Wraiths Before the Ring

[Alcuin]

If I failed to comprehend the thrust of this, then I apologize; but I must disagree. I spent over a year working on my essay Decline of the Lifespan of the Númenóreans. In one of the footnotes is a model similar to the one that to Tolkien almost certainly used: I believe there’s probably a sketch-graph someplace in his notes that he used to estimate the dates of the births and deaths of the kings. The model fits far too well for coincidence: the biggest deviation in the births and deaths of the Kings of Númenor from the straight-line laid out in the essay is –8% for the death of Tar-Elendil, and after that, there is not a single deviation that’s even two-and-a-half percent. The evidence is overwhelming that there are no missing kings in “The Line of Elros”, and the omission of Tar-Ardamir was just that: an omission, an error, as CJR Tolkien describes in footnote 11.

But besides that, Think: if one of the Kings of Númenor had become a Ringwraith, he would never have surrendered throne!

The three Númenóreans with Rings of Power probably came back to Númenor sometime during the reign of Tar-Minastir. During the days of Tar-Ciryatan, and possibly early in the reign of Tar-Atanamir, they poisoned the society of the Dúnedain with lies and disbelief about the purposes of Men in Arda, and then they went back to Middle-earth. Their activities are the fall of the shadow upon Númenor.

Finally, a king does not live in privacy. He is surrounded by family, courtiers, retainers, and subjects. These guys died, and when they died, they were embalmed and buried in state funerals. It is not conceivable that the Dúnedain would have failed to notice if

• the king didn’t age,
• the king didn’t die, or
• the king wasn’t buried.

I don’t think there is any question that the Witch-king was a member of the House of Elros. Whomever he was, he wanted to be king, and he wanted it so much that he wrecked Arnor and almost destroyed Gondor, too. He sowed the seeds of Númenor’s Downfall, he probably cozened Tar-Ciryatan into deposing his father, and he was almost certainly the person who inspired Tar-Atanamir’s disbelief and rebellion against Eru. But there is just simply no evidence in the texts that the Lord of the Nazgûl was or ever had been a King of Númenor.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

If I failed to comprehend the thrust of this, then I apologize; but I must disagree. I spent over a year working on my essay Decline of the Lifespan of the Númenóreans. In one of the footnotes is a model similar to the one that to Tolkien almost certainly used: I believe there’s probably a sketch-graph someplace in his notes that he used to estimate the dates of the births and deaths of the kings. The model fits far too well for coincidence: the biggest deviation in the births and deaths of the Kings of Númenor from the straight-line laid out in the essay is –8% for the death of Tar-Elendil, and after that, there is not a single deviation that’s even two-and-a-half percent. The evidence is overwhelming that there are no missing kings in “The Line of Elros”, and the omission of Tar-Ardamir was just that: an omission, an error, as CJR Tolkien describes in footnote 11.

This is what I was saying, Alcuin. "The line of Elros" in UT is like a lunar calendar or a train timetable: without any deviations from the straight line. It is visible from the onset, but you have proven it scientifically. Nothing ever happened to Numenorean kings if we believe that text: no one drowned, no one got poisoned. They even made children regularly: one in a dozen years.

As for the rest, I promise to reply, when I have time to think on the Kings more.

And, as far as I understand, Galin is expressly studying the differences between TY and LE. I would love to see his work!

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Gordis

This is what I was saying, Alcuin. "The line of Elros" in UT is like a lunar calendar or a train timetable: without any deviations from the straight line. It is visible from the onset, but you have proven it scientifically. Nothing ever happened to Numenorean kings if we believe that text: no one drowned, no one got poisoned. They even made children regularly: one in a dozen years.

As for the rest, I promise to reply, when I have time to think on the Kings more.

And, as far as I understand, Galin is expressly studying the differences between TY and LE. I would love to see his work!

Sorry. Apologies to you and Galin.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Well it sounds most interesting, Galin! Could you perhaps share your time-scheme when it is ready?

Maybe; and I was also hoping someone else would try in the meantime, just to compare. That's an invite, though I realize time is a factor for people, especially as my final version might take a while (if it ever gets finished!).

As for UT the Line of Elros, the important thing is the dating and how sure it is. Was it written before or after the App. A? I have seen some lists dating it as late as 1968, IIRC.

Hammond and Scull date it 'probably 1960' with many emendations made to the manuscript.

What seems curious about this text, is its train-timetable-like appearance: too neat, every early King living almost exactly 400 years, no accidents, no premature deaths.

I have had to indulge in some 'fluctuations' (by comparison to LE) but I don't expect anyone to put my mutterings above a single word written by the Master.

No problem Alcuin -- I'm off topic (as often enough) so I'm probably confusing this thread actually.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Galin

No problem Alcuin -- I'm off topic (as often enough) so I'm probably confusing this thread actually.

Thank you. <bows in dwarf-fashion>

I commend to you footnotes 11 and 10 from “The Line of Elros”, particularly footnote 11, which quotes an otherwise unpublished letter from 1964 in which Tolkien says he thinks he left out one of the kings but cannot find his notes to be sure.

As for the straight-line nature of the births and deaths, I think that has a simple explanation: Tolkien had to reduce the lifespans of the kings from 400 years to 200 years. He could accomplish that by doing algebra, but it is much simpler to sketch a graph of it, and either read the numbers directly off the graph, or raise and lower them a little to simulate natural variation. (I think he did the latter.) Once he did it, he was basically finished with that part, and would likely do little more than tinker with a king or two here and there. I did it both ways: the graphical method, which I did second, requires only a few minutes, while the algebraic method takes a lot more time and ultimately requires that you construct a graph to check it.

Tolkien was a very capable mathematician, calculating and comparing the error in seconds in the Númenórean calendar and in the Gregorian calendar. That is a very tedious calculation, and he did it completely by hand and rather well, or so I understand.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

I commend to you footnotes 11 and 10 from “The Line of Elros”, particularly footnote 11, which quotes an otherwise unpublished letter from 1964 in which Tolkien says he thinks he left out one of the kings but cannot find his notes to be sure.

Yes, the notes are helpful in tracking down the variances. And on Tar-Atanamir (LE note 10), there is also note 19 from The Tale of Years (Second Age) in Peoples of Middle-Earth, for example.

But of course the exercise is to use what the Appendices reveal about this King, not the 'unpublished' Line of Elros, and to work with the Rulers listed in The Return of the King (so far I've been using LE as a guide).

[Olmer]

No matter how you will look at it, the corrections, which Tolkien deliberately made in his "time-table", are pointing on one thing: in his revision Tolkien MENT to fit the Witch-King as the one of ruling Numenorians.
And I still stand by Tar-Cyriatan, since Tolkien revised his lifespan to be twice longer, than any other kings. We know that he was very scrupulous in constructing the history of Arda, trying to fit all pieces in the rightful places. What for he did such correction, if not for making a room for a mighty Nazgul?

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Olmer

No matter how you will look at it, the corrections, which Tolkien deliberately made in his "time-table", are pointing on one thing: in his revision Tolkien MENT to fit the Witch-King as the one of ruling Numenorians.
And I still stand by Tar-Cyriatan, since Tolkien revised his lifespan to be twice longer, than any other kings. We know that he was very scrupulous in constructing the history of Arda, trying to fit all pieces in the rightful places. What for he did such correction, if not for making a room for a mighty Nazgul?

Originally Posted by Olmer

Hm.. Intresting, as any other theories. But where does it say .... Quote, please.

Unfinished Tales, “The Line of Elros”

XII Tar-Ciryatan
He was born in the year 1634, amd ruled for 160 years’; he surrendered the scepter in 2029, and died in 2035. ...

Originally Posted by Alcuin

a king does not live in privacy. He is surrounded by family, courtiers, retainers, and subjects. These guys died, and when they died, they were embalmed and buried in state funerals. It is not conceivable that the Dúnedain would have failed to notice if

• the king didn’t age,
• the king didn’t die, or
• the king wasn’t buried.

The Dúnedain would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to miss a king becoming a Ringwraith. They might not know the cause, but they could not miss the symptoms.

It’s a fun idea, and maybe you’re just pulling my too-serious chain to tease me; but where are your citations? Footnote 11 to “The Line of Elros” reads in part,

…at a later point in Appendix A, Ar-Adûnakhôr is called the twentieth king; and in 1964 my father replied to a correspondent who had inquired about this: “As the genealogy stands he should be called the sixteenth king and nineteenth ruler. Nineteen should probably be read for twenty; but it is also possible that a name has been left out.” He explained that he could not be certain because at the time of writing this letter his papers on the subject were not available to him.

Over the course of writing the history of Númenor, Tolkien doubled the number of kings.

Typos remained in Appendix A until the 1998 edition, at least. My copy reads at one point.

Arahael his son was fostered in to Rivendell…

I wrote a letter to Houghton Mifflin listing the numerous typos and errors I found in my edition, and they replied that they knew of them: many other readers had already written them. I do believe I recall that the Appendices had a number of errors of which they were aware that had never been corrected. The letter is from many years ago, but I’ll see if I can find it: it might be of interest. (I won’t stop everything else to look, though.) I don’t think Appendix A was altered much after publication: there was too much other work to do on Silmarillion and the main body of the text.

You know I respect you, Olmer, but I must disagree with you on this in the strongest terms.

-|-

(Added later)

Originally Posted by Olmer

And I still stand by Tar-Cyriatan, since Tolkien revised his lifespan to be twice longer, than any other kings.

Where did you find that? It isn’t in “The Line of Elros”, no years are given in “Appendix A” for the kings of Númenor, and he doesn’t appear in “The Tale of Years”.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

You know I respect you, Olmer, but I must disagree with you on this in the strongest terms.

It's all right. I have got used to an idea that many mooters are stoutly in disagreement with my theories. It's not standart, sometimes shocking, but all of them are based on the canon text.
Feel free to disagree with me and pull my theory apart, but I want to see quotes, supporting your arguments.

Where did you find that? It isn’t in “The Line of Elros”, no years are given in “Appendix A” for the kings of Númenor, and he doesn’t appear in “The Tale of Years”.

Oh. you saw it, all right.
http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?...9&postcount=64
If you still doubtful, do the math yourself. You are very good at it.
And then tell me, what for has Tolkien decided to correct the dates of just this two particular men with very distinctive from other kings characteristics?

The Dúnedain would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to miss a king becoming a Ringwraith. They might not know the cause, but they could not miss the symptoms.

Gordis already mentioned that becoming a Ringwraith has been a gradual process. Even for a such little creature, as Gollum, a half of millenium was not enough to make him a wraith, let alone Numenoreans.

Originally Posted by Olmer
Hm.. Intresting, as any other theories. But where does it say .... Quote, please.

This was from another theme.
I wanted to know where Tolkien said that Sauron in panic went on attacking Gondor.

[Galin]

Here's my basic approach (any comments are welcome).

After adjusting The Line of Elros (LE) for Silmarien (and thus Tar-Meneldur), I also adjusted so that Tar-Minastir is king by the time the great fleet arrives in Middle-earth (1700 as in App. B). A 'tough' part (again, using LE as a guide so as to try to keep close to the ideas within), is getting Tar-Atanamir to take the sceptre according to App. B, in 2251 (not dying in 2221 as in LE), and once those dates have been changed, moving back in line with the dates in LE by the time I get to Tar-Calmacil. I think I have done this with acceptable fluctuations, in part using the unknown details of Isilmo (LE) as a vehicle.

I then agree with Robert Foster concerning Tar-Calmacil's death in 2899 (I have no problem agreeing with Mr. Foster here), and move to Ar-Adûnakhôr next -- not to Tar-Ardamin who does not appear in the list in Appendix A. The lack of Tar-Ardamin in Return of the King could prove helpful here actually (I note that H&S have added this King in their edition of The Lord of the Rings. I will not here however).

There are other revisions, but so far the most variation appears to be between Tar-Súrion and Tar-Calmacil, meaning I am closer to LE both before and after this 'range of Rulers'. Tar-Minastir will seemingly be an echo of Elros in that he takes the throne early and has a long rule (but not as long as Elros of course, and Tar-Minastir still lives around 400 years). I think this is OK, as he loved the Eldar (though he envied them), took to gazing Westward, and of course sent aid to Gil-galad.

Again, after the adjustment allowing Tar-Atanamir to take the sceptre in 2251, I am adjusting the dates to fall back in accordance with the death date of Tar-Calmacil 2899. I'm still checking and adjusting these figures (math!) but I think it's possible, while accounting for the shortening life spans as well. Judging from links in this thread I think this project would better be in Alcuin's hands than mine (blatant invite!), and probably other hands as well.

On another related matter (note 11 LE): if H&S are correct on the dating of LE (I'm going to go with their date here), this means that the response in 1964 from Tolkien arguably came after he had written LE, and obviously after the Appendices. But I note Tolkien's reaction: 'As the genealogy stands he should be called the sixteenth king and nineteenth ruler. Nineteen should possibly be read for twenty; but it is also possible that a name has been left out'.

So the first reaction seems to be the list in Lord of the Rings is correct and the numbering 'twentieth' (also in App. A) is in error, then JRRT says maybe the list left someone out. Ok but this is in 1964 and LE was written in 1960, so yes it appears by comparison to LE that Tar-Ardamin is 'left out' -- however my question is, how does this work with respect to his absence back in 1955? In other words the published discrepancy appeared back in 1955 when LE hadn't been written yet, so what would Tolkien's response have been in, say 1958 for example? I think this is a bit hazy, and the error may have started out with writing 20th instead of 19th. In any case CJRT notes at the end of all this: 'It may be that a more complex textual situation underlies the passage than a mere error of omission.' referring to the description of the change in style of the royal names.

I agree; and I'm not sure I agree that Tar-Ardamin was truly the original error here, as he was perhaps invented in 1960 rather. Any reference to him earlier anywhere?

I think the discrepancy might be explained by Herucalmo (Tar-Anducal) rather, who could both be counted, or not 'counted.' Of course he appears in LE not Return of the King, but it could be said that he was counted but yet his name was not actually included in the list of kings, since he had withheld the rule from his own son and in a sense his son's rule began twenty years earlier. He would be the 17th, Tar-Alcarin 18th, Tar-Calmacil 19th (dies in 2899), and Ar-Adûnakhôr the 20th, but his name (Tar-Anducal) would 'not be written', as that is an act of accounting him a true ruler while his rule could be seen as rather a grey area by some.

I realize it might be argued that one either count him 'fully' or not at all, but in any case I think I can come up with a scheme that works without him, and I could simply live with 20th instead of 19th in The Return of the King.

Anyway, have I missed something, obvious or not, in all this? I would like to know before I move forward.

[Gordis]

Galin, I am more and more intrigued by what you do with LE. Actually, I tried to do the same - tweak the Line of Elros to fit the Tale of Years and App. A. It was indeed rather easy with earlier Kings, but much more difficult for Minastir - Ancalimon. My approach has been to preserve what is written in LE regarding each ruler: personality, achievements, family relationships, children, but to feel free to tweak the dates, as long as they correspond to LOTR

But first to your observations

Originally Posted by Galin

After adjusting The Line of Elros (LE) for Silmarien (and thus Tar-Meneldur), I also adjusted so that Tar-Minastir is king by the time the great fleet arrives in Middle-earth (1700 as in App. B).

I feel you are absolutely right in that Minastir should be King by the time the great fleet arrives in Middle-earth. In fact he should be King for at least a decade before 1700. It is obvious the decision to send the fleet was his, and the preparation of the fleet would take at least five-seven years. Most likely the Elves applied for help in 1693 and the decision was made in 1693-4.

Some more arguments:
1.I have checked all the drafts in HOME 12, and in all of them Tar-Minastir is associated with sending the fleet to ME, regardless of the dating. I think we should preserve this link. See here the passage where the name of Minastir first emerged:

'Already in the days of Tar-Minastir, the eleventh King of Numenor, he had fortified the land of Mordor and had built there the Tower of Barad-dur"
The appearance here of Tar-Minastir the eleventh king is of course a further element in the enlarged history already encountered in $$24-6. So also in this paragraph the text of AB 'nor did he forget the aid that they [the Numenoreans] had rendered to Gil- galad of old' was changed in B 2 to 'the aid that Tar-Minastir had rendered. -HOME12

2.Also, please consider this. Minastir was known for 2 things (LE): he built a tower to gaze at Eressea and he sent the Great Fleet to ME and won the first great War in the history of Numenor. Now the Kings took their final names at the coronation, and these names usually reflected their greatest achievement (Romendacil, Hyarmendacil, Tarannon, Ciryatan, Aldarion). What do you think was Minastir's greatest achievement: the War or the Tower? The War, obviously. Yet he was called not "Romendacil" or "Endordacil" or Ciryatan, but "Minastir." Why? Because he took both the Scepter and his new name BEFORE the War, obviously.

So Tar-Minastir became King no later than 1694, IMO. What date give you, Galin?

Originally Posted by Galin

A 'tough' part (again, using LE as a guide so as to try to keep close to the ideas within), is getting Tar-Atanamir to take the sceptre according to App. B, in 2251 (not dying in 2221 as in LE), and once those dates have been changed, moving back in line with the dates in LE by the time I get to Tar-Calmacil. I think I have done this with acceptable fluctuations, in part using the unknown details of Isilmo (LE) as a vehicle.

It is MOST intriguing. Can you reveal more: dates for Minastir, Ciryatan and Atanamir? Here I have my nazgul,you see, so I am greatly interested as how this can be avoided.

Originally Posted by Galin

I then agree with Robert Foster concerning Tar-Calmacil's death in 2899 (I have no problem agreeing with Mr. Foster here), and move to Ar-Adûnakhôr next -- not to Tar-Ardamin who does not appear in the list in Appendix A. The lack of Tar-Ardamin in Return of the King could prove helpful here actually (I note that H&S have added this King in their edition of The Lord of the Rings. I will not here however).

I have not read Foster. What was his argument? In general, I have no problem in having one King less in the middle of the line, especially considering the later dates for Atanamir. The end of the list of Kings seems a bit too long.

Originally Posted by Galin

There are other revisions, but so far the most variation appears to be between Tar-Súrion and Tar-Calmacil, meaning I am closer to LE both before and after this 'range of Rulers'.

I think both Anarion and Surion should be born earlier than stated in LE.
According to one version of Aldarion an Erendis, Erendis (d. 985)was still alive when Ancalime fell in with Hallatan. Thus Anarion should be born 20 years before the time in LE: around 980, not 1003 For Surion, I have an argument about Ancalime prohibiting the marriage of Surion's sisters. They should have been noticeably older than 130 and 118 by the time Ancalime resigned the Scepter, otherwise they could have easily married after the old shrew's death.

Originally Posted by Galin

Tar-Minastir will seemingly be an echo of Elros in that he takes the throne early and has a long rule (but not as long as Elros of course, and Tar-Minastir still lives around 400 years). I think this is OK, as he loved the Eldar (though he envied them), took to gazing Westward, and of course sent aid to Gil-galad.

With Tar-Minastir the Line of Elros has another problem: the date of his forced retirement (Ciryatan's coup that brought him down). It is dated 1969 and Minastir died… FOUR years later in 1973, being 399 years old. Now then… wasn't it high time to retire anyway? He must have been fast declining, falling into dotage. Decent kings retired full ten years prior to expected death, if not earlier..
Add to this the problem of Isilmo: what has happened to this guy, natural heir to Telperien? He may have refused the scepter, but then he would be accounted King for 1 year, like Vardamir. Died before his time? Do you keep 12 years between siblings?

Originally Posted by Galin

Again, after the adjustment allowing Tar-Atanamir to take the sceptre in 2251, I am adjusting the dates to fall back in accordance with the death date of Tar-Calmacil 2899. I'm still checking and adjusting these figures (math!) but I think it's possible, while accounting for the shortening life spans as well. Judging from links in this thread I think this project would better be in Alcuin's hands than mine (blatant invite!), and probably other hands as well.

Alcuin's help would be invaluable indeed…

I have, however, made one graph absent from Alcuin's article - that is mapping the ages when the Kings got their first child. As you know, it is this value that is correlated with the length of rule of the next king, not the life span as such. If kings with the life span of 400 have children at 50, you can fit 20 kings in 1000 years, if the Kings have children at 200, then you can only fit 5 kings in the same 1000 years.
And this graph proved most interesting, I can say. I will post it below

Originally Posted by Galin

I'm not sure I agree that Tar-Ardamin was truly the original error here, as he was perhaps invented in 1960 rather. Any reference to him earlier anywhere?

Not in HOME 12.

Originally Posted by Galin

I think the discrepancy might be explained by Herucalmo (Tar-Anducal) rather, who could both be counted, or not 'counted.'

I think so - very likely.

Originally Posted by Galin

Anyway, have I missed something, obvious or not, in all this? I would like to know before I move forward.

One more thing, about this infamous entry in TY for 2251:

2251 Tar-Atanamir takes the sceptre. Rebellion and division of the Númenoreans begins. About this time the Nazgûl or Ringwraiths, slaves of the Nine Rings, first appear.

It can't be a simple mistake, as Chris Tolkien thinks, it can't be simply changed to "Tar Ancalimon takes the scepter etc.".
The rebellion of Numenoreans against the Valar and division (Faithful vs. King's Men) had occurred in Tar-Atanamir's time, as evidenced both by "Akallabeth", by HOME 12 drafts and by LE. Moreover, in LE we read "Much is said of this King in the Annals, such as now survive the Downfall." And indeed in LOTR we can find some achievements of Atanamir's times, things that made him called "Great": "2280 Umbar is made into a great fortress of Númenor (TY)." "2350 Pelargir is built. It becomes the chief haven of the Faithful Númenoreans (TY). Now if Chris, basing on LE, wishes to move the reign of Atanamir forwards, he should also move the canonic dates for foundation of Pelargir and Umbar. Otherwise they would happen during the reign of the insignificant king Ancalimon, not in the reign of the Great king Atanamir.

[Galin]

Gordis after a quick read your comments look very helpful. Need a bit more time, but briefly for now...

Originally Posted by Gordis

So Tar-Minastir became King no later than 1694, IMO. What date give you, Galin?

I came up with 1698, but I like your reasoning. Working with other considerations I chose a birth date that made him around 80 years old when he took the sceptre -- relatively young (but considering Elros I thought this much was OK).

[Gordis]

Here is the graph for the Age of Kings at the time they got their first child. It is based solely on the Line of Elros (UT).

A pink dot shows the value for Elendil if we assume that his first daughter Silmarien was born in 548 (TY).

The dot for Anarion is calculated as:171-23=148. Here 173 is the age difference between Anarion and Surion. 23 is the assumed age difference between Surion and the eldest of his two sisters.

The dot for Telperien in fact refers to her brother Isilmo, who I assume was 12 years younger than his sister.

LE_First_Child

Thoughts?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Gordis

(...) Can you reveal more: dates for Minastir, Ciryatan and Atanamir? Here I have my nazgul, you see, so I am greatly interested as how this can be avoided.

OK. There may be some history here that doesn't fit as I haven't fine tuned it with respect to all of LE's statements or implications (and I would need to refresh my memory regarding other 'unpublished' texts before bringing them into the picture). This could be seen as a draft then, even assuming that there are no stoopid errors on my part and my largest fluctuations are acceptable enough (wraiths aside, I am open to other suggestions on how to deal with this part of the scheme especially).

As I needed to 'push around' a fair number of years I introduced some unusually late births with respect to Tar-S and Tar-M. If I recall correctly, one of the rulers had a child as late as 193 (in LE Tar-Elendil 'married late in life' and Tar-Meneldur was his 3rd child), but I went notably beyond this for Isilmo's birth, and Tar-C's as well (I gave Isilmo his son when he (Isilmo) was 198, keeping the birth of Tar-S at 1174, as in LE).

Despite that Tar-Telperien was 'long-lived' and etc (LE) I took 33 years off her life (!) to match dates for Tar-M, which takes 33 years off her rule as well. I didn't want to do this -- and on that note, the alterations I don't really like are having Isilmo born (for some reason) 100 years after Tar-T (which makes Tar-S 246 at the time, well over 193). And Tar-M has Tar-C at age 238, again well over 193.

Isilmo is basically a blank page with respect to a birth date, though one naturally wonders why a large gap between siblings occurs (and we don't have to make it exactly 100 of course). T-M is another story, but as you know we need some way to alter this so that everyone here lives to roughly 400 and Tar-Atanamir can still take the sceptre in 2251.

If Isilmo has Tar-M at age 198 I have Tar-M born in 1618. He takes the sceptre at age 80 in 1698 (though as I say I like your reasoning on this matter). T-M rules till 2017 and dies in 2021. When T-M is age 238 (the 2nd manipulation that exceeds 193) Tar-C is born in 1856. He rules from 2017 to 2251. Tar-A is born in 2011 (when Tar-C is 155), and is 240 years old when he takes the sceptre in 2251.

Essentially introducing a couple unexplained late births -- again unless I've made some obvious mistake (very possible!) that I haven't noticed -- this seems to get us to Tar-Atanamir and Appendix B. Then I start 'cutting back' to get back on track with LE.

I have not read Foster. What was his argument? In general, I have no problem in having one King less in the middle of the line, especially considering the later dates for Atanamir. The end of the list of Kings seems a bit too long.

I think he just assumed this date due to Ar-A taking the sceptre in 2899.

I think both Anarion and Surion should be born earlier than stated in LE. According to one version of Aldarion an Erendis, Erendis (d. 985)was still alive when Ancalime fell in with Hallatan. Thus Anarion should be born 20 years before the time in LE: around 980, not 1003 For Surion, I have an argument about Ancalime prohibiting the marriage of Surion's sisters. They should have been noticeably older than 130 and 118 by the time Ancalime resigned the Scepter, otherwise they could have easily married after the old shrew's death.

I kept their birth dates as in LE. I have not even checked Aldarion and Erendis myself yet. I would like to read the work again to get a better picture here, before I comment.

With Tar-Minastir the Line of Elros has another problem: the date of his forced retirement (Ciryatan's coup that brought him down). It is dated 1969 and Minastir died… FOUR years later in 1973, being 399 years old. Now then… wasn't it high time to retire anyway? He must have been fast declining, falling into dotage. Decent kings retired full ten years prior to expected death, if not earlier..

As we must change dates to try to account for published material, I'm not sure we should also fiddle with this part within LE itself, unless we have to for some reason, or a variant text is used.

Add to this the problem of Isilmo: what has happened to this guy, natural heir to Telperien? He may have refused the scepter, but then he would be accounted King for 1 year, like Vardamir. Died before his time? Do you keep 12 years between siblings?

I think it's good Isilmo is a relative unknown. In a sense, at least I am not changing his specific history when I have him born so many years after Tar-T for example. Of course my reason is external and may stick out compared to other details in LE, but with him we don't have to actually change written history when fixing a date.

And thanks for the graph. I'll give it a look.

[Alcuin]

I think the few weeks of respite I had to write in Tolkien forums are drawing rapidly to a close. It may be many weeks (or months) before I can revel here again.

Olmer, when you first posted your alternate time-line, I was frankly appalled. With all respect – and I do respect you and your opinions! – I think some very serious documentation is in order. Galin and Gordis, my reaction is the same to alternate datings of the lives of the kings.

On the one hand, we have what may be either a textual error in “Appendix A” and a very tenuous link based upon CJR Tolkien’s footnote comment that the “Line of Elros” differences may have “a more complex textual situation”. On the other hand, that might mean nothing than that there are several increasingly complicated versions that his father developed as he worked out the dates and ages, and that is exactly what I think happened: until he sketched out a rough graph and read the dates from the graph, I doubt that Tolkien was able to adequately date his Númenórean kings. That the kings in the “Line of Elros” have almost mechanical dates of birth and death suggests to me that this a laborious operation that Tolkien did not enjoy, and that he did it mainly to get the kings and the Second Age dates for them into proper order.

It is also very important to keep in mind the various “Drowning Of Anadûnê” texts in Sauron Defeated. At the beginning of the formation of the story of The Akallabêth, there were only 12 kings in the history of Númenor: Ar-Pharazôn was number 12. By the end of the telling, Ar-Pharazôn was number 24, and Tar-Atanamir, the first of the rebellious kings, was number 12. In between, Tolkien had to continually extend the list of kings to fit the story. It is inevitable that the chronology changed, too.

To make the argument that one of the kings of Númenor became a Nazgûl is doomed, in my opinion. The hurdles you have to overcome to accomplish this are too high and too many: if that’s what happened, then you must at least explain why Tolkien never mentions it; why a Nazgûl-king would not simply maintain his throne; how the Dúnedain never managed to notice it; and why the Faithful Númenóreans, who at first outnumbered the Kings’ Men, would not rebel once they realized some fiendish sorcerer was their king.

To argue that the text of “Line of Elros” is seriously misdated or in error, you have to fall back on the argument that “Appendix A” is the be-all and end-all of the line of the Númenórean kings when even Tolkien wrote to a correspondent that he thought he made an error and left one out. (Minor errors would seem to me a given, but how we could find them without access to the archived papers is problematic.) That Tolkien left out one king – about whom he probably knew very little other than the name in the mid-1950s – is by far the simplest explanation. To incorporate some other explanation, I think you have to justify it. You need to provide the citations, and you to be sure that what you’re citing isn’t overridden by a subsequently corrected version. For instance, if you’re citing a date from a document that references only 12 or 20 kings of Númenor, we need to know that. If the Second Age is about 2000 years long in that document rather than about 3000 years long in the text that you’re using, we should know that, too.

There are errors in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien admitted in interviews that there remained some errors, although he did not enumerate any beyond a few grammatical mistakes that he found amusing. I pointed out what are at least potential dating errors in post 4 of “The Hunt for the Ring”. That a name was inadvertently omitted from the list of Númenórean rulers in “Appendix A” seems to me an innocent enough mistake.

I can hear the heavy footfalls of the taskmasters of Núrnen. I have to get busy and fast, or I shall be severely beaten. I don’t know when I’ll be able to return again for in-depth discussion. (I hope to be able to keep up and make a few comments: we shall see.) But I ask – I suggest – I urge – that you bear in mind some principles

• Do as little violence to the text as possible.
• Solve issues with the fewest number of changes or emendations or additions as possible.
• If you make a discovery in the stories (like the discoveries we made in the thread “Why did the Nazgûl drop Merry at Bree?”) – and you will discover new relationships and new events as you dig – be sure that each of them is as completely documented as possible with citations and sound reasoning. Explain how what you’ve found solves problems in the body of Tolkien’s work, and not merely how it fits an agenda.

We are amateur Tolkien scholars. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t do a really bang-up job, as good and at least in a few cases better than the explanations offered by the professionals who are doing this for a living.

Now my profession calls, and I have to answer. I must regretfully excuse myself for a while. I have had a wonderful time over the past several weeks, Entmoot is a great forum, and all of you have my utmost respect. And thank you for tolerating my circumlocutory posts. (Don’t grab a dictionary: it means, “TLDR”.)

PS – Gordis, that’s a very nice graph of the age of each of the rulers when his first child was born. I made a similar one when I was preparing my essay “Decline of the Lifespan of the Númenóreans”, but I did not include it. Did you use “Line of Elros” data to construct it?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

I think the few weeks of respite I had to write in Tolkien forums are drawing rapidly to a close. It may be many weeks (or months) before I can revel here again.

That is very sad, Alcuin. You will be missed, no doubt. As for me, I also have salt mines waiting, so I still haven't had time to reply to your questions and post my nazgul theory, which is different from Olmer's. No, it is NOT YET posted.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Olmer, when you first posted your alternate time-line, I was frankly appalled. With all respect – and I do respect you and your opinions! – I think some very serious documentation is in order. Galin and Gordis, my reaction is the same to alternate datings of the lives of the kings.

No need to be appalled, Alcuin. We are checking possibilities, no more. Galin for instance has no nazgul in his time-schemes. He tries to fill in the gap between 1700 and 2251 assuming no Rings were involved. Olmer and I are thinking a ring was involved.

You realize, Alcuin, that alternate, conflicting datings of the lives of the Kings already exist in TY and LE. Moreover LE has its inner problems (like 1700 for Telperien, not Minastir, and the dates for founding of Pelargir and Umbar now dissociated with Atanamir). Which dates have to be corrected is a matter of debate and this debate is currently going on in this thread. I think it can only be for good as it uncovers some links we might have missed. I have not seen a similar thread anywhere and in friendly cooperation we might be able to get to something.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

It is also very important to keep in mind the various “Drowning Of Anadûnê” texts in Sauron Defeated. At the beginning of the formation of the story of The Akallabêth, there were only 12 kings in the history of Númenor: Ar-Pharazôn was number 12. By the end of the telling, Ar-Pharazôn was number 24, and Tar-Atanamir, the first of the rebellious kings, was number 12. In between, Tolkien had to continually extend the list of kings to fit the story. It is inevitable that the chronology changed, too.

We sure will have to take the earlier texts into account and we are attempting to. Ar-Pharazon was at first especially manipulated into becoming number 13, an unlucky, ominous number. Now this position is held by Tar-Atanamir. I will be expanding on it, when I have time.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

To make the argument that one of the kings of Númenor became a Nazgûl is doomed, in my opinion. The hurdles you have to overcome to accomplish this are too high and too many: if that’s what happened, then you must at least explain why Tolkien never mentions it; why a Nazgûl-king would not simply maintain his throne; how the Dúnedain never managed to notice it; and why the Faithful Númenóreans, who at first outnumbered the Kings’ Men, would not rebel once they realized some fiendish sorcerer was their king.

There is a lot to explain, no doubt.
You know and I know that Tolkien never wrote such a story: neither a King-nazgul story nor a Prince-nazgul story. He might have been thinking on it sometime during the final stages of the writing of LOTR, and the timeline (TY) he published in the Third volume may have reflected those yet unformed ideas. Maybe they never existed, maybe they were later abandoned - but maybe not (as he did have an opportunity to correct all "mistakes" in 1964 as he did have the LE already written).

You see, Alcuin, (and I am on record here) your Prince-nazgul theory is the VERY BEST an outsider like you or I can make using what Tolkien legacy (TY and LE) we can base on. I can do NO BETTER using your approach. But an outsider is not permitted to tweak dates set by the Profesor, so this restriction considerably narrows the flight of imagination.
Now Tolkien himself had no such restrictions. He could use the Line of Elros to light his pipe and write a brand new one, if he felt like it. Not so with TY and LOTR App. A. Tolkien usually treated the published material as he would treat a historical source: trying to find explanations for the odd parts, but not tweaking them or declaring them wrong.

In fact we are trying to figure out what Tolkien himself could have possibly written without tweaking TY and App.A - if he felt like it. Which story would he prefer to write: Prince-nazgul or King-nazgul? We can only speculate and -yes, in this speculation we are overstepping our boundaries assuming the rights to edit dates in unpublished Tolkien texts. But we respect the published texts as Tolkien himself always did.

Sometimes, just sometimes, this approach gives good results. I once posted a thread about Tar-Miriel and Pharazon, trying to prove that the dates given in LE and the story in the Silm indicate that the marriage was likely a marriage of love, not forced one as told in the Akallabeth. Pharazon-Miriel love story Later I learned that Tolkien thought along the same lines, it seems, for he wrote down Pharazon-Miriel's love-story in "The History of the Akallabeth" in HoME 12. But without this proof, unknown to me at the time, my theory would have remained a weird hypothesis strongly contradicting the statement in Akallabeth.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

To argue that the text of “Line of Elros” is seriously misdated or in error, you have to fall back on the argument that “Appendix A” is the be-all and end-all of the line of the Númenórean kings when even Tolkien wrote to a correspondent that he thought he made an error and left one out. (Minor errors would seem to me a given, but how we could find them without access to the archived papers is problematic.)

So, he has noted AN error and that was 19 kings instead of 20 (he forgot Ardamin). Do you think he really missed the fact that two kings (Minastir+ Ciryatan) ruled for 551+ years? How could he after having written the Line of Elros with the alternative timeline?

Originally Posted by Alcuin

You need to provide the citations, and you to be sure that what you’re citing isn’t overridden by a subsequently corrected version. For instance, if you’re citing a date from a document that references only 12 or 20 kings of Númenor, we need to know that. If the Second Age is about 2000 years long in that document rather than about 3000 years long in the text that you’re using, we should know that, too.

I don't think there is much to be found in early versions. Before the completion of LOTR, Tolkien had an alternative identity for the WK- Chief of the order of wizards, Wizard-King. If ever some precursors of a new "Nazgul-as-King of Numenor" theory were introduced, it would be around the time when TY was being written.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

There are errors in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien admitted in interviews that there remained some errors, although he did not enumerate any beyond a few grammatical mistakes that he found amusing. I pointed out what are at least potential dating errors in post 4 of “The Hunt for the Ring”. That a name was inadvertently omitted from the list of Númenórean rulers in “Appendix A” seems to me an innocent enough mistake

Then perhaps he considered the date 2251 for Atanamir not an error?

Originally Posted by Alcuin

But I ask – I suggest – I urge – that you bear in mind some principles
• Do as little violence to the text as possible.
• Solve issues with the fewest number of changes or emendations or additions as possible.
• If you make a discovery in the stories (like the discoveries we made in the thread “Why did the Nazgûl drop Merry at Bree?”) – and you will discover new relationships and new events as you dig – be sure that each of them is as completely documented as possible with citations and sound reasoning. Explain how what you’ve found solves problems in the body of Tolkien’s work, and not merely how it fits an agenda.

It is reasonable and wise. I am against tweaking the TEXT in any way, even the text of the LE. Only some dates - some that seem necessary.

[Gordis]

About my graph:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...FirstChild.jpg

Originally Posted by Alcuin

PS – Gordis, that’s a very nice graph of the age of each of the rulers when his first child was born. I made a similar one when I was preparing my essay “Decline of the Lifespan of the Númenóreans”, but I did not include it. Did you use “Line of Elros” data to construct it?

Thanks. I have used exclusively the Line of Elros for this graph- all the blue dots are from there. There is a single pink dot taken from the Tale of Years (birthdate of Silmarien in 548) that I have included to demonstrate the variance with the blue dot of LE (Silmarien born in 521).

We can see from the graph, that even if we include the pink dot instead of the blue one, this will not make Tar-Elendil too old at the birth of his first child. Anyway the children were ALWAYS born during THE FIRST HALF of the parents' life: before 200 for those living 400+, before 100 for those living 200+.

A curious thing about this graph is a straight declining line for the kings after Tar Atanamir as compared to complex zigzagging line for the kings before him.
I guess it was because Tolkien had more or less figured out the intricacies of the history up to this point, but then he got bored and took the later birth dates directly from the graph, even for such "interesting" kings as Ar-Adunakhor or Tar-Palantir. Thus I wouldn't expect to find any draft for the story of Adunakhor's life or Vanimelde's life, but very probably Tolkien had some interesting story about Tar-Elendil and why he had married so late composed at least in his head, if not on paper.

Another thing about this graph. Well, Numenor is in decline, at least morally. It reminds me of Faramir's words about Gondor:

Originally Posted by LOTR

'Death was ever present, because the Númenoreans still, as they had in their old kingdom, and so lost it, hungered after endless life unchanging. Kings made tombs more splendid than houses of the living, and counted old names in the rolls of their descent dearer than the names of sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry; in secret chambers withered men compounded strong elixirs, or in high cold towers asked questions of the stars. And the last king of the line of Anárion had no heir.

Now wouldn't we expect the same attitude vs. children in late darkened Numenor? Yet, it is clearly NOT there if you look at the graph. Every King hurries to marry and to get a heir almost first thing, well before they reach the middle of their lives. Very responsible guys! Personally I think it is a drawback of the LE list of Kings, one Tolkien was probably not aware of and one he would have corrected if ever he prepared LE for publication.

[Galin]

Alcuin, I hope you can return soon.

To argue that the text of “Line of Elros” is seriously misdated or in error, you have to fall back on the argument that “Appendix A” is the be-all and end-all of the line of the Númenórean kings...

Sorry to cut this mid-sentence, but first I'll just note again my previous statement with respect to trying to alter LE to fit with the Appendices, that: '... I don't expect anyone to put my mutterings above a single word written by the Master.'

I think you are correct from the perspective that Tolkien is free to keep working on his history in any way he sees fit; and he did. And The Line of Elros is a later text than the Appendices (again, later than the Appendices of 1955 at least). In this sense the published text isn't the be-all and end-all, yes, as the creation of Middle-earth continues. But yet when Tolkien passed on, what remains are questions and (arguably) assumptions about what he might have done to deal with an error.

... when even Tolkien wrote to a correspondent that he thought he made an error and left one out.

But in the same letter JRRT thought that 19th should possibly be read for 20th; and so far I'm no sure that Tolkien intended to add Tar-Ardamin in 1955. And yes, one could argue Tolkien intended to add him in 1960 at least, by 'unearthing' LE and simply looking at it in the form it was left behind by its author; but on the other hand, and for whatever reason, JRRT did not add him when the chance came, and he certainly revised not only the Appendices but the list of Numenorean names even, altering the form of the name Tar-Vanimalde

(Minor errors would seem to me a given, but how we could find them without access to the archived papers is problematic.) That Tolkien left out one king – about whom he probably knew very little other than the name in the mid-1950s – is by far the simplest explanation.

Perhaps I'm asking for a level of certainty that now cannot be known, I admit.

To incorporate some other explanation, I think you have to justify it. You need to provide the citations, and you to be sure that what you’re citing isn’t overridden by a subsequently corrected version. For instance, if you’re citing a date from a document that references only 12 or 20 kings of Númenor, we need to know that. If the Second Age is about 2000 years long in that document rather than about 3000 years long in the text that you’re using, we should know that, too.

I'm using LE but also trying to take these things into consideration. But that means more time and that's part of why I'm asking for help (I don't know when I'll get around to reading all the texts again, those that touch upon this matter, but LE seems a good place to start, being relatively short for one thing). But I 'must' alter the published text or LE in some respects to imagine one reasonably flowing internal history. I could just create my own 'history' that attempts to fill in around the Appendices alone. Is that not what readers normally do, or some can do at least, before the author himself reveals more, by publication?

Again, in no way does this project intend to supersede even JRRT's 'unpublished' writing. And another reason to try to alter LE to fit with the published tale? just plain fun

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Gordis

We can see from the graph, that even if we include the pink dot instead of the blue one, this will not make Tar-Elendil too old at the birth of his first child. Anyway the children were ALWAYS born during THE FIRST HALF of the parents' life: before 200 for those living 400+, before 100 for those living 200+.

And that's why I don't really like my two 'late births' all that much. But on the other hand, what do you think of this tinkering specifically -- if it all works that is, and gets us to the goal in Appendix B?

Too much? acceptable? considering too that details don't have to be trodden on with respect to Isilmo (even if the detail is invented).

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Galin

As I needed to 'push around' a fair number of years I introduced some unusually late births with respect to Tar-S and Tar-M. If I recall correctly, one of the rulers had a child as late as 193 (in LE Tar-Elendil 'married late in life' and Tar-Meneldur was his 3rd child), but I went notably beyond this for Isilmo's birth, and Tar-C's as well (I gave Isilmo his son when he (Isilmo) was 198, keeping the birth of Tar-S at 1174, as in LE).

I98 is possible, I think, - that would be the age of Tar-Elendil if he was born as in LE (in 350) but had his daughter in 548 -as in TY.

Originally Posted by Galin

Despite that Tar-Telperien was 'long-lived' and etc (LE) I took 33 years off her life (!) to match dates for Tar-M, which takes 33 years off her rule as well. I didn't want to do this

That is, as you say, not good. Why would the good Queen Telperien die so early? It would be unprecedented at the time - an would need some explanation... like her keeping nine black cats and one white, you know But seriously my advice is to try to avoid it. Leave her with at least 400 years life span, please.

Originally Posted by Galin

-- and on that note, the alterations I don't really like are having Isilmo born (for some reason) 100 years after Tar-T (which makes Tar-S 246 at the time, well over 193). And Tar-M has Tar-C at age 238, again well over 193.

Having 100 years between siblings may be OK, curious but possible. Tar-M having Tar-C (his first child and Heir) at 233 is much worse, because it shows Tar-M's irresponsibility towards his line. But, according to you (and LE), Tar-M was a good king.

You see, Tar-Elendil could well procrastinate with his marriage: he had a younger brother Earendur with male heirs Caliondo and Malantur. Had he died childless, it would have been no big deal for the line, see here:The line of Elros in UT
Not so with Tar-Minastir. He was the last of the line of Ancalime, that Tar-Aldarion took such pains to put upon the throne. Had Minastir died childless, there would have likely been a dynastic conflict, with all these distant heirs under the Old Law and the New Law claiming the throne.

Originally Posted by Galin

If Isilmo has Tar-M at age 198 I have Tar-M born in 1618. He takes the sceptre at age 80 in 1698 (though as I say I like your reasoning on this matter). T-M rules till 2017 and dies in 2021.When T-M is age 238 (the 2nd manipulation that exceeds 193) Tar-C is born in 1856. He rules from 2017 to 2251.

Here you have several more problems.

1. It would take quite some time for young Minastir to build his tower and became famous in spending all his time in it - doesn't seem like an activity fit for a very young man.
2.One bigger problem is this entry in TY -LOTR:

C 1800. From about this time onward the Númenoreans begin to establish dominions on the coasts. The shadow falls on Númenor.(TY)

According to your dating it would be during the reign of Minastir, yet we know that it were the Kings after him who became greedy of wealth and desired domination.
3.The third problem is the name of Tar-Ciryatan, the Shipbuilder.What ships did he build and when? One great ship-building was recorded in the given time period, when the Armada for ME was being prepared in 1694-1700. In LE, Ciryatan was 60-66 years old at this time and it stands to reason that he was known to build these ships (maybe this task was assigned to the Heir). But later an, what ships were there to build? After the War Numenor had more ships it needed in times of peace as not a single one would have been lost to the sea (see Akallabeth). In your timeline, Galin, the connection between Ciryatan (b.1869) and the 1700 Armada would become impossible.
4. Ciryatan would be only 60 when he dethrones his father forcefully. Isn't it a bit young?

.

Originally Posted by Galin

Essentially introducing a couple unexplained late births -- again unless I've made some obvious mistake (very possible!) that I haven't noticed -- this seems to get us to Tar-Atanamir and Appendix B. Then I start 'cutting back' to get back on track with LE.

Well, your theory does have problems I have listed above, but so do all the others.

Originally Posted by Galin

As we must change dates to try to account for published material, I'm not sure we should also fiddle with this part within LE itself, unless we have to for some reason, or a variant text is used.

If we look at TY the noticeable change of policy occurs in 1800. (From about this time onward the Númenoreans begin to establish dominions on the coasts. The shadow falls on Númenor.-TY). I would stipulate it marks the end of the reign of Minastir.

Originally Posted by Galin

I think it's good Isilmo is a relative unknown. In a sense, at least I am not changing his specific history when I have him born so many years after Tar-T for example. Of course my reason is external and may stick out compared to other details in LE, but with him we don't have to actually change written history when fixing a date.

Still you have a big problem. If Isilmo is so much younger than his sister, then he must considerably outlive her. The scepter is his by right.* Why doesn't he become the next King? He couldn't refuse** (and actually the only excuse for a male would be old age), he must be granted one honorary year of rule, as Vardamir Nolimon. Isilmo was not. Why?

*According to the "new law," the heir of the Ruler was the nearest male kinsman whether by male or female descent . -Aldarion and Erendis, UT
**A legitimate male heir, on the other hand, could not refuse; but since a King could always resign the Sceptre, a male heir could in fact immediately resign to his natural heir. He was then himself deemed also to have reigned for at least one year; and this was the case (the only case) with Vardamir, the son of Elros, who did not ascend the throne but gave the Sceptre to his son Amandil.- Note 26 to Aldarion and Erendis.