Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Ossiriand

Revision as of 20:15, 19 October 2010 by Morgan (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

It's cumbersome to have separate articles on Ossiriand and Lindon. I'll probably change this article to an etymological/linguistic article instead (if not someone disagrees!). --Morgan 10:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I'd prefer the two to be completely different. Lindon refers to the post-First Age realm (which geographically isn't the same as Ossiriand, what with the loss of its seven rivers and a massive gulf through the middle) and Ossiriand refers to the prior region. If we merge Ossiriand and Lindon we would have to follow a precedent: Sea of Helcar and Sea of Rhûn will have to be merged; Fangorn Forest and Eryn Vorn into some unnamed giant forest; Iron Hills and Iron Mountains... Logically they should really be separate (and no other encyclopaedia or wiki ignores the distinction). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the separation between Lindon and Ossiriand seems to be based on a misconception. The misconception is that Ossiriand was the name of the realm before the Second Age, and that Lindon was the name given to the region later and formally adopted by Gil-galad for the Kingdom. I've been reading a lot today (!) in the HoMe series and other sources (as you can see in the reference section of the Lindon article). But if I'm proven to be wrong, I'll gladly restore any changes I've made. --Morgan 16:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the one quote stating that the Nandor called Ossiriand "Lindon" is of debatable canon. Not only because it features in The War of the Jewels and not the published Quenta Silmarillion, but because CJRT says himself that it was written at the same time as Quenta Silmarillion; how could one possibly judge which is more correct? Bearing in mind, this distinction between Ossiriand and Lindon is not something plucked out of thin air, but something which Tolkien himself wrote.
Secondly, in A Reader's Companion we have this: "Ossiriand . . . Seven Rivers of Ossir - 'Ossiriand, "land of Seven Rivers", a region of Beleriand under east-sides of Ered-Luin part of which survived the Floods and became Lindon. Also called Ossir. Otos [sic, for otso] (odo-) 7 [seven] Sîr river' (Index)". I notice, incidentally, that in the Index of the 50th Anniversary Edition of The Lord of the Rings, the Index entries of Ossiriand and Lindon don't include the "see also" bit which others have.
Thirdly, at best, we have this situation:- pre-Second Age: Ossiriand - the primary name of the territory, and the primary name used in published materials which was also known by the Noldor only as "Lindon"; Second Age+: the geographically different territory - reconstituted from the former - is known by all as Lindon. The logic for having them all in the same article is that an earlier - rarer - concurrent name is the de facto article. The same logic would merge Anfauglith and Ard-galen, Calenardhon and Rohan, Dor Caranthir and Thargelion (whose, incidentally, status v. Lindon seems a bit uncertain) etc. etc.
Fourthly, a wiki is written for the convenience of the reader, not the opinion of the editor. I noticed, for instance, that Gaul, West Francia and France are separate articles on Wikipedia. This is likely for two reasons: firstly the convenience of the reader; secondly these are the names which are commonly used for the territory in various other existing publications.
Finally, you've sort of made this decision unilaterally on (what I think is) an important article. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mith, you might be right about other encyclopaedias or wikis. As such, it is perhaps a bold claim I've made, so I'll scribble down my reasoning (on which the "new" Lindon article is based):

  • Thesis: Lindon and Ossiriand basically refer to the same concept, and therefore we don't need two separate info articles (or it's hard to justify two different articles, as much of the same information would have to be given on both)
    • Argument: "The country in which most of [the Nandor] settled, they called Lindon" (WJ, p. 385, Quendi and Eldar). Now, this is a late writing by JRRT, so in case it doesn't contradict earlier versions, or if it gives a better explanation, we should use this version (which I believe is the standard on TG). This argument can be broken down into two claims (relevant for this discussion):
      • 1.1: The region of Ossiriand was called Lindon before the Second Age (this doesn't contradict earlier versions, for example The Silmarillion)
      • 1.2: The name Lindon was devised by the Green-elves, and adopted by Sindar and Noldor (this contradicts earlier versions, as The Silmarillion, chapter 14: "the Noldor named that country Lindon, the land of music"; cf. Talk:Lindon#The name Lindon)
    • Counterargument 1: In Appendix B (LotR), we can read that Gil-galad founded Lindon in T.A. 1.
      • Comment: In the light of Quendi and Eldar, what Gil-galad did was to proclaim the old Laegrin region of Lindon as the Kingdom of Lindon. And this conception goes in line (or can be said to go in line) with what CT says of Lindon in the index of The Silmarillion: "A name of Ossiriand in the First Age [...] After the tumults at the end of the First Age the name Lindon was retained for the lands west of the Blue Mountains"
    • Counterargument 2: Even if the name Lindon might be (or even should be, as I claim) applied to the region encompassing Ossiriand, ruled by Denethor, this different government is a good enough reason to have two separate articles.
      • Comment: I would perhaps agree to this, but if so, I would suggest the following: 1) Ossiriand was a name given to the region before the arrival of the Nandor 2) Only write about the pre-Nandorin phase, as later the region would more correctly be called Lindon (seen from the perspective of the Green-elves; Sindar and Noldor might still use Ossiriand and Lindon varingly - in the published Silmarillion, the former is used most often) --Morgan 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


[Replying to post from Mith before mine above] Your points are good, Mith, I'll take it into consideration. I surely went too far without seeking consent from other editors; I just happened to have a lot of extra time today and was impatient. Anyway, I think it all breaks down to how to judge the canonical status of the statement in Quendi and Eldar, especially in regard to the published Silmarillion, which is a difficult subject). --Morgan 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)