Well, I find this analysis quite convincing, though of course I'm biased by the fact that it comes out supporting my earlier position. There is indeed a point that I had missed but which Findegil had considered from the beginning: the fact that in the later mythology it would seem incredible that there were no flesh and blood (type 4) dragons at the FoG. This refutes my earlier position. But as Findegil demonstrates, the prose of the Tale is sufficiently ambiguous to allow an interpretation that includes real, type 4 dragons. So I agree with Findegil's final conclusion: nearly all of the references to dragons in the Tale can be left as they stand.
I can sympathize with a desire for greater clarity. At times I feel that the ambiguity may be going too far. But ambiguity is our ally in dealing with canonical issues. The more specific, the more clear, we try to be, the more we are forced into an active editorial role in determining what the "true" course of events was. In this specific instance, there is also another benefit to ambiguity: it involves minimal alterations to Tolkien's actual words.
So I'm still moderately inclined against emendation for the sake of clarity.
I will try to look at some of the specific textual problems later tonight, if I have time.
|