"Hasdrubal Hamilcar" <syed_hasa...@rogers.com-nospam> wrote in message
> I agree its from Elvish, but what of the superficial resemblance then?
> Maybe Tolkien could have chosen an elvish word that sounded like
> "Crapenor" -- that may have been more authentic but less beautiful. So
> he did choose Numenor--and that is why I am considering what led
> unconsciously or deliberately to that that choice of borrowing from the
> sounds of commonly known old lore.
He didn't name the country Numenor until YEARS after he'd invented the
Elvish word for "West."
What is there in the story of Rome's second king to make you think of
sunsets?
(Hint: The answer is: absolutely nothing.)
The coincidence is entirely in your own head, not in Tolkien's.
I remember a "head comic" once about Lieutenant Kali that gives me a similar
idea to yours -- do you think Lt. Calley, in Vietnam, murdered 300 people
BECAUSE his name was so similar to that of a rather bloody-minded Hindu
goddess? I'd say it's a figment of the comic-writer's imagination.
The Numa-Numenor coincidence is ENTIRELY in your imagination. There's no
reason to project it on Tolkien.
> I also think of the old Etruscan king, all I remember about them is that
> they all seemed to be named Tarquin. Tarquin the proud, Tarquin
> superbus, Tarquin the great etc.
Two of them belonged to the same family, yclept Tarquin.
Tarquinius Superbus MEANS Tarquin the Proud. There was no Tarquin the Great.
So precisely two Roman kings (out of the seven) were named Tarquin.
> Compare with the names of the kings of
> Numenor, Tar Elendil, Tar this and that. Tolkien knew history and he
> either deliberatly borrowed from this history--a few superficial
> resemblances, or contrived it so that his history could be defended as
> plausible by reference to the other authentic ancient history of the
> world.
Again ENTIRELY YOUR imagination, NO connection to Tolkien.
"Tar" does not mean "king" in any language Tolkien knew -- I don't know what
it means in Etruscan, but it probably doesn't mean "king" any more than
"Mountbatten" or "Capet" does.
"Tar" is not a name in Numenor; it means "King."
If further proof desired:
The story of the Tarquins is of a family that usurped the throne and behaved
so badly on it that the monarchy was overthrown and an eternal prohibition
placed on anyone taking the title of King again in Rome. (No one bore the
title "king of Rome" again until Napoleon II was born, 2300 years later.)
This story could not possibly have less to do with Tolkien's world, in which
monarchy is the only way to fly, no "republican" form of government is ever
acceptable, and kings, however evil, are still regarded as too legitimate to
defy.
Distinguish between reality and your imagination. You will find it of great
help.
Tsar Parmathule
Lisa Virmigle
> Tolkien knew history and he
> either deliberatly borrowed from this history--a few superficial
> resemblances, or contrived it so that his history could be defended as
> plausible by reference to the other authentic ancient history of the
> world.
I think Tolkien used his professional knowledge in constructing certain elements
of LOTR for two reasons: 1) his own delight and amusement (i.e. indulging in the
fiction that he was translating "The Red Book of Westmark", similar to real
manuscripts like the "White Book of Rhydderch") 2) because of his ideas about myth
and sub-creation and his occasional assertion that Arda is identical with this
world (see "The Cottage of Lost Play" and "The Lost Road" and other attempts to
connect the legendarium with ordinary human history in _The History of Middle
Earth_)
> I think he might have been under some pressure to keep a
> pretence of plausibility for the sake of his academic career.
In LOTR? I got the impression from Tolkien's _Letters_ and Humphry Carpeter's
_Biography_ that Tolkien's academic colleages somewhat looked down on him for
writing a fantasy novel and did not care whether it had anything to do with
history or not.
Yours.
LV
Archaeologist of Beleriand and Atalantė
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> In LOTR? I got the impression from Tolkien's _Letters_ and Humphry
Carpeter's
> _Biography_ that Tolkien's academic colleages somewhat looked down on him
for
> writing a fantasy novel and did not care whether it had anything to do
with
> history or not.
They wanted him to publish more linguistic stuff. Tolkien had a Sherlock
Holmes-like ability to see connections and detect the truth when analyzing
trexts, and his colleagues wanted more of that. The point was a bit
sensitive with Tolkien. In the Foreword to the second edition of LotR, he
writes: "I had many duties which I did not neglect".
Öjevind
Linards Ticmanis
> I think Tolkien used his professional knowledge in constructing certain elements
> of LOTR for two reasons: 1) his own delight and amusement (i.e. indulging in the
> fiction that he was translating "The Red Book of Westmark", similar to real
> manuscripts like the "White Book of Rhydderch") 2) because of his ideas about myth
> and sub-creation and his occasional assertion that Arda is identical with this
> world (see "The Cottage of Lost Play" and "The Lost Road" and other attempts to
> connect the legendarium with ordinary human history in _The History of Middle
> Earth_)
I'm glad he never published any of those. They're pretty much the
weakest of his Middle-Earth writings and their Book-of-Mormon like
stories are just too ridiculous to do the Middle-Earth legend any
good. The Ælfwine (sp?) connection makes maybe a little more sense
than the other two but still not too much.
And by the way there are a few times Tolkien did in fact use exsting
words. For example "Thargelion" is an ancient greek month name. The
ancient Greek calendar was much like the Jewish calendar with months
shifting around a bit so that they agree with the moon's phases, but
it was more or less the Greek name for September, until they adapted
the Roman (Julian) calendar. It included a celebration called the
"Thargelia". Also the island names "Poros" and "Andros" are existing
Greek island names. Probably those names just stuck somewhere
disassociated in the back of his head when he had to come up with some
stuff.
> Yours.
> LV
> Archaeologist of Beleriand and Atalantë
So when will you dig up Túrin's grave on Rockall island?
--
Linards Ticmanis
A Tsar Is Born
"Linards Ticmanis" <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
news:f4f61de8.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > Yours.
> > LV
> > Archaeologist of Beleriand and Atalantë
>
> So when will you dig up Túrin's grave on Rockall island?
There's nothing much in it, so why bother?
Now the tombs of the Kings and Stewards of Gondor, or the Princes of
Cardolan in the Barrow Downs -- those would be full of intriguing
information.
Tsar Parmathule
Lisa Virmigle
> "Linards Ticmanis" <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
> news:f4f61de8.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > > Archaeologist of Beleriand and Atalantë
> > So when will you dig up Túrin's grave on Rockall island?
<shuffles feet>
Well, funding is always the sticking point of my field...
<fishes in pocket of tweed blazer, finds only a few heavily corroded
coins>
> ... Now the tombs of the Kings and Stewards of Gondor,
My, Aragorn is looking well-preserved, today. <g>
> or the Princes of
> Cardolan in the Barrow Downs -- those would be full of intriguing
> information.
<looks at bullwhip>
<looks into mound>
<looks at bullwhip>
<*runs away*>
Yours,
Michael Martinez
> Lisa Virmigle <Lisa.V...@libraries.claremont.edu> wrote in message news:<3EA7263F...@libraries.claremont.edu>...
>
> > I think Tolkien used his professional knowledge in constructing certain
> > elements of LOTR for two reasons: 1) his own delight and amusement (i.e.
> > indulging in the fiction that he was translating "The Red Book of
> > Westmark", similar to real manuscripts like the "White Book of Rhydderch")
> > 2) because of his ideas about myth and sub-creation and his occasional
> > assertion that Arda is identical with this world (see "The Cottage of Lost
> > Play" and "The Lost Road" and other attempts to connect the legendarium
> > with ordinary human history in _The History of Middle Earth_)
>
> I'm glad he never published any of those. They're pretty much the
> weakest of his Middle-Earth writings and their Book-of-Mormon like
> stories are just too ridiculous to do the Middle-Earth legend any
> good. The Ælfwine (sp?) connection makes maybe a little more sense
> than the other two but still not too much.
Aelfwine, originating in THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, was part of a
mythology Tolkien created for England (in an attempt to construct a
nearly plausible mythical past for the English people). THE LORD OF
THE RINGS, which draws upon many sources (including "Mediterranean"
sources -- Tolkien specifically alluded to Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew
influences), is a modern narrative story written against a backdrop of
forgotten northern European (but NOT English) civilizations.
> And by the way there are a few times Tolkien did in fact use exsting
> words. For example "Thargelion" is an ancient greek month name. The
> ancient Greek calendar was much like the Jewish calendar with months
> shifting around a bit so that they agree with the moon's phases, but
> it was more or less the Greek name for September, until they adapted
> the Roman (Julian) calendar. It included a celebration called the
> "Thargelia". Also the island names "Poros" and "Andros" are existing
> Greek island names. Probably those names just stuck somewhere
> disassociated in the back of his head when he had to come up with some
> stuff.
There are far more than a few such instances.
Tolkien is too often confined to the narrow boundaries of Anglo-Saxon
nomenclature by people today.
Jon Cast
> ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de (Linards Ticmanis) wrote in message news:<f4f61de8.0304...@posting.google.com>...
> > Lisa Virmigle <Lisa.V...@libraries.claremont.edu> wrote in message news:<3EA7263F...@libraries.claremont.edu>...
> >
> > > I think Tolkien used his professional knowledge in constructing certain
> > > elements of LOTR for two reasons: 1) his own delight and amusement (i.e.
> > > indulging in the fiction that he was translating "The Red Book of
> > > Westmark", similar to real manuscripts like the "White Book of Rhydderch")
> > > 2) because of his ideas about myth and sub-creation and his occasional
> > > assertion that Arda is identical with this world (see "The Cottage of Lost
> > > Play" and "The Lost Road" and other attempts to connect the legendarium
> > > with ordinary human history in _The History of Middle Earth_)
> >
> > I'm glad he never published any of those. They're pretty much the
> > weakest of his Middle-Earth writings and their Book-of-Mormon like
> > stories are just too ridiculous to do the Middle-Earth legend any
> > good. The Ælfwine (sp?) connection makes maybe a little more sense
> > than the other two but still not too much.
>
> Aelfwine, originating in THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, was part of a
> mythology Tolkien created for England (in an attempt to construct a
> nearly plausible mythical past for the English people). THE LORD OF
> THE RINGS, which draws upon many sources (including "Mediterranean"
> sources -- Tolkien specifically alluded to Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew
> influences), is a modern narrative story written against a backdrop of
> forgotten northern European (but NOT English) civilizations.
Huh? Tolkien specifically stated that the Shire was intended to be a
picture of rural late Victorian England.
Not to mention that your point (if it were valid) is totally
irrelevant. This is rec.arts.books.tolkien, not rec.arts.books.lotr.
<snip>
Jon Cast
Michael Martinez
> Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
> > Aelfwine, originating in THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, was part of a
> > mythology Tolkien created for England (in an attempt to construct a
> > nearly plausible mythical past for the English people). THE LORD OF
> > THE RINGS, which draws upon many sources (including "Mediterranean"
> > sources -- Tolkien specifically alluded to Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew
> > influences), is a modern narrative story written against a backdrop of
> > forgotten northern European (but NOT English) civilizations.
>
> Huh? Tolkien specifically stated that the Shire was intended to be a
> picture of rural late Victorian England.
No, Tolkien specifically stated:
"There is no special reference to England in the 'Shire' -- except
of course that as an Englishman brought up in an 'almost rural'
village of Warwickshire on the edge of the prosperous bourgeoisie
of Birmingham (about the time of the Diamond Jubilee) I take my
models like anyone else -- from such 'life' as I know. But there
is no post-war reference...."
The full passage may be read in THE LETTERS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN, Letter
181.
There are other, similar passages explaining much the same thing.
> Not to mention that your point (if it were valid) is totally
> irrelevant. This is rec.arts.books.tolkien, not rec.arts.books.lotr.
Get used to having a few inconvenient relevant facts tossed into the
confusion of misdirected opinions and bad guesswork that mingle with
the flood of flames and off-topic posts in these Tolkien news groups.
I do occasionally come back to see if things have settled down.
In any event, you may want to actually READ Tolkien before going at it
with someone who can quote the books. Your choice, really.
Michael O'Neill
Oh dear.
<hands Jon the full equipment:
Nomex face mask - check:
crash helmet - check:
Nomex bodysuit - check:
Frontal/lateral restraint harness - check:
good Luck charm - check:
reinforced gloves - check: body armour -
check: steel shod boots - check:
breathing apparatus - check:
painkillers - check:
stimulants - check>
Put them on. Righto. I'll sit over here and watch, then...
<whistles...>
M.
Jaime Frontero
"Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:3EB06187...@indigo.ie...
j
Michael O'Neill
<wops Balrog over the head with a 4 x 4 steel staunchion, wipes hands>
"Balrogs I can deal with immediately. Martinez usually takes a little
longer."
<sits back on chair to watch the proceedings>
M.
Kristian Damm Jensen
<snip>
> I do occasionally come back to see if things have settled down.
They usually have, until you return.
Why do you always have to make your return so agressive?
> In any event, you may want to actually READ Tolkien before going at it
> with someone who can quote the books. Your choice, really.
Arrogance doesn't become you. (It doesn't become anyone.)
--
Kristian Damm Jensen | Life is short. If you can't be bothered
kristian-d...@cgey.com | to make your posting readable, I can't
ICQ# 146728724 | be bothered to read it.
Flame of the West
> Aelfwine, originating in THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, was part of a
> mythology Tolkien created for England (in an attempt to construct a
> nearly plausible mythical past for the English people). THE LORD OF
> THE RINGS, which draws upon many sources (including "Mediterranean"
> sources -- Tolkien specifically alluded to Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew
> influences), is a modern narrative story written against a backdrop of
> forgotten northern European (but NOT English) civilizations.
And yet LotR is set in the larger MIddle-earth mythology, which
evolved in a continuous process from the Book of Lost Tales.
They represent different stages of the same sub-creation,
since there's no cutoff point at which the early mythology was
jettisoned and a new mythology begun.
--
-- FotW
The Official Return of the King Protest Site
http://members.aol.com/rotkprotest/
AC
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Aelfwine, originating in THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, was part of a
>> mythology Tolkien created for England (in an attempt to construct a
>> nearly plausible mythical past for the English people). THE LORD OF
>> THE RINGS, which draws upon many sources (including "Mediterranean"
>> sources -- Tolkien specifically alluded to Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew
>> influences), is a modern narrative story written against a backdrop of
>> forgotten northern European (but NOT English) civilizations.
>
> And yet LotR is set in the larger MIddle-earth mythology, which
> evolved in a continuous process from the Book of Lost Tales.
> They represent different stages of the same sub-creation,
> since there's no cutoff point at which the early mythology was
> jettisoned and a new mythology begun.
And yet I do think there is a dividing line between the oldest layer and the
Silmarillion. The Silmarils did not take their place as central to the
myths until later (the Sketch of Mythology phase as I recall). For me, this
was central to the evolution of the mythology. BoLT always felt a little
rudderless, sort of a collection of stories with no proper and unifying
central theme. I know that Aelfwine was supposed to be that rudder, and
perhaps if Tolkien had completed BoLT it would have made sense, but it still
wouldn't have had the beauty of the Silmarils.
--
A. Clausen
Michael Martinez
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> > Aelfwine, originating in THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, was part of a
> > mythology Tolkien created for England (in an attempt to construct a
> > nearly plausible mythical past for the English people). THE LORD OF
> > THE RINGS, which draws upon many sources (including "Mediterranean"
> > sources -- Tolkien specifically alluded to Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew
> > influences), is a modern narrative story written against a backdrop of
> > forgotten northern European (but NOT English) civilizations.
>
> And yet LotR is set in the larger MIddle-earth mythology, which
> evolved in a continuous process from the Book of Lost Tales.
Nope.
> They represent different stages of the same sub-creation,
Nope.
> since there's no cutoff point at which the early mythology was
> jettisoned and a new mythology begun.
1925. Try paying attention to what Christopher Tolkien tells everyone
in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
Michael Martinez
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I do occasionally come back to see if things have settled down.
>
> They usually have, until you return.
Who do you think you're fooling with such bullshit? I'm not the only
person who sees the flame threads and off-topic nonsense which
permeate these groups.
> Why do you always have to make your return so agressive?
I only respond to the lies, flames, and gratuitous personal attacks.
Why do you and others insist on posting them in the first place?
> > In any event, you may want to actually READ Tolkien before going at it
> > with someone who can quote the books. Your choice, really.
>
> Arrogance doesn't become you. (It doesn't become anyone.)
So then, why don't YOU stop being so arrogant?
Flame of the West
> > > I do occasionally come back to see if things have settled down.
> >
> > They usually have, until you return.
>
> Who do you think you're fooling with such bullshit? I'm not the only
> person who sees the flame threads and off-topic nonsense which
> permeate these groups.
Don't know about the "flame threads", but AFT in particular has
had a horrible off-topic problem lately. I don't mind *some* off-topic
stuff, but I draw the line when I am accused of hiding in Tolkien's
writings to avoid seeing how horrible my country is (see O'Neill's
recent poem in AFT).
Flame of the West
> > since there's no cutoff point at which the early mythology was
> > jettisoned and a new mythology begun.
>
> 1925. Try paying attention to what Christopher Tolkien tells everyone
> in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
Have you a more specific reference, please?
Kristian Damm Jensen
> Kristian Damm Jensen <REkristian-da...@cgey.com> wrote in message news:<b8t192$d2f2n$3...@ID-146708.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I do occasionally come back to see if things have settled down.
>>
>>They usually have, until you return.
>
>
> Who do you think you're fooling with such bullshit? I'm not the only
> person who sees the flame threads and off-topic nonsense which
> permeate these groups.
Off-topic threads, yes. Most groups have them, I guess they are are
little more frequent in this one, but not enough to be disturbing (to
me, at least).
Flame threads are quite rare - except of course when you turn up. The
occasional negative comment regarding you may appear, but nothing more
than that.
>>Why do you always have to make your return so agressive?
>
>
> I only respond to the lies, flames, and gratuitous personal attacks.
> Why do you and others insist on posting them in the first place?
Where have I lied?
Where have I flamed?
Where have I made personal attacks?
If you consider naming you arrogant a personal attack, then yes. That
was a personal opinion considering your behaviour in that particular
post, and I stick to it.
>>>In any event, you may want to actually READ Tolkien before going at it
>>>with someone who can quote the books. Your choice, really.
>>
>>Arrogance doesn't become you. (It doesn't become anyone.)
>
>
> So then, why don't YOU stop being so arrogant?
You think *me* arrogant?
I am not the one telling people that they can't read, just because they
do not agree with you.
Most here agree that you have a very thorough knowledge of Tolkien and
his writing, but that knowledge makes it all the more necessary for you
to take into account that not *everyone* have the same knowledge.
Teach us, Michael. Do not point your finger at the inferior knowledge.
Your comment, as quoted above, was absolutely unnecessary, and could
only course resentment. The fact that you have used this comment (or
others like it) before, doesn't exactly make it easier to accept.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>>> since there's no cutoff point at which the early mythology was
>>> jettisoned and a new mythology begun.
>> 1925. Try paying attention to what Christopher Tolkien tells
everyone
>> in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
> Have you a more specific reference, please?
None which makes that point exists. The only support for it which has
been presented in the past is;
"The LOST TALES never reached or even approached a form in which my
father could have considered their publication before he abandoned
them; they were experimental and provisional, and the tattered
notebooks in which they were written were bundled away and left
unlooked at as the years passed...."
BoLT, Foreword
Which, of course, says only that JRRT abandoned particular manuscripts
or concepts within the mythology... NOT that he stopped writing about
the things in those manuscripts or considered them a separate
mythology - which he plainly did not;
"Having set myself a task, the arrogance of which I fully recognized
and trembled at: being precisely to restore to the English an epic
tradition and present them with a mythology of their own: it is a
wonderful thing to be told that I have succeeded, at least with those
who have still the undarkened heart and mind."
Letters #180 (January 14, 1956)
Tolkien here describes the published LotR as part of his, supposedly
long abandoned, mythology for England.
"But the mythology (and associated languages) first began to take
shape during the 1914-18 war. The Fall of Gondolin (and the birth of
Eärendil) was written in hospital and on leave after surviving the
Battle of the Somme in 1916. The kernel of the mythology, the matter
of Luthien Tinuviel and Beren, arose from a small woodland glade
filled with 'hemlocks' (or other white umbellifers) near Roos on the
Holderness peninsula - to which I occasionally went when free from
regimental duties while in the Humber Garrison in 1918."
JRRT, Letters #165 (~1955)
And here he describes the VERY early text of 'The Fall of Gondolin' as
part of "the" same mythology as the published stories.
So, JRR Tolkien indicated that the early story of the Fall of Gondolin
was still part of his mythology after the completion of LotR (LONG
after 1925) and that LotR itself was still part of his very early
concept of a mythology for England. Indeed, he consistently refers to
his "mythology" - singular.
There really isn't anything to suggest that Christopher felt there was
more than one mythology... and even if there were it would not much
matter given the clear statements by the author himself to the
contrary.
Michael Martinez
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> > > since there's no cutoff point at which the early mythology was
> > > jettisoned and a new mythology begun.
> >
> > 1925. Try paying attention to what Christopher Tolkien tells everyone
> > in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
>
> Have you a more specific reference, please?
You mean like the first sentence to the foreword to the first volume
of THE BOOK OF LOST TALES (which that incompetent fool Conrad managed
to overlook ONCE AGAIN)?
"THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, written between sixty and seventy years ago,
was the first substantial work of imaginitive literature by J.R.R.
Tolkien, and the first emergence in narrative of the Valar, of the
Children of Iluvatar, Elves and Men, of the Dwarves and the Orcs, and
of the lands in which their history is set, Valinor beyond the western
ocean, and Middle-earth, the 'Great Lands' between the seas of east
and west...."
If THE BOOK OF LOST TALES is the "first" such work, what were the
others?
Of course, the SECOND sentence is even more telling:
"...Some fifty-seven years after my father ceased to work on the LOST
TALES, THE SILMARILLION, profoundly transformed from its distant
forerunner, was published; and sixh years have passed since then."
If Christopher Tolkien, in his opening remarks, could clearly
distinguish between the two works, then why the fuck can't you morons
accept the truth and move on with your pathetic existences?
It's not like it hasn't been in print for 20 friggin' years.
It's not like these and other paragraphs haven't been quoted to you
time and time again.
Here is the first sentence from Chapter I of THE SHAPING OF
MIDDLE-EARTH:
"Before giving the 'Sketch of the Mythology', the earliest form of the
prose 'Silmarillion', there are some brief prose texts that can be
conveniently collected here."
It's not like you have to DIG for this stuff. Christopher laid it out
repeatedly in clear, concise language.
Chapter II, paragraph 3, begins with:
"The 'Sketch' represents a new starting-point in the history of 'The
Silmarillion'; for which it is a quite brief synopsis, the further
written development of the prose form proceeded from it in a direct
line. It is clear from details that need not be repeated here that it
was oritinally written in 1926 (after the LAY OF THE CHILDREN OF HURIN
had been abandoned, III.3); but it was afterwards revised, in places
very heavily, and this makes it a difficult text to present in a way
that is both accurate and readily comprehensible...."
So, while YOU may have trouble comprehending the text itself, you
really have no excuse for acting like it all moved forward in a
straight line from THE BOOK OF LOST TALES. You, and others who have
followed these news groups for years, have been shown REPEATEDLY,
through citation after citation, just how THE BOOK OF LOST TALES
represents a separate mythology which was abandoned, cut off,
"jettisoned" as you put it.
So, like I said before: Try paying attention to what Christopher
Tolkien tells everyone in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
It's not like he tried to hide the obvious from anyone.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Flame of the West <Fo...@solinas.nospam.org> wrote in message news:<3EB40F5C...@solinas.nospam.org>...
[In reference to Michael's claim that a new mythology was begun after
1925]
>> Have you a more specific reference, please?
> You mean like the first sentence to the foreword to the first volume
> of THE BOOK OF LOST TALES (which that incompetent fool Conrad managed
> to overlook ONCE AGAIN)?
> "THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, written between sixty and seventy years ago,
> was the first substantial work of imaginitive literature by J.R.R.
> Tolkien, and the first emergence in narrative of the Valar, of the
> Children of Iluvatar, Elves and Men, of the Dwarves and the Orcs, and
> of the lands in which their history is set, Valinor beyond the western
> ocean, and Middle-earth, the 'Great Lands' between the seas of east
> and west...."
Eh... you'll note that this says absolutely nothing about it being a
different mythology. Just that it was the first substantial work of
imaginative literature... in short, the beginning of the mythology.
> If THE BOOK OF LOST TALES is the "first" such work, what were the
> others?
The Hobbit, LotR, The Silmarillion, numerous adjunct texts, et cetera.
The REST of the mythology.
> Of course, the SECOND sentence is even more telling:
> "...Some fifty-seven years after my father ceased to work on the LOST
> TALES, THE SILMARILLION, profoundly transformed from its distant
> forerunner, was published; and sixh years have passed since then."
Again... note the complete absence of any mention whatsoever of a
separate mythology. Hence this 'incompetent fool's' failure to guess
that you would consider this evidence for your claim of a separate
mythology.
Here Christopher says that the published Silmarillion had significant
differences from Lost Tales. Yup, it did. However, he also connects
the two... calling one the "forerunner" of the other. A strange thing
to do if they were from separate mythologies. Which, of course, they
clearly were not given Tolkien's own direct statements to the
contrary.
> Here is the first sentence from Chapter I of THE SHAPING OF
> MIDDLE-EARTH:
> "Before giving the 'Sketch of the Mythology', the earliest form of the
> prose 'Silmarillion', there are some brief prose texts that can be
> conveniently collected here."
Again... equating the late Silmarillion with the earliest form in
'Sketch of the Mythology'. Again, saying nothing about separate
mythologies.
> It's not like you have to DIG for this stuff. Christopher laid it out
> repeatedly in clear, concise language.
The problem is of course that we read what the texts say... and can
see that they do NOT say what you claim they do.
> Chapter II, paragraph 3, begins with:
> "The 'Sketch' represents a new starting-point in the history of 'The
> Silmarillion'; for which it is a quite brief synopsis, the further
> written development of the prose form proceeded from it in a direct
> line. It is clear from details that need not be repeated here that it
> was oritinally written in 1926 (after the LAY OF THE CHILDREN OF HURIN
> had been abandoned, III.3); but it was afterwards revised, in places
> very heavily, and this makes it a difficult text to present in a way
> that is both accurate and readily comprehensible...."
Again with the absence of any suggestion of a separate mythology... a
continuously updated and revised mythology, YES. A separate mythology
as you have claimed, clearly no.
> So, while YOU may have trouble comprehending the text itself, you
> really have no excuse for acting like it all moved forward in a
> straight line from THE BOOK OF LOST TALES. You, and others who have
> followed these news groups for years, have been shown REPEATEDLY,
> through citation after citation, just how THE BOOK OF LOST TALES
> represents a separate mythology which was abandoned, cut off,
> "jettisoned" as you put it.
None of the quotations you provided (shown above) says anything of the
sort.
Tolkien himself directly contradicted your premise in the two
quotations I provided - which you studiously ignored. This is
precisely the sort of thing which has led to various people
questioning your scholarship in the past. Your research seems
deliberately falsified.
Your claims that Tolkien abandoned the idea of a mythology for England
are false. Your claims that CT said there were separate mythologies
are false. Your claims that JRRT considered them separate mythologies
are false.
And you have NEVER provided the least bit of evidence to the contrary.
Just texts which talk about the fact that details of the mythology
changed over time. Nor have you ever attempted to explain how your
claims can stand when confronted with JRRT's clear statements to the
contrary in Letters.
Flame of the West
> And you have NEVER provided the least bit of evidence to the contrary.
> Just texts which talk about the fact that details of the mythology
> changed over time. Nor have you ever attempted to explain how your
> claims can stand when confronted with JRRT's clear statements to the
> contrary in Letters.
<sigh> Thank you. My response was going to be much more
feeble and contain only a fraction of what you wrote. But I
was going to say much the same thing about different works
not necessarily being separate mythologies.
Kristian Damm Jensen
gotten lost.
I will try again.
Michael Martinez wrote:
> Kristian Damm Jensen <REkristian-da...@cgey.com> wrote in message news:<b8t192$d2f2n$3...@ID-146708.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I do occasionally come back to see if things have settled down.
>>
>>They usually have, until you return.
>
>
> Who do you think you're fooling with such bullshit? I'm not the only
> person who sees the flame threads and off-topic nonsense which
> permeate these groups.
Off-topic non-sense, yes. This group have more than it's fair share. But
it is easy to avoid, and was in any case not what I was talking about.
Flame-threads are relative uncommon, and flamewars almost never seen -
except of course when you return to the group. Mind you, I am not at
this point saying, that you are responsible for these flamewars.
There are the occasional negative comment concerning your person. But
can not be considered to be flame-threads, let alone a flamewar.
The fact is, whenever you return to the group, the heat goes up.
Sometimes within days, sometimes it takes a couple of weeks, but the
result is always the same. Again, I am not here saying that you are
responsible, but you are the cause, whether you like it or not.
>
>
>>Why do you always have to make your return so agressive?
>
>
> I only respond to the lies, flames, and gratuitous personal attacks.
> Why do you and others insist on posting them in the first place?
Where did I lie?
Where did I flame?
Where did I make personal attacks?
As for the last part, yes I have just called your arguments in the post
I replied to "arrogant". That is a statement of opinion, and I stick to
it. Below, I will explain why.
If you choose to label me a flamer on that account, so be it. I am in
fact merely trying to point out, why some people take a dislike to your
attitude.
>>>In any event, you may want to actually READ Tolkien before going at it
>>>with someone who can quote the books. Your choice, really.
>>
>>Arrogance doesn't become you. (It doesn't become anyone.)
>
>
> So then, why don't YOU stop being so arrogant?
First off, I assume that you don't consider your own statement arrogant.
Am I right? If not, how would you characterize a statement to the effect
that another person either didn't read the books in question or didn't
understand what he read? That the other person haven't reached the same
conclusion as you could have a number of other explanations: they could
interpret the text in a different way (yes, interpretation is an
option), they could have forgotten or missed the crucial text, or they
could even (gasp) be in a position, where they haven't yet read all of
HoME. All of these a perfectly valid explanation.
Even had this been a scientific discussion (which it of course isn't)
you wouldn't accuse someone of not having *read* the work, when they
might just as well have missed the reference. When you assume otherwise,
I call your position arrogant.
Now then. I have explained my position. Care to explain why you consider
*me* arrogant?
--