Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
I'm quite convinced that Tolkien intended the former, but I'm not convinced that he would deplore the latter. The former is a typically pre-Renaissance approach toward ancient documents, the latter a typically post-Renaissance.
|
But surely we have in Bilbo's own story a clear account of a 'false' version of events deliberately concocted by a scribe.
The very existence of one 'false' account of historical events in the Legendarium calls the veracity of the others into question. Plus, which of the many versions of the Sil are the 'correct' one - the many, sometimes Fallible Authors theory allows us all of them, the 'Venerable Recorders' version requires us to through most of them out.
In other words, if we think in terms of FA's we can accept all the writings as part of a vast mythology, constructed by various hands, with different agendas, different kinds of information & differing levels of talent, but if we choose to go down the VR road, we have to reject, say, the Quenta in favour of the 77 Sil, or both of them in favour of the BoLT.
Now, possible Tolkien wanted us to have one final version of the stories after he had rejected all the others, but he never got there, so we can have all the M-e writings together - but only if we reject the VR approach in favour of the FA.