Quoth Michael DeleteThis @xenite.org (Michael Martinez) in article
<3b26e128.0406280905.717acde1 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>:
> sbjensen DeleteThis @midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
> > (This message appears to be a thorough rewrite of an earlier version,
> > based in part on detailed responses by myself and Conrad Dunkerson.
....
> > but [the earlier version] has clearly been superseded...
> It is not a rewrite of the June 20 message. The June 20 message was
> a repost of a couple of much earlier messages, snipped and pasted
> together.
I recognized that it was very different (as I said, the old message
had clearly been superseded), but I went ahead and called the new one
a "thorough rewrite" because it looked like even some typographical
errors had remained the same between the two (such as the one that's
still present in your transcription of Anderson's translation of the
tengwar in "Conversation with Smaug"). But when and if I revise my
discussion, I'll be happy to change that wording.
> > In [Treason], Christopher Tolkien says that "At one point,
> > however, Thror and Thrain were reversed in my father's
> > typescript, and this survived into the first proof." That
> > typescript was probably "Stage E", given that the error made it
> > into the proofs (and that "Stage F" wasn't used).
> >
> > But note the wording here! The reversal of Thror and Thrain
> > occurred at ONE point in the typescript, and that ONE reversal
> > survived into the first proof (Christopher refers a bit later in
> > [Treason] to "that one error" in the proofs).
> You have misunderstood the following sentence (which you cited later
> on):
>
> ...Taum Santoski and John Rateliff have minutely examined the
> proofs and shown conclusively that instead of correcting this
> one error my father decided to extend Thorin - Thror - Thrain
> right through the book; but that having done so he then changed
> all the occurrences back to Thorin - Thrain - Thror.
>
> The error was extended all the way through the proofs.
Exactly: the error was extended all the way through the proofs, _on_
the proofs. Otherwise, Santoski and Rateliff would have found this by
examining not just the proofs, but the typescript as well. And no
"minute" examination would have been necessary: the printed proofs
would be easy to read, as would Tolkien's corrections to them. As I
quoted above, Christopher Tolkien refers (twice) to a reversal at just
one point in the submitted typescript (and hence in the proofs as
Tolkien received them).
But I'm surprised to find you arguing this point: when I realized that
we'd been misreading this passage, that was the single biggest blow to
the <1T> theory that I found in my research for this essay. I'll say
more about that below.
> > [A&I] tells us that by the time he drew this version, Tolkien
> > "had already labored on it [Thror's Map] for years", which
> > certainly suggests that he produced a number of versions along
> > the way. [AH] does not comment directly on this point, but its
> > statement that the submitted map was "probably a variant" of
> > [A&I #85] certainly suggests that other intermediate versions
> > existed. We have no information on how many intermediate
> > versions there were or what text they contained.
> Even if there had been 50 previous variations, the map which WAS
> submitted (reproduced in the second edition of THE ANNOTATED HOBBIT)
> contained the critical wording. What might have come before is
> irrelevant.
I completely agree; I just included this to make sure that I'd
included everything that we know about the map's history. I didn't
want to mislead people into thinking that only three versions of the
map had ever been drawn, just in case someone found that significant.
> > <2T> naturally sees this as the first introduction of Thrain I,
> > the distant ancestor of Thror who first founded the realm of
> > Erebor and was King there. He has no detailed history as yet,
> > but he has been deliberately introduced into the story.
> No. It is merely one instance of the first introduction of the
> first Thrain.
Thanks for the correction. Again, if I revise this thing, I'll be
sure to include it.
> > But this lone mention of a King Thrain is very different than those
> > other historical allusions, because a reader would have to go
> > through so many deductive steps to recognize it at all.
> This is just plain silly. One cannot devise any sort of historical
> narrative about anything based on the bits and pieces of "depth"
> scattered throughout THE HOBBIT. Even the history of Erebor itself
> is told in vague terms. The events are not dated, peoples are not
> named, etc.
Oh, certainly, I agree that we shouldn't expect to be told the fine
points of _The Hobbit_'s backstory. My point above was not that the
details of Thrain I's history weren't mapped out, it was that most
readers probably wouldn't even have noticed that he was there. (Even
those who noticed the discrepancy would be fairly likely to conclude
that there was just an error on the map.) That's very different from
the reference to, say, King Bladorthin: we know practically nothing
about him, but even his brief mention adds to the sense of historical
depth in the book.
"King Thrain" on the map could very easily be regarded as a simple
error by readers even if <2T> is correct, and nothing in the rest of
the text makes it _obvious_ that it wasn't. (Given that both
Christopher Tolkien and Douglas Anderson have reached the conclusion
that the map was originally in error, you've got to admit that must
have been a pretty common "mistake".) And if people thought they'd
found an error on the map, that would if anything _detract_ from the
sense of historical veracity of the book.
> > So Christopher's statement here should not be taken as absolutely
> > authoritative: he does not know the solution, and has not fully
> > studied _The Hobbit_'s history. Still, even when writing [Treason]
> > he was more of an expert on these matters than anyone involved in
> > these debates (among other things, he was present and often
> > actively involved throughout the book's development), so his
> > opinion should carry some weight. As far as I know, he has never
> > corrected it or otherwise indicated that he has changed his view,
> > despite a clear opportunity to do so in [Peoples] if he had wished.
> That is absolutely wrong.
Which part? That Christopher's statement shouldn't be taken as
authoritative? That he's more of an expert on these matters than any
of us? That he was present and involved throughout the book's
development? Or that he has never publicly changed his mind on this?
I can't see anything wrong with any of those statements.
> Christopher Tolkien would have had to examine the history of THE
> HOBBIT, a project he had left to Taum Santoski and John Rateliff.
Didn't you just quote me as saying something to that effect? Ah, yes:
"he does not know the solution, and has not fully studied _The
Hobbit_'s history." (I stand by my "fully", as he must have studied
it at least a little in order to make the comments about it that he
did.)
> He did not even have access to the papers, which had long been
> stored at Marquette University. While he could have asked for
> copies of them, there is no indication that he did so when he was
> working on THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
I didn't say that he had studied this in depth, I said that he was
more familiar with this history than any of us. (At the very least,
it sounds like when writing [Treason] he was well aware of some
results of Santoski and Rateliff's work, whereas we only know of those
results through him.)
> > It seems that this must refer at least in part to the reversal
> > that Christopher Tolkien wrote about in [Treason]:
> >
> > "Taum Santoski and John Rateliff have minutely examined the
> > proofs and shown conclusively that instead of correcting this
> > one error my father decided to extend Thorin - Thror - Thrain
> > right through the book; but that having done so he then changed
> > all the occcurrences back to Thorin - Thrain - Thror. It is
> > hard to believe that this extraordinary concern was unconnected
> > with the words on 'Thror's Map' in _The Hobbit_: 'Here of old
> > was _Thrain_ [CT's emphasis] King under the mountain'; but the
> > solution of this conundrum, if it can be found, belongs with
> > the textual history of _The Hobbit_, and I shall not pursue it
> > further."
> >
> > Again, to clarify what this says as compared to what both sides
> > of this discussion have asserted in the past, the proofs had the
> > reversed genealogy in just one place. Tolkien went through them
> > from front to back and reversed it everywhere on the proofs, and
> > then went back through and restored the original (and final)
> > order.
> You have completely garbled the story. All that happened was the
> proofs replicated the name-switch (erroneous in the first
> occurrence, apparently intentional in subsequent occurrences), and
> Tolkien corrected the proofs throughout to restore the correct order
> of Thorin - Thrain - Thror. Tolkien did not mark the proofs to
> switch the names and then switch them book.
I haven't talked about this with John Rateliff, Christopher Tolkien,
Douglas Anderson, or anyone else who has seen the proofs, so all I
have to go on is what Christopher wrote, quoted above. The whole
section quoted above is talking about the proofs, not the typescript:
the one reversal in the typescript was already said to have survived
onto the first proofs (quoted above). Yes, I was surprised to realize
this, too, but I find the conclusion inescapable, unfortunately.
[snip definition of "page proofs", which I certainly understand]
[In what follows, I'm pretty sure that you're writing in the context
of our previous understanding of this passage: that Tolkien reversed
Thror and Thrain throughout _The Hobbit_ in his final typescript, and
only restored the Thorin - Thrain - Thror order on the proofs.]
> Furthermore, the discrepancy between map and text indicates that the
> Thrain on the map is Thorin's grandfather. Tolkien restored the
> text to show Thrain as Thorin's father, and therefore the Thrain on
> the map was restored to being some other ancestor.
>
> Hence, the <1T> position is further weakened by the fact of Tolkien's
> error correcting. If he had left the name switch in place, the <1T>
> position would have been validated (in fact, there probably would
> never have been a second Thrain at all).
If you can convince me that I _did_ get the history wrong above, I'll
be overjoyed! Probably the most serious weakness in <1T> is its need
to assume that Tolkien mistakenly reversed Thror and Thrain on both
submitted versions of Thror's Map ([A&I #85 and #86]), never noticing
his error. If both versions of the map were drawn and submitted
during a period when Tolkien had made that reversal as a conscious
choice, then this isn't a weakness at all.
That would still leave unanswered the question of why Tolkien didn't
change the map when he later changed the text, but it's not hard for
<1T> to suggest plausible explanations. Most significant is the fact
that Tolkien gave up on his attempts to control the map's presentation
in his letter of 5 Feb 1937, weeks before he even saw the proofs. By
that point, he may have done his best to simply forget about the map,
and thus not noticed that it disagreed with the changes that he made
on the proofs. Or perhaps he just didn't think it was worth fighting
about: he'd battled with the production department for well over a
month on a previous point about this map, and they basically got their
way completely. He might have even tried to change the map at some
point after changing the proofs and been refused because work on it
was too far advanced, just as happened when he tried to submit changes
to the runes on 13 Apr 1937. In any case, these difficulties seem
_far_ less serious than the "he just got it backward" basis of <1T>
that's required in the chronology that I think is right.
As for <2T>, you say that after the textual changes, "Thrain on the
map was restored to being some other ancestor". I don't think this
would be a "restoration" at all: we both agree that in the original
story before publication, there was indisputably only one Thrain. If
the map's Thrain was intended to be Thorin's grandfather when it was
drawn, then the only hint of the earlier Thrain in the whole book at
the time of submission seems to be the word "heirloom" used of the
Arkenstone, which is a pretty meager basis for extrapolating a whole
new character. Thus, the changes to the text would be the first
introduction of Thrain I... but he wasn't introduced into the text
itself at all! I would find it very difficult to believe that Tolkien
would change the text to make the map imply a new character but not
add a single direct reference to that character in the text. (That
difficulty is present for <2T> in either version of the history, and I
think I discussed it at least briefly in my essay.)
So, yeah, if you can convince me that I'm wrong on this point, I'll
welcome it with open arms, as it makes the case for <1T> a good bit
stronger.
> > 1949-50: Tolkien writes draft T 4 of the "Tale of Years" for _The Lord
> > of the Rings_. This includes the entry:
> >
> > "2590 Thror the Dwarf (of Durin's race) founds the realm of
> > Erebor (the Lonely Mountain) and becomes 'King under the
> > Mountain'.[33]"
> >
> > Christopher Tolkien's endnote [33] reads exactly as follows:
> >
> > "'Thror ... founds the realm of Erebor': the history of Thror's
> > ancestors had not yet emerged."
> At this point in time, Tolkien had not created a genealogy for
> Thorin's family for inclusion in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. As estblished
> by the first edition of THE HOBBIT, named members of Thorin's family
> included Thror, (Thrain the Old), Thrain, Dain, Nain, Thorin's nephews
> Fili and Kili, their unnamed mother, and an implied younger brother.
> Balin's father Fundin had been named but no connections had been made
> between him and Dwalin or between the various members of the Company
> and Thorin. Balin is said to be "old-looking" in THE HOBBBIT.
Ok... but I don't see how that's relevant. Are you just clarifying
the <2T> position for me here? Because what you said above sounds an
awful lot like the first sentence of my summary of <2T> that you
quoted below, albeit in expanded form. My summary said that <2T>
reads Christopher's comment as "a reference to the detailed genealogy
and family tree all the way from Moria to Thorin's generation in
'Durin's Folk'". You'll have to clarify what you meant here, I'm
afraid.
> > <2T> is now faced with a serious difficulty: why did Tolkien write
> > that Thror founded Erebor if he had deliberately introduced the
> > earlier King Thrain I?
> Tolkien wrote no such thing.
Er, which part of "Thror... founds the realm of Erebor" are you
suggesting that Tolkien didn't write, exactly? My comment there was
almost a direct quote.
> > The <2T> position reads Christopher Tolkien's comment that "the
> > history of Thror's ancestors had not yet emerged" as a reference to
> > the detailed genealogy and family tree all the way from Moria to
> > Thorin's generation in "Durin's Folk". In particular, this
> > position does not believe that Christopher's comment here precludes
> > a prior emergence of the part of that history involving Thrain I.
> As you cited further on, Christopher specifically states that "in [the
> first draft of 'Durin's Folk'] and its accompanying genealogical
> table...it is seen that an important advance had been made from the
> text T 4 of the Tale of Years." (THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, p. 276).
Are you just agreeing with my summary here?
> Since Christopher did not investigate the HOBBIT textual history,
> his comments in THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH do not have any more
> bearing on the facts of the first edition HOBBIT than his comment in
> THE TREASON OF ISENGARD.
I think it's clear that by the time that he wrote [Peoples],
Christopher had at least studied the history of the development of
"Durin's Folk" and its relationship to revisions to _The Hobbit_ in
considerably more depth than he had when he wrote [Treason]. And I
think it's reasonably likely that he'd had a conversation or two with
John Rateliff or Douglas Anderson in the interim as well. But in
general I agree: he's never done a truly thorough study of the history
of _The Hobbit_, and I don't think that I've suggested otherwise.
Still, as I said before, I'm pretty sure that he knows more about it
than you or I do, since he's our _source_ for some crucial pieces of
that history. Even if you don't grant my claim of "more", I think we
can agree that he knows rather a lot about its history. Are his
comments authoritative? Certainly not. But I think they're worth
listening to.
> But it is clear that "Durin's Folk" and the genealogy were developed
> AFTER the T 4 text was written.
And indeed, that was made clear in my essay. Under 14 Sep 1950, I
wrote:
"Somewhere around this time (certainly between the earlier Tale of
Years version T 4 and the next one T 5, written sometime before 22
Oct 1954), Tolkien writes the first draft of "Durin's Folk" for
Appendix A of LotR (this draft is entitled "Of Durin's Line").
This text, published in [Peoples], contains the first known full
discussion of Thrain I's history, including the first extended
genealogical table".
I'm glad to see that we agree, anyway.
> > "The extension of the line beyond Thror appears to have had its
> > starting-point in my father's explanation of the words on
> > Thror's Map in _The Hobbit_ ('Here of old was Thrain King under
> > the Mountain') as referring not to Thrain son of Thror but to a
> > remote ancestor also named Thrain: see VII.160."
> > <2T>'s understanding of all this is that Tolkien has finally made
> > the history of Thrain I explicit rather than implicit, and fleshed
> > it out in detail for the first time in "Of Durin's Line"...
> No. <2T>'s understanding of all this is that Tolkien has finally
> organized and expanded the family (and history) which had emerged with
> the first edition of THE HOBBIT.
Again, thank you for correcting my wording here. I don't think that
what you've said is that different in intent than what I said, but
I'll obviously defer to your phrasing of the issue.
> > ...No further changes to the text of _The Hobbit_ were made, because
> > Tolkien viewed it as being consistent with the earlier Thrain from
> > the start, but the prefatory note was added for the benefit of
> > readers who had not thought through the map's implications. And
> > Christopher Tolkien's comment about "Thrain" on Thror's Map being
> > the "starting-point" simply means that the map was the first
> > introduction of the character.
> No, Christopher's comment is about the PREFATORY NOTE being the
> "starting-point" (in Christopher's estimation -- he carefully says
> "the extension of the line beyond Thror APPEARS [emphasis mine] to
> have had its starting point in my father's explanation of the words on
> Thror's map in _THE HOBBIT_").
Ah, ok. I mistakenly guessed that your take on this would be to opt
for a broader reading of Christopher's statement; I have no idea why I
didn't just stick with the "Christopher's guesses aren't
authoritative" angle. Once again, thanks, and I'll correct this if I
revise the essay.
> > ... Large changes requiring re-setting of the early chapters
> > could easily introduce many new textual errors, while Tolkien
> > had spent years trying to eliminate the existing ones.)
> In the final text, Tolkien only introduced one brief rewrite
> (Thorin's account of the history of Erebor), which was not very
> substantial. He extensively modified the proofs for THE LORD OF THE
> RINGS, occasionally requiring significant retypesetting despite his
> best efforts to keep the changes small, so he wasn't afraid to make
> changes on proofs.
On the other hand, his letter to Allen & Unwin of 23 Jun 1965 leading
up to the third edition _explicitly_ states that the planned full
re-setting of the book was what convinced him that the time had come
to make those changes in the text. I think that Tolkien really was
hesitant to cause any more re-setting than he felt was absolutely
necessary, even though his changes often led to that anyway (that
seems to have been precisely what happened with the first proofs of
_The Hobbit_, for example).
> > 24 Aug 1965: Tolkien submits his changes for the third edition of _The
> > Hobbit_ [Bib]. Most of the relevant changes relate to the
> > history of Erebor in Thror's time as related in chapter 1, and
> > read as follows:
> >
> > "and came with all their wealth and their tools to this
> > Mountain"
> > [became]
> > "and came back with all their wealth and their tools to this
> > Mountain"
> Hardly.
Hardly what? "Hardly read as follows"? I'll admit that I snipped
things down to focus on some essential features, but I didn't see that
as much of a distortion. I guess your claim is that I've left out
potential changes to the history relating to Thror specifically;
perhaps I'll add those back in for a future revision.
> The original passage read:
>
> Long ago in my grandfather's time some dwarves were driven out of
> the far North, and came with all their wealth and their tools to
> this Mountain on the map. There they mined and and they tunnelled
> and they made huge halls and great workshops....
>
> The revised passage reads:
>
> Long ago in my grandfather Thror's time our family was driven out
> of the far North, and came back with all their wealth and their
> tools to this Mountain on the map. It had been discovered by my
> far ancestor, Thrain the Old, but now they mined and they
> tunnelled and they made huger halls and greater workshops....
> In the original conception, Thror's family was NOT driven out of the
> north. In the new conception ("Durin's Folk") they WERE driven out of
> the north. The second edition of THE HOBBIT doesn't explain this
> point, and so Tolkien changed it in 1965 to agree with the LoTR text.
Huh? In the original version, Thror wasn't mentioned by name, but
it's quite a stretch to claim that means he _wasn't_ driven out of the
north. In fact, after we're told that the Dwarves were driven out of
the north and came to Erebor, we read that
"they grew immensely rich and famous, and my grandfather was King
under the Mountain".
While it's not _necessary_ to conclude that Thorin's grandfather came
with them, that is certainly one very natural reading of the history.
(In particular, the phrasing here would be very odd if Thorin's
grandfather had already been king when the other Dwarves arrived: his
kingship is linked directly with the newfound wealth of the Dwarves
from the north.) On what do you base your claim that "Thror's family
was NOT driven out of the north" in the original version?
> > <2T> on the other hand would probably describe these changes
> As I have repeatedly stated through the years, you are by no means
> fit to state my positions for me, as you continually bungle the job.
> See above regarding the chief significance of the textual change.
Excellent. As I have repeatedly stated through the years, when I tell
you my understanding of your positions (often after a citation of your
actual words, or a reference to them like I gave at the beginning of
the essay), you get the opportunity to point out where I have failed
to understand your meaning. This is a well-accepted technique for
reducing miscommunication in discussions. And I'm glad to see that
you've done your part and explained what I've gotten wrong.
In the case of an essay like this, I _have_ to explain what your
position is if I want to be balanced at all, or if I want to give
context for why I prefer my own position. There's no way around it.
But that's the beauty of posting the essay here on the newsgroup: you
get a chance to tell me what I've gotten wrong in front of the same
audience, and I can incorporate those corrections when I revise my
work. Everybody wins.
> > <1T> starts out at a disadvantage: it requires us to believe that
> > Tolkien made a significant error by using the name Thrain on the
> > map, and furthermore that after he became aware of that error, he
> > eventually gave up on fixing it and let it remain unexplained until
> > the note introduced for the second edition. But that is its only
> > difficulty, at least based on the aspects of textual history
> > discussed above.
> Hardly, since the naming of the Arkenstone was never altered in the
> original HOBBIT edition typescript and proofs. That is, while
> Tolkien was repeating the "Thorin - Thror - Thrain" error in the
> story, he maintained "Arkenstone of Thrain" without altering it to
> "Arkenstone of Thror".
That's why I specified "at least based on the aspects of textual
history discussed above". In the introduction to the essay, I
explained that I would be discussing issues related to the Arkenstone
in their own section.
> Furthermore, the original text does NOT say that Thror founded
> Erebor. It doesn't SAY who founded the kingdom under the Mountain,
> or when it was founded.
Absolutely true. But I do think that is the most natural reading,
even if it's not the only one... and Tolkien's initial summary
Erebor's history in the Tale of Years draft T 4 certainly seems to
back it up as his intent.
> > <2T> does not require us to assume that Tolkien made a serious
> > error on the map, but it does require us to believe that he
> > invented the character of Thrain I for no apparent purpose in the
> > original story:
> Bullshit. The invention of the older Thrain lends historical depth
> to the story.
As I've pointed out, as presented in the original version of _The
Hobbit_, for many readers he would probably have actually detracted
from the historical veracity of the book, since it is so easy to
mistake his presence for a typographical error. As Andy Cooke has
recently pointed out, if Tolkien had wanted to create historical depth
this way, he could easily have written "Here of old was Gror King
under the Mountain" (or any other Dwarf name that hadn't been
mentioned elsewhere in the book). Repeating the name "Thrain" without
any explanation was bound to cause confusion, and I for one think
Tolkien would have been clever enough to recognize that.
> Tolkien referred to the halls of Erebor as ancient, and he clearly
> intended the reader to understand that Thorin had a huge family with
> multiple halls, Dain of the Iron Hills being only one example of
> other lords who maintained residences outside of Erebor.
I agree, all of that is made clear in all editions of the book. But
what does any of this have to do with an earlier Thrain in particular?
> > Despite the concern that Tolkien showed about the genealogy in
> > his revisions of the proofs,
> There is no "despite". You simply butchered the facts and
> regurgitated them in a form contrived to support the <1T> position.
I carefully reread Christopher's notes in [Treason], and was blown
away by the fact that their actual meaning (as I now understand it)
introduced a serious flaw into <1T> that had not been there
previously. (This new understanding is what I was referring to in my
introduction when I said that I am "not as certain [of <1T>] as I was
before I embarked on the research for this essay.") I included that
revision here at _substantial_ cost to <1T> for the sake of
intellectual honesty. So c'mon, accept what I've handed you on this
silver platter, why don't you?
> > 3) Points related to the Arkenstone
[Referring to Christopher Tolkien's overview of the Arkenstone issue:]
> > This closely parallels Anderson's comments above, and like Anderson,
> > Christopher Tolkien unquestionably takes the <1T> perspective. But
> > the difficulty that Anderson has pointed out certainly affects the
> > <1T>/<2T> debate.
> Douglas Anderson consulted with Christopher Tolkien on some of the
> more frequently debated issues regarding THE HOBBIT... There is no
> indication in either the book or his first response to me that he
> consulted with Christopher Tolkien on this point.
[snip]
> All that said, much of this <1T> stuff is circular. That is, it is
> founded upon Christopher's statement in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD.
> Since Christopher said there that there was only one Thrain, people
> assume he was correct (despite his careful reservation in conceding
> that he had NOT studied the texts of THE HOBBIT), and on the basis
> of that assumption repeat the assertion without examining the matter
> further.
I have no idea just how old the <1T> notion is, to be honest. [Bib]
mentions several studies of the revisions to _The Hobbit_ dating to
the early and mid-1980s (on p. 32), but I haven't been able to find
copies of them to see what they have to say. And in a sense, those
"several students of the lore of the period" who (if they really
existed) wrote to Tolkien and asked if the map was in error before the
second edition were the first <1T> advocates.
I very much suspect
that many people would have taken the <1T> position long before
[Treason] was published.
Having said that, I see your point here. I wouldn't call it
"circular", necessarily, but I can see your concern that much of the
current <1T> position may unwittingly have its roots in a single
statement less reliable than some advocates recognize. On the other
hand, I myself certainly _have_ examined the matter further (almost as
far as I am able without consulting the manuscripts and proofs
myself), and I think that <1T> holds up very well. You clearly
disagree, but I hope at least that you'll agree that I'm not blindly
following Christopher Tolkien at this point. (I get to make mistakes
of my very own!
)
> > (Alternately, it is even possible that recognizing this difficulty was
> > a factor in convincing him to change the genealogy back to the
> > original Thorin - Thrain - Thror order: Tolkien may have concluded
> > that cleaning up every subtle connection like this would make the
> > reversal a greater challenge than he'd thought.) Once again, the <1T>
> > position is forced to claim that Tolkien repeatedly overlooked a
> > mistake, but at least in this case it's a relatively subtle one.
> You have so twisted this into a convoluted mishmash that it is not
> clear what mistake you are referring to.
Sorry about that... too many suggestions in too little space, I guess.
My final sentence there was a reference back to the <1T> claim in the
previous paragraph (in turn a summary of Anderson):
"when he first wrote the story, Tolkien meant for Thorin's father
Thrain to have found the Arkenstone, and he probably just 'missed
the significance' of Thorin's use of 'my father' in this context
when he invented the earlier Thrain for the second edition."
I'll look for a way to clean this up if I revise the essay, too.
> > As for the <2T> position, it is also faced with a challenge here:
> > for <2T>, the difficulty that Anderson outlines is present from
> > the very first published version of the text (as opposed to the
> > <1T> case, where this conflict was only introduced when Appendix A
> > to LotR was written).
> There is no difficulty here.
No difficulty as long as one is willing to grant the <2T>
interpretation of the phrase "my father", anyway. But I'm not.
> > Other than that, I know of no case where Tolkien uses "father" in
> > this way, though he does use the plural "fathers" (or the related
> > plural "sires") to refer to remote ancestors on a number of
> > occasions.
> Distinctions between plural and singular forms are insubstantial.
The OED _does_ indicate that the singular form of "father" in this
case tends to have a more specific meaning than the plural form, at
least as I read it:
2. A male ancestor more remote than a parent, esp. the founder of a
race or family, a forefather, progenitor. In pl. ancestors,
forefathers.
> You have used this as a crutch to shore up your argument, but unless
> you can show that Tolkien drew the distinction you draw, it has no
> bearing on the issue.
I still believe that when speaking of an ancestor as an ancestor,
Tolkien only used the singular "father" to refer either to a literal
father or to an "ultimate progenitor" like Durin (as described in the
OED's definition 2). Most of the other uses of (singular) "father"
that I've seen in this context seem closer to the OED's definition 4:
4.a. One who exercises protecting care like that of a father; one
who shows paternal kindness; one to whom filial reverence and
obedience are due. (In OE. applied to a feudal superior.)
The quote from [Peoples] stating that "the 'kings' or heads of lines
are regarded as 'parents' of the whole group" certainly fits here
better than definition 2, since any given king would only be an
"ancestor" to a small segment of the whole population. Dain's words
to Thrain after the battle of Azanulbizar, "You are the father of our
Folk", similarly belong here, as Thrain is not an ancestor of Dain.
That's why I was careful to limit my claim only to actual ancestors: I
asked, "Where in Tolkien's writings do we see the word 'father' used
to refer to a remote ancestor in this way?" I still haven't seen any
examples of this from Tolkien's writing that refer to an intermediate
ancestor rather than to an "ultimate progenitor" like Durin.
But although I'd like to stand by my guns on this one (and I'd still
love to see a single example that contradicts my precise assertion), I
think I'll bow to broad public pressure and concede that I'm probably
pushing the singular/plural distinction harder than it can bear.
(Even the OED's definition 2 that I'm so fond of doesn't _absolutely_
require the "founder" aspect.) You won't see any more fighting from
me on this point (and if I do mention it in the future, I'll be sure
to label it as no more than suggestive, if that).
On the other hand, I'm still not willing to give up my claim that an
ancestor called by the more specific phrase "MY father" without
further qualifiers can be anything but the speaker's literal father
(or possibly "immediate father figure": I could imagine it being used
of a stepfather, for example).
I would love to see any example in which Tolkien uses "my father"
(without qualifiers like "of old" that explicitly change its meaning)
to refer to an ancestor more remote than a parent. I don't even think
I've seen an example of this in any published writing, so feel free to
share those as well. As I said in my original essay, if that usage
does exist anywhere, I can only conclude that it's exceedingly rare.
Incidentally, you didn't comment on the final paragraph of this
section where I argued as follows:
"As for <1T>, it should be pointed out that if this non-standard
usage of 'father' were accepted, all of the difficulties raised by
Anderson and Christopher Tolkien would be resolved as well. (There
wouldn't even have been any conflict during the Thrain/Thror
reversal period, as Thorin could have been referring to his
then-grandfather Thrain as 'my father'.) So at worst ('worst' for
<1T>), Thorin's phrase "the Arkenstone of my father" gives no net
evidence in favor of _either_ side in this debate."
Even if we set aside my "non-standard" label entirely for now, any
thoughts on this?
Steuard Jensen
>> Stay informed about: One Thrain or Two: A detailed textual history 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
