It seems that my use of the latinate has resulted in tangentially inferred connotations.
In other words, my "venerable recorders" wording got you thinking about monks. What if I had said "renowned loremasters" instead?
But as to the tangent. It should be noted that novices were never allowed into the Scriptoriums of the monasteries to do copying. That was a high craft that was reserved for those who had proved themselves for their eye for detail and/or their "craftiness" with illuminations. No doubt there were errors, as they are inevitable; however, they were fewer than most of us have been led to believe, having been inured in the prejudices of moderns against medievals. Enough about the tangent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
...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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Surely one can view the texts in any way one chooses.
|
You cannot have it both ways, my dear fellow.
I appreciate the clear logic provided by
Aiwendil: another useful distinction.
Finally, as pertains to
renowned loremasters: it must be remembered that the myth with which we are concerned, contained individuals who were thousands of years old and had memories that stretched back for eons. Galadriel is the best example. Cirdan and Elrond also come to mind. Any loremasters who copied from originals were most likely Elves themselves, and had at least one of these persons with whom they could check their facts. So the Translator Conceit as it applies to "fallible scribes" must be considered with these realities of Middle Earth taken into account.