11705RE: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce
- Mar 10, 2004At 02:41 PM 3/10/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:
>Let me try to reconstruct the limits of the conversation:I haven't seen this interview, but I take it from context that "Tolkien's
>Me: You once said in an interview that we should regard the HoME as
>secondary material, and rely on Tolkien's published works as primary. Since
>CT made the final decisions about the shape the Silmarillion would take in
>published form, what's the difference between the Silmarillion and the HoME?
published works" means works he had published himself, or (as with _The
Silmarillion_) directly intended for publication. Also that by "secondary"
is simply meant "less important," rather than the scholarly meaning of
"secondary source" which is "work by a critic or scholar, not by the
>Pearce: Yes, I see your point. The Silmarillion was published posthumouslyYour point must have been that _The Silmarillion_ wasn't really passed for
>under CT's direction.
or ready for publication as Tolkien left it, yes?
>Yet it seems that a good bit of the Silmarillion hadAll this means is that _The Silmarillion_ is the closest available
>already taken shape or was completed by JRRT, so that CT simply tried as
>best he could to publish the substance of the Silmarillion in a way which
>would reflect his father's intent. The HoME is more an attempt to provide
>readers with earlier versions of materials related to Tolkien's sub-creation
>that Tolkien never intended for publication.
approximation to what Tolkien might have actually published, had he ever
gotten around to finishing it. But in that sense it's a reconstruction, a
working version as he left it, not an attempt to make what Tolkien would
actually have published. Some scholars are of the opinion that the
Silmarillion was essentially unfinishable within the requirements that
Tolkien had set himself for it.
And because the material in _The Silmarillion_ had to be massaged in
certain ways to be made into a coherent narrative (names and dates changed,
versions selected, etc.), it is a more misleading account of what Tolkien
actually left behind than HoME is. In a sense, HoME includes _The
Silmarillion_, as in some volumes Christopher describes individual
manuscripts he does not reprint because they formed chapters of _The
Silmarillion_. True, no individual piece in HoME would be likely to have
been published by Tolkien exactly the way it stood; but there's nothing in
_The Silmarillion_ of which that's likely to be true either.
>What would be great is forAnd that's pretty much exactly what we have. Fourteen honking large
>scholars to have access to all of these manuscripts and papers.
volumes of it. There's very little left out except for repetitive pieces
and some linguistic material, much of which is now being published
separately. It's all there for people to look at, and to construct their
own mental images of the Silmarillion from, without Christopher's
intervention but with his guidance.
>The sameI'd go along with the reasoning here only so far as to say that the more we
>could be said about the letters. We know they are not complete, and that CT
>was very careful in monitoring HC's access to them. With this in mind, we
>should probably be conservative as scholars regarding the biography and the
>letters as being authoritative or definitive. A definitive biography and
>edition of the letters may have to wait until such access is granted.
have, the more we know. And, unlike HoME, the Letters are indeed very
selective. But definitiveness in scholarship is not a function of how much
material the scholar has - there's no such thing as perfect insight into a
subject's mind - but of the use the scholar makes of them.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>