Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway is 10 years old. Sign up today to edit TG and help us grow for years to come.


I've been gradually rewriting articles tagged by Mith for rewriting due to the text being lifted from another source. In this case the text for Meneldil was lifted from the Encyclopedia of Arda, and in examining their article I have found a question of canonical correctness that I do not know how to resolve. The TG article states that Meneldil's date of birth is S.A. 3318 with no acknowledgement of any other possibility. The EoA article shows S.A. 3299 but in Note 1 states that S.A. 3318 was an earlier alternative.

In The Peoples of Middle Earth in the section "The Heirs of Elendil" on p. 191 there is this entry: "3318 Meneldil, son of Anárion, born. He was the last man to be born in Númenor." On p. 197 the entry states: "Meneldil 3318 [lived] 280 [years] died T.A. 158". However, in a later reworking, on p. 208, Meneldil was said to be born in S.A. 3299 and it was Kiryandil son of Isildur who was the last man to be born in Númenor in 3318. On p. 212 Christopher Tolkien stated that in the final chronology Meneldil was born in S.A. 3299. It would seem that the "final chronology" date should be used. However, in the Unfinished Tales in the section "Disaster of the Gladden Fields", note 10 (p. 279) retains the notion ("stated in unpublished annals") that Meneldil was born in S.A. 3318 and was the last man born in Númenor.

Neither PM nor UT is strictly canonical. PM and UT both agree on the date 3318 for Meneldil's birth but PM alone states that in a final version of the chronology his birth is 3299. In a rewriting of the Meneldil article either date could be used with the alternative put into an "Other Versions of the Legendarium" section but which should be the preferred date to put in the Infobox and the main article? -- Gamling 05:00, 10 Aug 2011 (UTC)

I would perhaps prefer the "final chronology" date + S.A. 3318 in a footnote or "Other versions"; the note in UT points to a a research that CT would later do in the PM, if you see what I mean.--Morgan 05:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, now that I've re-read "The Heirs of Elendil" several times I believe that TG is right and that EoA is wrong regarding Meneldil's date of birth. Unlike other sections of The Peoples of Middle-earth (such as the Hobbit family trees) in this section Christopher Tolkien put the later version (Manuscript C) first and then added notes that discussed the earlier versions. On page 212 he wrote, "A also differed from the final chronology in the dates of the kings from Anárion to Anardil (see p. 197), which were" followed by the earlier version of these kings' dates of birth - but the way it's written a reader (the EoA person and me) would think that the dates listed were from the "final chronology". It's all clear as the driven mud on a dark and stormy night and I will explain it in an "Other Versions of the Legendarium" section. --Gamling 00:42, 11 Aug 2011 (UTC)
So do I. This is certainly not the first time that inaccuracies have been found in EOA.
Well done on the re-writings! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)