Even if we restrict ourselves to the narrowest definition of canon -- those works published during Tolkien's own lifetime -- we are not left with a wholly consistent picture.

Of course, limiting ourself only to works published in Tolkien's lifetime excludes the vast majority of available information about the First Age and is therefore an unsatisfactory solution to many readers (myself included).

Therefore any attempt at constructing an internally consistent and comprehensive canon of the First Age must be a fan project, which undermines the entire concept of canon.

I enjoy both The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin constructions. I don't consider them canon and don't think they were meant to be considered as such.

Even if we restrict ourselves to the narrowest definition of canon -- those works published during Tolkien's own lifetime -- we are not left with a wholly consistent picture. There remain many elements of The Hobbit deriving from its semi-separate origins that seem out of place within the wider Middle-earth mythos. Of course, there are plenty of anachronisms surrounding Hobbits in LOTR as well and Tolkien took steps to explain some of them (such as Númenóreans introducing tobacco to Middle-earth, despite it being a New World crop in the Primary World), but it's hard to find an explanation for Bilbo having matches (TH, Riddles in the Dark). Some people argue for disregarding The Hobbit and just relying on the summary in Appendix A to fill in that portion of the timeline, but I think this is an overly reductive view.

Of course, limiting ourself only to works published in Tolkien's lifetime excludes the vast majority of available information about the First Age and is therefore an unsatisfactory solution to many readers (myself included). Perhaps the easiest solution to the question of First Age canon is to simply follow the 1977 Silmarillion, though I assume from you posing this question that this is not an approach you subscribe to. I personally find it to be too restrictive, and in any event Christopher has himself noted in HoMe that there are things he would've done differently about the work had he made it later. That said, I think he very much deserves our gratitude for both The Silmarillion and his subsequent scholarly books, and the latter would probably not have been financially viable to publish if not for the success of the former.

But of course, there is no other standard version to replace the 1977 Silm. I think it's questionable that Tolkien would have completed The Silmarillion even if he lived another 10 years. We can attempt to divine his final intentions at the time of his death, but there's no telling what he might have changed his mind about had he actually followed through on the rewriting necessary to implement many of his later ideas. Therefore any attempt at constructing an internally consistent and comprehensive canon of the First Age must be a fan project, which undermines the entire concept of canon. But I also think it rather misses the point of the legendarium. Real mythologies are not entirely consistent either and Tolkien's invented mythology reflects this, albeit not entirely intentionally since he did want to finish TS. The texts that he left behind do not provide a firm basis for a canon, but I prefer to explore his full body of work: the common threads, the variations on single tales, and the wildly divergent branches. I think this gives a much better impression of the full scope of Tolkien's achievement and I personally find it to be much more rewarding than attempting to select only those works that seem to best fit together from a continuity perspective.

With the exception a couple of occasions (Silmarillion and Children of Hurin) Christopher has very much taken the role of being a scholar and editor presenting another person's work. For example, Unfinished Tales presents one or more drafts of a JRR Tolkien story, with some notes by C Tolkien. Sometimes those notes explore items that one or both Tolkiens thought unsatisfactory about the draft. History of Middle Earth is a multi-volume scholarly tour-de-force in which Christopher sets out (as far as is possible) JRRs various drafts and their evolution. In Beren and Luthien, Christopher again presents JRRs many attempts at the tale, rather than presenting or compiling or writing a 'best version' as if he were finishing his father's work.

That presents a problem for someone wanting a simple yes/no answer about canonicity - or even any kind of definitive answer. Take Beren and Luthien, for example. Christopher's book presents several version of the story, which are not consistent with each other. Which of these versions is 'canonical' then: a particular one according to some rule, Or are all versions canon (including where Beren is an elf, or 'gnome'), or none? Or perhaps 'canon' is just the material that a particular reader thinks of as genuine-sounding? I suspect that this is what a lot of argument about 'canon' really is sometimes - people wanting to draw a line around the stuff they like, and discount the rest. (I then imagine them liking to don a peaked cap and stride up and down their border with a whistle telling other people off for not respecting it- but I suspect that's uncharitable.)

Then again, maybe the question just doesn't have a yes/no answer (or even any reachable consensus answer) given the way Christopher has decided the story ought to be presented.

Silmarillion provides a contrasting example. Christopher complied and completed, and saw one version of that work through to publication. What is presented is one continuous epic. And that would normally have been that - that's the Sil, take it or leave it Tolkien fans and scholars! But Christopher's other publishing (notably History of Middle Earth) has allowed Tolkien scholars to dismantle The Sil and work out which JRR drafts went where and on what occasions new material was written. That enables people to have opinions about the decisions made (e.g. to argue that Christopher should have chosen a different draft version, or did/didn't write very convincing original material).


All that adds to the problems of neatly defining a 'canon' for Tolkien anyway, which are being discussed on the other subthread.

Quote

I agree my friend. I'm convinced that Tolkien desired to include a certain measure of inconsistency (based on perspective and authorship) to give the legendarium a more realistic sense of being a compiled collection of various texts.

Perry-the-Winkle's troll and the Olog-hai are both canon, both from imagined internal texts, both author published. And for me, certain arguable anachronisms can be the result of Tolkien as translator/modern storyteller.

Quote

Characterizing only Tolkien's published work as canon, as I do (plus the map by Pauline Baynes), doesn't limit me though; or at least I don't feel limited, not from imagining the Elder Days, nor when I chat about them.

What is does is provide me with a valuable gift in order to better engage with Tolkien's world, and believe in "green suns" so to speak. Why did Guy Kay talk Christopher Tolkien into a one volume Silmarillion version? In my opinion because he knew that reading the constructed Silmarillion would not be the same experience as a scholarly approach (though that too has its own kind of rewards).

They agreed that readers want to read!

Same would go for the constructed Children of Hurin, I think.

I recall (at another site) someone essentially giving up trying to understand the history of Galadriel and Celeborn for instance. Too complicated he/she said. I find that a bit of a shame really, but it's the seemingly inevitable result of all the posthumously published material...

... if we let it confuse us with respect to what Tolkien himself published/revealed to his readership. For myself, I find it interesting that late in life, for instance, Tolkien was thinking of making Celeborn a Teler of Aman.

Still, Celeborn is not a Teler when I go back to Middle-earth, and I have (my definition of) canon to thank for this.

Quote

I see your point, but as long as we acknowledge that by doing this we are not attempting to define canon outside of Tolkien-published work... well, in a sense we are happily constructing our own Silmarillions, with no two versions likely being exactly the same.

Yet Tolkien's published corpus remains as a guide -- which I would argue that even he "must" consider canon, and I think he illustrates this in various ways, even when revising already published accounts, like Bilbo's account of his finding the One, for instance.


And with respect to any edition of The Hobbit not being canon (which I realize you are not arguing for, but merely raised the matter here), I think this position is not easily defended given what I characterize as Tolkien's own (published) acceptance of even the first edition as an internal text.


I enjoy both The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin constructions. I don't consider them canon and don't think they were meant to be considered as such.

And I think they work very well as satisfying book experiences, even if, especially after I've finished The Silmarillion (and no longer swept up in it), for example, in my Middle-earth, one of Feanor's sons dies in the flames of Losgar.

Does this happen in your Middle-earth?

There's nothing in the canon either way

I have just spent some time on your website great stuff thank you.

I dont hold any view 100% and was looking to be convinced by more knowledgeable persons such as yourself. I have read on the man Tolkien much more than his works. But I do think he wanted to have a constant [though not seen by all perspectives and memories] history of middle earth. His letters are full of solving perceived contradictions in his writings.

A silmarillion must be made to complete the history, and Christopher is the best option as his son and a fellow inkling. But of course it is not J.R.R tolkiens silmarillion. How close? I am unsure of course. I would guess pretty damn close.

For the published material after the silmarillion were all these works intended to even be published by his father? or did he more just put out more of his fathers writings for the fans?

A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all at heavy and needless cost. Moreover, my father came to conceive The Silmarillion as a compilation, a compendious narrative, made long afterwards from sources of great diversity (poems, and annals, and oral tales) that had survived in agelong tradition; and this conception has indeed its parallel in the actual history of the book, for a great deal of earlier prose and poetry does underlie it, and it is to some extent a compendium in fact and not only in theory.

I agree that the published Silmarillion is a marvelous read, even if my personal Silmarillion includes the death of Amrod and has Gil-galad be the great-grandson of Finarfin.

I agree that the published Silmarillion is a marvelous read,

I guess to me what would be considered cannon is what J.R.R intended to be part of his finalized published works involving middle earth.