Quote:
|
The end note to text F can be raised as a strong argument against this. But still I feel that we should at least introduce some doubt about the story of the second Elessar. This is a text where JRR Tolkien himself used a strong ambiguity and even if it seems that he had made up his mind when he wrote the endnote, it is not so clear to me that he would have followed that note would he have re-written the full text.
|
I won't/can't say my reading is correct, but I think the note alters that Celebrimbor was to replace Enerdhil, but not that the Olorin/Galadriel tale is out. In other words, as I read it, this relatively brief note simply does not say/need to restate that Olorin brought Galadriel the first Elessar returned.
Christopher Tolkien notes that a later revision to the text alters Galadriel being "unwilling" to forsake Middle-earth, with her ban introduced -- it's actually incorporated in the UT text in brackets, but the following comment merely says "text was later emended". And then CJRT goes on to note the intended displacement of Enerdhil, but not that the Olorin/Galadriel version was dropped...
... something that I would characterize as a pretty notable revision: altering a tale with two purposed variants, to a tale which seems to know the history -- at least in as much as the first Elessar passing away, leaving the one in Galadriel's possession as a known "second" Elessar.
Perhaps Christopher Tolkien doesn't note this as it seems obvious from the end note? It doesn't seem obvious to me though, especially if the "later" emendation concerning Galadriel's ban is later than the end note -- which, so far, I think remains an open question?
Or do we know that much, and I missed it?