Sil or HoME?

[Gothmog]

How much "weight" should be given to the writings in HoME?

There has been some discussion at various times as to how much weight should be given to HoME as opposed to The Silmarillion.

The Silmarillion was edited for publication by Christopher Tolkien after the death of his father. In the foreword of HoME 11: The War of the Jewels, Christopher has this to say:
the published work is not in any way a completion, but a construction devised out of the existing materials. Those materials are now made available, save only in a few details and in the matter of 'Turin' just mentioned; and with them a criticism of the 'constructed' Silmarillion becomes possible. I shall not enter into that question; although it will be apparent in this book that there are aspects of the work that I view with regret.

So where does that leave us?

First we have the choice does the Sil take precedence over HoME or not. The thing is, we have to start somewhere. Christopher was in the best position for judging which of the writings to use for putting together the “construction devised out of the existing materials” and while he says that he views some aspects with regret, I believe that overall he is happy with the published Silmarillion. If we choose not to give the published Sil precedence over HoME then we have to look at all of JRRT’s writings concerning the ages before The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and start from scratch trying to decide just which of them J. R. R. Tolkien would have used. While this would be interesting and no doubt fun, it strikes me as pointless as all discussion on the Sil for some time to come (probably years) would have to revolve around the question “What is The Silmarillion!!

In my opinion we should accept the published Silmarillion as the benchmark to work with. C T has already done the work of deciding what The Silmarillion is (and I doubt that anyone else would have a better idea of JRRT’s intent). However, the published Sil is not Definitive, CT himself said that it was not a completion. So what about the writings in Morgoth’s Ring, The War of the Jewels and even The Peoples of Middle-earth? Should they be given any weight at all? Some things in HoME bring the published Sil nearer to being finished and I feel should be used with the same weight as the published Sil. So the question is which parts should be so used (if any) and which not?


I say that the writings in HoME and even in UT should be judged as to Contradiction to, and Expansion of, the published Sil. Those writings that Expand on the published Sil with little or no Contradiction should be given Equal Weight to the published Sil. So who decides which parts could be given such weight? That’s the problem. It can only be decided by discussion. Perhaps this thread will give some idea as to the possibility of a consensus being reached.

[baragund]

I first ran into this issue shortly after joining this community during a discussion of the origin of orcs. I had asked about the published Sil's account of orcs being Elves that had been captured and perverted by Melkor and somebody (I think it was Snaga) informed me of some later writings by Tolkien contained in one of the later volumes of HOME that "corrected" the earlier description and changed it to orcs being more bestial in nature and taking away any kind of status as being among the Children of Iluvatar (not to mention the awkward moments that there would be when all the orcs and Elves are reunited in the Halls of Mandos! :eek: )

Anyway, it seems to me that Tolkien's thinking on some matters evolved since he wrote what CT assembled into the published Silmarillion. Apparently, CT didn't have all of his Dad's material when he assembled the Sil. One way to answer the question of which account is "correct", one should go to the source manuscripts and find out which is the latest version. Also, one should consult Tolkien's letters and other commentaries to determine his latest thinking on a given issue.

Does this line of thinking pass the sniff test?

[Gothmog]

My answer: Each reader decides for himself, and if he wants to discuss it with others to help make up his mind that is his choice.
Ah, but if it were a simple matter of how you read it this would indeed be the answer with no reason for this thread.

However as you posted earlier:
I think it should be decided for each conversation about the Silmarillion if CTs or the HoME's will be taken into account. Or a mixture of both, in which case what exactly belongs should be discussed if there is disagreement.
I asked the quesion in relation to discussions on this forum with a view to seeing how others view the problem of using both Sil and HoME in discussions.

baragund, a very good way of working through, and you point to one of the major uses of HoME. However, even the point about Orcs/Elves would pass my test of contridiction. Even in the writings of the Published Sil Tolkien left the origin of Orcs open to question, he did not say definatly that orcs were corrpted Elves only that the Elves believed that. ;)

[Alcuin]

This seems to be a matter of increased debate: what is “canonical”, what is “apocryphal”, and what ideas appear discarded? Is Isildur son of Elendil the same as Herendil son of Elendil? Is Fionwë son of Manwë the same as Eönwë herald of Manwë? Is Celeborn consort of Galadriel the son of Elmo, a younger of the brother of Elu Thingol and Olwë of Alqualondë, or is he a Telerian Elda of Valinor? When and why did Galadriel leave Valinor? Did she fight on the side of her mother’s people in the First Kin-Slaying but then follow Fingolfin into exile, incurring the Doom of Mandos; or did she escape with her lover from Valinor despite the darkening of Valinor and the Fall of the Noldor? Are we absolutely, positively sure that we know the descent of Gil-galad from Fingolfin? Did Glorfindel return to Middle-earth in the Second Age or the Third Age? (And there are still reasonable people who argue that there are two Glorfindels, not one.)

I believe there are two things to remember in looking at this question.

First, Tolkien was experimenting with language and history and how they interact. Quenya and Sindarin are the primary case in point: how did the one evolve into the other? How could he explain them, place them into a context that looked and felt like the source materials he used to study the movement of Latin into medieval and then modern Welsh? What kind of history would this be?

Second, what holds together? Does an interpretation or explanation from HoME conflict with something published in LotR? If it does, then it is likely that most of the community will reject the HoME-based explanation as “outside the canon.” Your interpretation might be better (at least in your mind, and even in the opinion of many others) than the LotR explanation, but you can expect to have a very heavy uphill battle for acceptance, which is likely never to be forthcoming from a large section of the community.

I think there is no doubt we are working on Niggle’s Tree: we are filling in the empty spaces and roughly sketched areas Tolkien left behind for us. You may fill in your personal copy as you see fit. The trick is getting others to agree with your choice of line, color, composition and execution.

[Barliman Butterbur]

How much "weight" should be given to the writings in HoME?

I think that depends on why a person is involved with Tolkien. For myself, I read Sil (well, not so much Sil), TH and LOTR strictly for the profound entertainment they give me. They allow me to escape to a world where the good is going to win over the evil — every time I read them. HOME is for me the equivalent of studying the drafts of a musical score to find out how the finished products were arrived at. They are like the pencil sketches and other studies done before beginning the oil painting. They are fascinating in themselves, and very much worthwhile reading in themselves, but secondary to the final works. And the final works (with the exception of Sil) I consider as being the way Tolkien, at last, finally wanted them to be. But since we are dealing with an adventure story, HOME also offers the fun of reading the drafts for their own entertainment value.

Barley

[Gothmog]

And in the case of the Sil. some parts of HoME simply add to the stories with sections that were not included in the Published Sil.

[Barliman Butterbur]

And in the case of the Sil. some parts of HoME simply add to the stories with sections that were not included in the Published Sil.

Sil is the exception: it's the only one of Tolkien's major works whose final structure and content was determined by someone else.

Barley

[Gothmog]

Which is why I limited the thread to the Silmarillion and HoME. The rest of HoME is indeed related to works finished and published in Tolkien's lifetime and so are of interest only in the evolution of the stories.

[Arvedui]

IMO, The Silmarillion takes precedence over HoME.
The reason for my conclution on this matter is that there are too many contradictions in HoME, most of them unfinished. "Round Earth vs. Flat Earth" being an example in point, "origin of Orcs" another.
But, there are also parts from HoME that in my opinion could have been in The Silmarillion. Tuor and his coming to Gondolin is IMO one such piece of writing (yes, I am aware that it is not in HoME as such...).

We all know that there are writing that CT wasn't aware of when he compiled The Silmarillion, so I guess that if he had had access to those documents then, The Silmarillion as we know it today would have been different.

But I think that Walter's quote really sums it up best. :)

[Snaga]

The Silmarillion is CT's arrangement of materials that were subsequently published in HoME. We don't have to accept this arrangement as the best, but it is usually the most convenient starting point for discussions.

I personally feel that trying to get a perfect version is a false task. The fact that alternative versions we can look at adds to 'mythic' feel of Tolkiens writings. After all, real mythology is made up of stories that are told and retold, and get changed over the years, so that many versions may be told.

To me, the real debates are about which version is more enjoyable, or makes most sense in terms of, for example, the motivations of the characters.

[Nóm]

IMO, The Silmarillion takes precedence over HoME.
The reason for my conclution on this matter is that there are too many contradictions in HoME, most of them unfinished. "Round Earth vs. Flat Earth" being an example in point, "origin of Orcs" another.


I am not tyring argue, because as I said I think how each reader views the texts is a very personal thing that should not be dictated by others, but this reminds me of a thought I did not put down earlier.

Yes the HoME is so full of contradictions, but why not, for example, just take the first and only complete Sil version found in HoME 4? May not fit as nicely with LotR, but then The Hobbit doesn't fit any better in my opinion. But the thing is, it was written entirely in full by JRRT, and for some readers that is an advantage.

I only know of very few people at this forum who enjoy reading all the Sil versions (even among those who read the popular essays in the later volumes such as Myth's Transformed, Orcs, Glorfindel, Shibboleth of Feanor and so on...), I think most find it tedius, so CT's is the only Sil that is widely known. I think that is biggest reason to take it as the default.

Each conversation about the tales is unique, so I do not think there is any rule about the Sil/HoME that can be applied universally. That is why I think it should be decided in each individual discussion.

And because there is no one true Sil, people can take whatever they like from HoME and add it to what they consider to be the Sil. It may contradict someone else's idea of Arda's history, but not his own.

I am going to make a related Poll.

[Starbrow]

I agree with Walter's quote. I also like what Alcuin said about Niggle's tree; Tolkien didn't get to finish the Sil and so we (or CT) fill in the edges as best we can.
I don't agree with baragund about Tolkien's latest writings having the most value. Just because Tolkien wrote another version of a story, it doesn't mean he wanted to keep the change; he may have preferred an earlier version.
Like Snaga, I think we should look at these as variations in the mythical story and one version may not be more "canonical" than any others.

[Ithrynluin]

I posted a brief opinion on this matter in another thread:

I do think that, for example, HoME 6-9 cannot be used to disregard something stated in TLOTR, since those four tomes provide an inside look into the process of creating what was to be handed to us as TLOTR. But on the other hand, the Silmarillion was not finished by the professor himself. The way I see it in this case, is that what was written later chronologically, should be taken as authoritative, or at least more authoritative than what came before, all the while keeping in mind that the whole Silmarillion mythology may have taken on quite a different shape had the professor lived for, say, another decade. This may be an overly simplistic way of looking at things, but one that I find a lot more logical and a lot less complicated, than simply equally disregarding every piece of writing published posthumously.
__________________

[Arvedui]

If we are talking about what is to be considered "canon" here, then there are only two works that can be called truly "canon": The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. (At least when it comes to stories concerning Arda) Those were the only works that was written and published by Tolkien when he was alive, and thus the only ones that we can be sure that he approved of 100%.

At least if one look at it from as strickt an angle as possible...

[Maerbenn]

The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. (At least when it comes to stories concerning Arda) Those were the only works that was written and published by Tolkien when he was aliveThe Adventures of Tom Bombadil was published in 1962 and The Road Goes Ever On in 1967.

[Barliman Butterbur]

If we are talking about what is to be considered "canon" here, then there are only two works that can be called truly "canon": The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. (At least when it comes to stories concerning Arda) Those were the only works that was written and published by Tolkien when he was alive, and thus the only ones that we can be sure that he approved of 100%.

At least if one look at it from as strict an angle as possible...

Well, I can't see (outside of one narrow definition which I've put into bold italic) that any of Tolkien's works can be termed canonical in any way. Here is more about that word than any of you — me included — wanted to know:

canon

1. A member of a chapter of priests serving in a cathedral or collegiate church.
2. A member of certain religious communities living under a common rule and bound by vows.

1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3.
1. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
2. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5.
1. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).
2. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.
6. Canon The part of the Mass beginning after the Preface and Sanctus and ending just before the Lord's Prayer.
7. The calendar of saints accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
8. Music. A composition or passage in which a melody is imitated by one or more voices at fixed intervals of pitch and time.

Etymology: Greek kanOn rod, measuring line, rule
1 a : a regulation or doctrine decreed by a church council b : a provision of canon law
2 a : an accepted principle or rule <canons of descent> b : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms

n 1: a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy; "the neoclassical canon"; "canons of polite society"
2: a priest who is a member of a cathedral chapter
3: a ravine formed by a river in an area with little rainfall [syn: canyon]
4: a contrapuntal piece of music in which a melody in one part is imitated exactly in other parts
5: a complete list of saints that have been recognized by the Roman Catholic Church
6: a collection of books accepted as holy scripture especially the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired

canon

This word is derived from a Hebrew and Greek word denoting a reed or cane. Hence it means something straight, or something to keep straight; and hence also a rule, or something ruled or measured. It came to be applied to the Scriptures, to denote that they contained the authoritative rule of faith and practice, the standard of doctrine and duty.

A book is said to be of canonical authority when it has a right to take a place with the other books which contain a revelation of the Divine will. Such a right does not arise from any ecclesiastical authority, but from the evidence of the inspired authorship of the book. The canonical (i.e., the inspired) books of the Old and New Testaments, are a complete rule, and the only rule, of faith and practice. They contain the whole supernatural revelation of God to men.

The New Testament Canon was formed gradually under divine guidance. The different books as they were written came into the possession of the Christian associations which began to be formed soon after the day of Pentecost; and thus slowly the canon increased till all the books were gathered together into one collection containing the whole of the twenty-seven New Testament inspired books.

Historical evidence shows that from about the middle of the second century this New Testament collection was substantially such as we now possess. Each book contained in it is proved to have, on its own ground, a right to its place; and thus the whole is of divine authority.

The Old Testament Canon is witnessed to by the New Testament writers. Their evidence is conclusive. The quotations in the New from the Old are very numerous, and the references are much more numerous. These quotations and references by our Lord and the apostles most clearly imply the existence at that time of a well-known and publicly acknowledged collection of Hebrew writings under the designation of "The Scriptures;" "The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms;" "Moses and the Prophets," etc.

The appeals to these books, moreover, show that they were regarded as of divine authority, finally deciding all questions of which they treat; and that the whole collection so recognized consisted only of the thirty-nine books which we now posses. Thus they endorse as genuine and authentic the canon of the Jewish Scriptures.

The Septuagint Version (q.v.) also contained every book we now have in the Old Testament Scriptures. As to the time at which the Old Testament canon was closed, there are many considerations which point to that of Ezra and Nehemiah, immediately after the return from Babylonian exile.

Source: www.dictionary.com

I will not comment on what seems to be the circular logic and self-congratulatory nature of the final entry, except to say that as far as I'm concerned, Tolkien did not, despite the yearnings of some (even many), write a new bible.

Barley

[Arvedui]

I will not comment on what seems to be the circular logic and self-congratulatory nature of the final entry, except to say that as far as I'm concerned, Tolkien did not, despite the yearnings of some (even many), write a new bible.

Barley
Well, at least he did not write The Bible anew...
But as a background-work for The Hobbit, and even more, The Lord of the Rings, his work with The Silmarillion certainly works as writing a sort of bible, IMO.

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was published in 1962 and The Road Goes Ever On in 1967.
Yes, and IMO, both are sorts of excerpts of The Lord of the Rings...