I have a question. As a matter of fact, I've been pondering this for a very long time, so actually I don't know why I did not seek an answer until now.
I bought some time ago JEA Tyler's 'The Complete Tolkien Companion', which is sort of an encyclopedia of Tolkien's world, with a large number of names which receive clear and thorough explanations. However everybody recommends Robert Foster's 'Complete Guide to Middle-earth', which I did not buy.
What I'd like to know is, if any of you own both books, or have more details about them - what does Foster's Guide contain to make it better? Is is more than an encyclopedia? or...?
I'd really like to settle this matter, because to me Tyler's book looks pretty solid.*
* there are some reviews on Amazon saying that the author makes up facts, but to me it did not seem this way (true, I did not study the book, only consulted it when needed)
I own a copy of the Atlas but cannot vouch for the other book. The Atlas is great for providing many obscure maps that are hard to find elsewhere. Obviously they have to be taken with a greater pinch of salt than Third Age maps for example, as Tolkien drew many himself, but they're useful for piecing together the sometimes confusing explanations of geography that Tolkien provides in books like the Silmarillion.
__________________
Utúlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári, utúlie'n aurë! Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva!
Personally, I like the "Complete Guide to Middle-earth". That's what I have been using. I laso had the other one, but it doen't give you the same kind of information, Too short and not enough entries
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
Foster's work has Christopher Tolkien's recommendation going for it, if I recall correctly (at least I think he said something positive about it, somewhere). I only have pre-Silmarllion versions of both books, as my Tyler was published in 1976, and I never got the updated version -- while I did get Foster's updated version.
Comparing these earlier versions however, I chose a somewhat difficult entry, Eldar and the Three Kindreds: Foster notes that the identities of the Three Kindreds is uncertain, but refers to The Hobbit for the terms Light-elves, Deep-elves, Sea-elves, and equates the Noldor with the Deep-elves. He also equates High Elves with Eldar (West Elves).
That seems well done to me, given what could be known at the time. At one point in his entry for Eldar, Tyler states: 'Yet when the time came to set out, one of the Three Kindreds, the Sindar, declared themselves unready to forsake Middle-earth and its wonders.' One can see why Tyler might write such a thing (keeping in mind that this is at a time when both Foster and Tyler are working with limited information), and while Foster seems more reserved, I think that can be his strength sometimes.
Of course one example is simply not fair or even close to instructive! and perhaps one could find an easy enough comparison to suggest that Tyler comes away looking better. Arguably I'm influenced by Christopher Tolkien regarding Foster, but I've never done any kind of detailed comparison myself (again, especially for post-Silmarllion versions! which means I would actually have to buy Tyler's updated version).
In short John, I realize I haven't really helped with my blather
Neither book, as far as I know, incorporates Unfinished Tales or The History of Middle-Earth series (or Letters), but they do not pretend to of course, and are based primarily on texts Tolkien himself published, which makes a book of a different nature. And which is a good thing in my opinion, despite that such a book will necessarily 'lack' information later made public by Christopher Tolkien.
-- Edited by Galin on Saturday 14th of May 2011 04:40:30 AM
By the way, to be fair to Tyler, when he wrote 'Yet when the time came to set out...' (quoted above), he meant after the Sindar had already reached Beleriand at least (not before the Great Journey began for example).
Glorfindel, I was not talking about Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas, which is a great book, and a well-researched one at that (although with some editorial invention in some maps, necessary but not purely out of the blue either). I was talking about the two encyclopedias.
Galin, your answer is useful as ever. I had the same idea, to post corresponding entries from both books and compare them. However right now I'm not home and I don't have access to Tyler's book, and also when I do get to it, we'd need the latest edition of Foster's book, since I have the latest one from Tyler, so otherwise a comparison would do little good.
And another question: do you think an encyclopedia taking into account HoMe and UT would be useful, or would it be overkill?
(PS: I tried posting this message from my mobile, but it did not work... so I had to use a laptop :) but I hope it does not show twice - at least I only see it one time).
I might consider buying the latest version of Tyler's book, out of interest. One of my Foster editions is post-Silmarillion, and I'm not actually sure (without checking) if it's been updated in any significant way since it was updated due to the publication of the 1977 Silmarillion. As for an Encyclopedia of the kind mentioned, I think in a sense Hammond and Scull have produced something like this.
Edit: just noticed this review of Tyler's book (currently on Amazon) by David Bratman:
'Third edition of an encyclopedia whose first two, pre- and post-Silmarillion, versions have been floating around for years. A reliable source but a very poor second choice to Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth (less detail, more omissions, few dates, hardly any page references), Tyler's tome now includes entries from Unfinished Tales, 24 years after that book was published. It ignores almost everything else since then, whether it fits into the (illusory) "final" legendarium or not. Tyler claims he's dropped his pretence that Middle-earth is real, but entries like that for Orcs, identifying them as the true origin of mythic goblins, show that he hasn't. This new edition is only worth having if a copy drops into your lap.'
I'm surprised to find out (or find out again if I forgot) that Unfinished Tales has, for some reason, been incorporated here. But for example, how is Unfinished Tales being used? especially when contradicting draft texts are considered?
I think this complicates a book, however well done, that would otherwise (basically) remain an attempt to inform the reader about Middle-earth based on what the author himself published, or 'revealed' to his readership at large.
-- Edited by Galin on Monday 16th of May 2011 05:17:32 PM
Galin, thanks again for your answer and your pointing out this particular review. I had never read the entry for 'Orc' before, so I looked it up now and was quite surprised by it. So far from what I've read in this book, the entries seemed concise and related to the legendarium. This one however introduces indeed some departures from the mere explanation of the word in the context of Tolkien's works. This is how it goes (I am only posting the beginning and the treatment of Orcs in the First Age, leaving out around 60% of the entry, dealing with the race in the Second and Third Ages):
"Orcs - Any memories still preserved by Men of a far-distant time, when the world was both brighter and darker, are now almost buried in a morass of folk myth, and are thus easily dismissed by the sceptical as mere 'superstition'. And many of the denizens of age-old epic tales are similarly dismissed because our memory of them has become confused, and the feelings they once engendered in the breasts of Men have been forgotten or diminished. In this way the Goblins and Hobgoblins of an earlier time are now 'remembered' as diminutive creatures of malice who tease domestic pets, turn milk sour and - at their most malevolent - abduct human offspring while substituting their own progeny as 'changelings'. Nonetheless the real, darker origins of these creatures may still be accurately traced. Orc is derived from the Grey-elven word orch (pl. yrch) and is today recalled somewhat in the Italian Orco or the French Ogre both of which terms are classically applied to these ferocious, blood-drinking creatures whose appearance in even the most innoculous of folk-tales brings about a revival of ancient fears. Clearly these are more accurate recollections of the foul and dangerous race of Orcs - no myth to dwellers in Middle-earth during the First, Second and Third Ages - than the mischievous sprites and kobolds of Celtic and Germanic myth. Orcs were first bred by Melkor (Morgoth), far back in the Elder Days. They appeared in Middle-earth some time after the awakening of the Quendi in Cuiviénen, and were afterwards believed to be themselves descended from the Quendi, for their sires, it was said, had been abducted by Melkor and twisted and corrupted into this new race: evil, filled with his dark will, cannibalistic and cruel. They abhorred the light of the Sun from their Beginning, emerging from their lairs and caves to do battle for their Black Master only at nightfall. They were bred in Darkness, lived in darkness, died in the dark; yet although they were cowardly and unreliable, so long as the will of their Dark Master animated them they were formidable soldiery, and the enmity between them and the Elves was bitter. But at that far-off time the true Quendi were succoured by the Valar, who came back to Middle-earth in a great host and fought the Battle of the Powers against Morgoth. Their Enemy was captured, and his oldest stronghold, Utumno, was thrown down for ever. And his hosts of Orcs and Trolls (another of his counterfeits) were well-nigh destroyed. Yet some survived, sleeping under stone; and as the Ages of the Master's imprisonment wore away, and his will once again awoke in Middle-earth, they too awoke, and went out into the Night, and did evil; and increased in number, so that by the time Morgoth had once again rebelled against the Valar, and returned in triumph to Middle-earth, there were legions upon legions of dark soldiery awaiting his orders. Yet these evil hoste were, in themselves, insufficiently adept (or valiant) to prevent the returning Noldor from inflicting defeat after severe defeat upon them. The Orcs were merely Morgoth's infantry in the War of the Great Jewels, his most expendable commodity, easily bred and easily led; and as fighters they were no match for the Elves, or their allies the Edain. Only when in overwhelming strength - or when accompanied by one of their Master's more terrible servants, such as Balrogs or Dragons - were they able to withstand their enemies, or attack them successfully. Nonetheless, they inflicted great loss on the Eldar and the Edain during the War, and after; and they remained the most numerous and often encountered of Morgoth's creatures. In the end sheer numbers told, and the Elf-realms and cities were captured and ground into the dust, by hosts of shrieking Orcs who were undeterred by enormous losses; and with this final defeat the Darkness rolled over most of Middle-earth. But the Valar at last took pity on the innocent, and themselves came with a great host to Mortal Lands, and Morgoth was cast out, while his innumerable servants were destroyed or scattered far abroad. Yet the evil that was made in the First Age lived on in many of its ancient forms. [...]"
Now I don't ask anyone to write the corresponding part from Foster, seeing that it might be long as well. However those owning Foster might now make an idea which is better. To me this entry in Tyler deals too much on description but makes too little reference, looking more like an essay than an encyclopedic reference, which surely is a downside. However this is an exception because Orcs are a major part of the legendarium and so they get this very large article (4 pages and a half in the book). In shorter articles, especially those of persons, information is more specific than in articles dealing with races at large.
And also Galin, in your post (before it was edited), you were saying something about an encyclopedia by Scull and Hammond. What is the name of this book? I can't recall ever seeing it (and if you're talking about the two-volume 'JRR Tolkien Companion and Guide'), it is not really focused on the internal history but on external one (at which it is indeed a very thorough work).
-- Edited by John Wain on Monday 16th of May 2011 05:23:44 PM
'And also Galin, in your post (before it was edited), you were saying something about an encyclopedia by Scull and Hammond. What is the name of this book? I can't recall ever seeing it (and if you're talking about the two-volume 'JRR Tolkien Companion and Guide'), it is not really focused on the internal history but on external one (at which it is indeed a very thorough work).'
I did mean the Hammond and Scull books, but although they generally take UT and HME into account (among other sources) in both the two-volume edition (Reader's Companion and Chronology) and the Companion to TheLord of the Rings, I guess that's not really what you meant. I should have rather said that I don't know of any books specifically like the books by Foster or Tyler -- any that attempt to incorporate HME and UT. I don't have Drout's Encyclopedia however, but I think Bear does.
Anyway, I suppose one could take Foster's work and sort of 'expand' on it, working in external factors from HME and UT but keeping the two parts obviously separate. As for possible overkill I would have to muse more on this, but for now I would see no real need to delve into the external history of The Lord of the Rings (its draft history). Still this would be very difficult I think, and external entries could become much much longer than some internal entries! Hammond and Scull have arguably made such a beast 'easier' but again I don't know of anyone who has attempted this.
As a theoretical example, for an entry about Feanor does one, following Foster (though he had no choice in the matter originally), choose the 1977 Silmarillion as internal -- then compare this to the history of Feanor found in HME? choosing the arguably 'major' things of note from The Book of Lost Tales to The Shibboleth of Feanor?
Or I suppose one could use The Lord of the Rings (or any author-published account) for a short internal section on Feanor -- compared to HME, and so the external section would be much longer, and the 1977 Silmarillion possibly noted within that. One could attempt to simplify HME down to the very basic points of interest for each entry (following Christopher Tolkien's lead perhaps), but still, the amount of scholarship and descriptive dexterity needed would be great! HME is not easy to boil down!
If you meant something like a mix I don't see how that could be done without making silent choices for the reader. It might be argued that one only pick those 'wholly uncontroversial' matters from HME and UT to silently include as internal...
... whatever those wholly uncontroversial matters are
And there will always be those who know that Tolkien never truly published X or Y from HME or UT, so even if Tyler somehow only takes from UT what he thinks is uncontroversial, in my opinion we do not really have textual parity in any case. Out of interest, what did Tyler take, if anything, from UT regarding that most knotty of matters: the history of Galadriel and Celeborn? and in what way did he present it?
Or am I still off the path with respect to what you mean
-- Edited by Galin on Tuesday 17th of May 2011 02:41:12 AM
By the way, linguistic niggle alert: I have met the idea before that the word orc is 'derived' from Sindarin, and I note Tyler's phrasing here (perhap he is the source of this?)...
'Orc is derived from the Grey-elven word orch (pl. yrch) and is today recalled somewhat in the Italian Orco or...'
But Appendix F notes: 'Orcs and the Black Speech: 'Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was orch. Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the black speech...'
Help me out linguists, but to my mind that doesn't mean Orc derives from Orch. I agree a borrowing from Sindarin seems easily possible, and I've even posted before on why I think so (see below if interested), but it's also not necessarily so, and according to one statement from Quendi And Eldar at least (which Tyler would not be aware of at first, in any event) this doesn't seem to be the case. There Tolken wrote:
'... the form in Adunaic urku, urkhu may be direct from Quenya or Sindarin; and this form underlies the words for Orc in the languages of Men of the North-West in the Second and Third Ages'.
If orc is a Westron word, as I read this much it would seem to arise from Adunaic forms. But to muddy that a bit, I'm not sure this necessarily refers to a Westron word orc, as the same text later notes: 'Note. The word used in translation of Q. urko, S. orch is Orc. But that is because of the similarity of the ancient English word orc, 'evil spirit or bogey', to the Elvish words. There is possibly no connexion between them. The English word is now generally supposed to be derived from Latin Orcus'
According to this part, the word Orc seems to be a translation! at least for Elvish terms; and I won't bring PE 17 in here to further confuse the issue, because...
... in any case, in my opinion later text published by JRRT himself states that the word orc is Westron, not a translation (I can post this if anyone cares!) -- so with that in mind, looking at Appendix F again, I think Tolkien only need be noting the Sindarin form Orch, as it differs in sound from Westron Orc. Full stop. The two words are not the same, but nothing here of why they are similar.
Unless I'm missing something about 'derived' I guess, but the choice of this word seems to imply some sort of fairly specific relationship.
__________
Cirion And Eorl, note 49, explains that the Common Speech did not possess the sound -ch- as heard in Sindarin orch (the sound is like that heard in Welsh loch), and in pronouncing Sindarin, the people of Gondor, unless learned, pronounced this ch at the end of words as -k (they also altered -ch- in the middle of words to -h- which is why we have Rohan and Rohirrim instead of Rochan, Rochirrim, as the actual Grey-elven word for 'horse' is roch. Include Elro(c)hir I would guess).
Essentially these people would say orc when pronouncing Sindarin orch, and if this -ch- is not found in Westron, why not make Westron orc a simple borrowing from Sindarin? Again, JRRT didn't seem to take that path...
... as I think I understand things anyway
In the end, why not just describe what Tolkien actually published about the word, and avoid possible pedantic nigglers like me!
Galin, I was in fact referring to 'beast' number 3 (in your now edited post), because indeed the first choice is already in print (from different authors and with various degrees of acceptance) and the second is unacceptable because the point is not to make silent decisions for the reader. A casual reader will be more than happy with variant A (an encyclopedia of what is firmly known), while a dedicated student of Tolkien would never accept invention by someone else as 'fact'.
The third choice for an encyclopedia could work if each article was divided into two parts: one stating only the 'facts', meaning that information which was published during the author's lifetime, or anyhow in a book like 'The Silmarillion', which though edited together, still presents a fair view of Tolkien's own thoughts; and the second part, going further and exploring the name (or concept) in depth, taking into account texts unpublished by Tolkien (such as HoMe, VT, etc.) It would still be useful for both the casual reader and the student, since the casual reader will stop after reading the first part, and the one interested to know more will move on the the rest, however long it might be (and yes, it could be way longer than the first part!)
Now for what you asked regarding Tyler's treatment of 'Galadriel' and of his using UT in his encyclopedia. That is fairly interesting, so I'll post the whole entry. Notes are marked with blue, and my own commentary with the paler font.
"Galadriel 'Radiantly-garlanded [crowned]-maiden' (Sind., from Q. Altariel) - One of the most royal princesses of the Noldeor of Tirion; daughter and youngest child of Finarfin son of Finwë the King, and sister of Finrod, Orodreth, Angrod and Aegnor. For reasons of her own, unconnected with the theft of the Silmarils, Galadriel was a leader of those rebellious Noldor who forsook the Blessed Realm towards the end of the First Age. Alone of the children of Finarfin, Galadriel survived that ill-fated expedition. She afterwards repented and spent the two full Ages of her continuing exile aiding the cause of the Free Peoples against Evil. At the time of the War of the Ring she was the mightiest of the Eldar remaining in Middle-earth, and the oldest and bitterest foe of the Dark Lord. The history of Galadriel has been confused by a number of late sources1 which furnish many details of her life which were hitherto unknown, but are in a number of cases difficult to reconcile with other known facts of Galadriel's life. For example, far greater importance has been allocated to her in the tale of the rebellion of Fëanor than had previously been supposed - she is said to have been a bitter foe of Fëanor even in Eldamar and had actually fought against him at Alqualondë. Her desire to leave Aman for Middle-earth was independently conceived, in no degree rebellious in intent, and unhappily co-incidental with the far greater exodus of the vengeful Noldor, with whom she became entangled and so came under the same ban of Exile.2 Galadriel spent much of her early exile dwelling with Melian in Doriath; and from the Maia she learned much wisdom. Before the ending of the Age she wedded her cousin Celeborn of Doriath, a lord of Grey-elves and kinsman of Thingol Greycloak.3 When the Valar prohibited her return to Eldamar, Galadriel 'replied proudly that she had no wish to do so'.4 Early in the Second Age she and Celeborn journeyed to Harlindon, where they dwelt for many years. Sometime later they went eastwards to Eregion, a colony of High-elven craftsmen founded in 750 Second Age. For a while they lived with the Elven-smiths of that land,5 but eventually they passed further east across the Misty Mountains to Wilderland, where Celeborn made a realm among the Wood-elves of Laurelindórenan (Lothlórien).6 The Golden Wood became a secret place, hidden even from the knowledge of other Elves; for while the Power that dwelt there could not be concealed, few indeed perceived its true source, or suspected that one of the mighty among the Noldor still lingered in Middle-earth. In the event, the long years of sorrow and exile passed at last and, as a reward for all her work against Sauron, but above all for her rejection of the Ring when it came within her power, Galadriel was finally allowed to leave Middle-earth and return 'West-over-Sea'. She took ship with the Ring-bearers in the last year of the Third Age. See also NAMARIE. [here the forum interprets incorrectly the uppercase letters with accents, so I used plain text instead]
Notes[these are at the end of letter 'G' rather than at the bottom of the page with the 'Galadriel' article]
1. UT 294-348. [this encompasses the entire chapter 'The History of Galadriel and Celeborn' in the Unfinished Tales, ISBN 0 261 10362 8] 2. Ibid. It is also suggested in this source that Galadriel's voyage to Middle-earth was made independently of the fleets of Fëanor. 3. His grand-nephew. See LINES OF DESCENT. 4. The Road Goes Ever On, 60. [I don't know the edition Tyler used here, but the exact quote can be found in the section 'Notes and Translations', subchapter 'Namárië'] 5. According to one tradition, Celeborn and Galadriel (and not Celebrimbor) actually founded Eregion. Another, not necessarily exclusive, claims that they were present at the time (c. 1700 Second Age) of Sauron's attack upon Eregion and helped to defend it. See UT 300-305. 6. Although it has long been supposed that Galadriel and Celeborn came to Lórien in the Second Age, according to late sources (UT 314-17) this is not so. Certainly they appear to have taken an interest in Lorien, and to have fromed friendly relations with its ruling house, but it was not until the Third Age was well advanced that they actually came to live there as its Lord and Lady. This was connceted with the death of Amroth, its last ruling prince."
When Tyler states that Galadriel left Aman towards the end of the First Age, he bases his claim on his interpretation of the First Age as the long period from the Spring of Arda to the War of Wrath, in which case he's technically correct, since the War of the Jewels lasted for the last 600 years of a much longer period.
-- Edited by John Wain on Friday 20th of May 2011 07:56:12 PM
-- Edited by John Wain on Friday 20th of May 2011 07:57:10 PM
'The third choice for an encyclopedia could work if each article was divided into two parts:...'
Ah John you're quick! Yes I edited out the three 'beasts' because the first two seemed obvious enough, and so the 'third choice' basically refers to my (edited version): 'Anyway, I suppose one could take Foster's work and sort of 'expand' on it, working in external factors from HME and UT but keeping the two parts obviously separate'
'... one stating only the 'facts', meaning that information which was published during the author's lifetime, or anyhow in a book like 'The Silmarillion', which though edited together, still presents a fair view of Tolkien's own thoughts; and the second part, going further and exploring the name (or concept) in depth, taking into account texts unpublished by Tolkien (such as HoMe, VT, etc.).'
Upon further musing (although I raised both possibilities) I think the second part should maybe incorporate Silmarillion in some way, instead of essentially treating the 1977 Silmarillion in the same category as author-published.
Foster had no choice of course, and I would agree such an approach will be more confusing for the casual reader (as the casual reader will arguably treat the 1977 Silmarillion as the version); but if one is really going to make a clear divide between Tolkien-published material and 'everything else' (which I agree with), both The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin (long prose), no matter other factors, really do not fit.
It is not a negative statement in any way (or at least not intended to be taken negatively in any way by me!) to simply say that these volumes are constructed by Christopher Tolkien, and do not really form a part of the authorial corpus.
So the approach would be: section A author-published [] section B History of Middle-earth, Unfinished Tales and 'other' -- this section including either separate entries based on 1977 Silmarillion (for comparison, sort or like a section B1 maybe), or references to the constructed Silmarillion worked within the description.
It would still be useful for both the casual reader and the student, since the casual reader will stop after reading the first part, and the one interested to know more will move on the the rest, however long it might be (and yes, it could be way longer than the first part!).
I agree; although with respect to the approach I just suggested, the casual reader will have less to read! Again I realize that's problematic in a sense, but so is treating the 1977 Silmarillion in 'section A' as well, and I can imagine there will be some who will object to that decision, even if it's convenient.
Although even as I type this... I'm second guessing this approach again
In any case, such a work would be no easy task!
-- Edited by Galin on Monday 23rd of May 2011 12:29:11 PM
