Re: First Edition "The Hobbit'
Bill O'Meally
> In perusing a first edition Hobbit that I acquired some years ago, I
> was looking at the illustrations and noticed that there is a drawing
> titled "Mirkwood" on what should be page 147. I have never noticed
> this drawing in other editions of the Hobbit and was wondering if
> anyone knew why it was omitted in later editions. It is a black and
> white drawing and appears right after the first page of Chapter
> VIII,
> Flies and Spiders. It has no page number on it although it should be
> 147. However the next page with text is 147. The color prints in the
> book are number (or not numbered actually) in this fashion.
>
> Does anyone know if this was supposed to be a colored print that
> didn't happen, and what happened and why is it gone by the second
> edition? I looked in the annotated Hobbit but could find little
> mention of it. Perhaps it is in the History of the Hobbit which I
> haven't bought as yet.
> Thanks in advanced for anyone's answers or speculations.
The drawing you are referring to was a pen-and-ink rendering of an
older watercolor titled /Taur-na-Fuin/, or /Beleg Finds Flindling in
Taur-na-Fuin/. Tolkien had originally intended the drawing to be the
front endpaper to TH, but it was later placed in chapter 8 as you
describe. (from _JRR Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator_ , pp. 55-58,96)
This illustration has a very interesting history indeed!
/Taur-na-Fuin/ was originally printed in a 1928 publication (well
presceding TH). Flindling's name was later changed to Gwindor in _The
Silmarillion_. Tolkien later did the ink rendering, minus the elves,
for TH as described. I see no mention as to why it did not survive
later editions. The most recent incarnation is for the cover of the
paperback Ballantine edition of TT, where it is titled /Fangorn
Forest/. (ibid)
This is the original painting, elves and all! I suspect that most
people do not see them, as they are rather overshadowed by the
extensive detail. You really have to look closely to find them! What
we are supposed to think, I suspect, is that they are Merry and
Pippin -- elongated forms, and *bearded* (one of them) and all.
:-)
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
Paul S. Person
<omea...@wise.rr.com> wrote:
<snippo>
>This illustration has a very interesting history indeed!
>/Taur-na-Fuin/ was originally printed in a 1928 publication (well
>presceding TH). Flindling's name was later changed to Gwindor in _The
>Silmarillion_. Tolkien later did the ink rendering, minus the elves,
>for TH as described. I see no mention as to why it did not survive
>later editions. The most recent incarnation is for the cover of the
>paperback Ballantine edition of TT, where it is titled /Fangorn
>Forest/. (ibid)
>
>This is the original painting, elves and all! I suspect that most
>people do not see them, as they are rather overshadowed by the
>extensive detail. You really have to look closely to find them! What
>we are supposed to think, I suspect, is that they are Merry and
>Pippin -- elongated forms, and *bearded* (one of them) and all.
>:-)
What I find really interesting is that, since Elves were quite tall at
the time of Beren (7', IIRC), is how tiny they are compared to the
trees -- or, rather, how large the trees must be!
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Prai Jei
continuum:
> This is the original painting, elves and all! I suspect that most
> people do not see them, as they are rather overshadowed by the
> extensive detail. You really have to look closely to find them!
Is that not the way of Elves?
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Prai Jei
continuum:
> What I find really interesting is that, since Elves were quite tall at
> the time of Beren (7', IIRC), is how tiny they are compared to the
> trees -- or, rather, how large the trees must be!
Don't forget, JRRT was a bit of a tree freak. Perhaps he saw the trees as
the principal characters of the scene, and the elves (or whatever) as
secondary.
Öjevind Lång
news:hh25kn$je7$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> What I find really interesting is that, since Elves were quite tall at
>> the time of Beren (7', IIRC), is how tiny they are compared to the
>> trees -- or, rather, how large the trees must be!
>
> Don't forget, JRRT was a bit of a tree freak. Perhaps he saw the trees as
> the principal characters of the scene, and the elves (or whatever) as
> secondary.
Quite possibly, there were also crossovers. Celeborn's behaviour and general
appearance are so wooden that I suspect he was actually an Ent in disguise.
That explains why he couldn't go to Aman.
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> spoke these staves:
>> The drawing you are referring to was a pen-and-ink rendering of
>> an older watercolor titled /Taur-na-Fuin/, or /Beleg Finds
>> Flindling in Taur-na-Fuin/.
Yes.
The original 'Taur-na-fuin' is in pencil, black ink and watercolour.
It is no. 54 in _J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator_ (A&I) by
Hammond & Scull, and it is discussed on p. 55 (though appearing on p.
58).
Tolkien redrew this painting in ink as 'Mirkwood' in ink with
halftones for inclusion in _The Hobbit_. Both Hammond & Scull in A&I
and John Rateliff in 'The History of the Hobbit' comments on the fact
that Tolkien translated 'Taur-na-fuin' as 'Mirkwood' in at least one
place, and John Rateliff goes so far as to suggest that originally,
Mirkwood _was_ Taur-na-fuin in Beleriand.
>> Tolkien had originally intended the drawing to be the front
>> endpaper to TH, but it was later placed in chapter 8 as you
>> describe. (from _JRR Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator_ ,
>> pp. 55-58,96)
And there is even more information in Douglas Anderson's annotations
in _The Annotated Hobbit_.
Under the original halftone for the British edition, Anderson writes
that
It was the only printed plate in the first British edition
of _The Hobbit_, [...]. A border at the top of the picture
was cut off in making the halftone block, which Tolkien
noted with regret, and, since Tolkien gave the original to
a student, it has not been possible to restore it.
[_The Annotated Hobbit_, p. 192]
The next page features the redrawing that was made by an unknown
artist for the 1938 Houghton Mifflin edition of _The Hobbit_. It is
possible that it was done by Tolkien himself, but also possible that
it was done by some other artist -- Tolkien's monogram, however, does
not appear in the new version (Hammond & Scull opines it was done by
'another artist'). In this picture, all the halftones have been
redrawn using fine lines to make the printing process much simpler
(avoiding the use of a plate, I believe).
>> This illustration has a very interesting history indeed!
Very interesting, indeed!
>> /Taur-na-Fuin/ was originally printed in a 1928 publication (well
>> presceding TH). Flindling's name was later changed to Gwindor in
>> _The Silmarillion_. Tolkien later did the ink rendering, minus the
>> elves, for TH as described. I see no mention as to why it did not
>> survive later editions. The most recent incarnation is for the
>> cover of the paperback Ballantine edition of TT, where it is
>> titled /Fangorn Forest/. (ibid)
>>
>> This is the original painting, elves and all! I suspect that most
>> people do not see them, as they are rather overshadowed by the
>> extensive detail. You really have to look closely to find them!
>> What we are supposed to think, I suspect, is that they are Merry
>> and Pippin -- elongated forms, and *bearded* (one of them) and
>> all.
>> :-)
The picture was first published with this title ('Fangorn Forest') in
the _J.R.R. Tolkien Calendar 1974 _ with Tolkien's consent, though
not necessarily initiated by him, so this final relocation of the
picture was also done by its artist.
But despite all the different discussions, I have not found any
explanation of why it appeared only in the first two printings of the
British edition. With the original given to a student and thereby
lost, was the plate lost by Allen Unwin? Very strange, indeed ;)
So, we know of at least three different versions of this drawing, and
it has illustrated three different stories under three different
titles.
A1: _Taur-na-Fuin_ - ca. 1928 (pencil, black ink and watercolour)
illustrating 'Turambar and the Foal�k�' from the _Book of Lost
Tales_
A2: _Fangorn Forest_ the same painting as A1, published under the
new title in 1973 illustrating, presumably, Pippin and Merry in
Fangorn Forest
B: _Mirkwood_ - ca. 1936, ink with halftone washes, illustrating
chapter 8 of _The Hobbit_
C: _Mirkwood_ - ca. 1937, ink redrawing of B with washes replaced
by thin lines for American 1938 edition
References:
_J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator_, Hammond and Scull,
pp. 55, 58, 96-8
_The Annotated Hobbit_, J.R.R. Tolkien, annotated by Douglas
Anderson, pp. 192-3
_The History of The Hobbit 1: Mr Baggins_, John Rateliff. Discussion
of 'The Mirkwood Halftone' p. 333-4 and discussion of 'The
Geography of the Tale & The First Map' p 17-21
It is also discussed by Christopher Tolkien in _Pictures of J.R.R.
Tolkien_ where it appears as picture #37, but I don't own that book
(it is out of print, and the used prices are prohibitive for my
Tolkien budget!)
> What I find really interesting is that, since Elves were quite
> tall at the time of Beren (7', IIRC), is how tiny they are
> compared to the trees -- or, rather, how large the trees must be!
In _The Book of Lost Tales_ for which the drawing was first made
(that is, at that point it was probably for the version, 'The Lay of
the Children of H�rin, found in _The Lays of Beleriand_, which was
associated at that time with the 'Sketch of the Mythology', which was
a short prose retelling of the lost tales from 1926-30), the Elves
were actually rather small. In the lay much is made of the fact that
Beleg and Flinding carried the sleeping T�rin out of the Orc-camp,
and it is called a 'doughty' deed _even_ 'though Men were of mould
less mighty builded' than they are today. So, you should imagine
these two being of a size for which carrying a strong man of perhaps
5 feet - 5� feet is a 'doughty' deed. Five feet, perhaps? Four and a
half?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows
how to read.
- /Guards! Guards!/ (Terry Pratchett)
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
In message <news:70g7j55ut3jlbmd9v...@4ax.com> Paul S.
>Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> spoke these staves:
<snippo>
>> What I find really interesting is that, since Elves were quite
>> tall at the time of Beren (7', IIRC), is how tiny they are
>> compared to the trees -- or, rather, how large the trees must be!
>In _The Book of Lost Tales_ for which the drawing was first made
>(that is, at that point it was probably for the version, 'The Lay of
>the Children of H�rin, found in _The Lays of Beleriand_, which was
>associated at that time with the 'Sketch of the Mythology', which was
>a short prose retelling of the lost tales from 1926-30), the Elves
>were actually rather small. In the lay much is made of the fact that
>Beleg and Flinding carried the sleeping T�rin out of the Orc-camp,
>and it is called a 'doughty' deed _even_ 'though Men were of mould
>less mighty builded' than they are today. So, you should imagine
>these two being of a size for which carrying a strong man of perhaps
>5 feet - 5� feet is a 'doughty' deed. Five feet, perhaps? Four and a
>half?
Even at 4.5 ft, the trees would be ... ginormous!
For them to be /real/ trees, the Elves would have to be, oh, maybe 0.5
in high! So I don't think it matters much if the Elves were 4.5 feet
or if they were 7 feet: the scale just isn't affected that much. It
would take a 10x reduction in Elf size to make any real difference.
--
Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Even at 4.5 ft, the trees would be ... ginormous!
If we put the stretched-out Flinding at five feet from feet to hands,
that means that you can see the lower 15 feet or so of the tree he is
lying below, so that doesn't seem very unrealistic to me.
It is rather odd that Beleg appears to be smaller than Flinding, even
if he is apparently closer to the spectator, and I also think the trees
appear unrealistically slim for their apparent height. Even without the
Elves the trees don't seem entirely natural to me. They appear by their
slimness to be very young trees, but the root-mounds seem to belong to
ancient trees.
All in all I agree that there is something that seems wrong in the
scale and/or perspective of the painting, though I am not quite willing
to accept a factor of ten ;-) On the other hand, I am sure that the
trees really are meant to be 'ginormous' -- but I don't think that just
imagining the trees as perhaps a couple of hundred feet tall is quite
enough to explain the odd relative proportions.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Love while you've got
love to give.
Live while you've got
life to live.
- Piet Hein, /Memento Vivere/