Quote:
|
(...) The next proposed addition is VE-11.025, correct? I think it is a good idea to add the detail of Elrond and Elros being found in a cave behind a waterfall, but I would try to avoid the redundancy which you've already noted.
|
I've been wondering about this letter, and noticed that its details have (in the thread) been merged with Quenta Silmarillion. Again I'm not part of the project really, but I wonder if I could raise a couple points.
A) I would say that, since with Tolkien story and nomenclature can be as one, and the meaning of Elrond as (it seems) *Elf of the cave (letter 211) was not to last, one wonders if the fact that he was found in a cave -- explaining his name in this conception -- was still in play.
B) but more confusingly for me, I'm wondering if we
necessarily have the notion of a fostering here? We know that was part of the Quenta Silmarillion tale, but is it part of this letter?
The letter seems to say (to me anyway): Elrond and Elros were carried off by the sons of Feanor, but were not slain, and were left like babes in the wood -- and there they were found (doesn't say by whom) and so forth. But found by a Feanorean? Again it's the Feanoreans who carried them off in the first place, but didn't slay them, and left them.
Why leave them if the sons of Feanor intend to foster them? I thought this seemed to echo a version of the fate of Dior's sons, but if so, to leave out that Maglor repented for example (and went back and 'found' them)... well it just seems strange phrasing to me so far.
What do others think? We know the Silmarillion tale, but reading the letter
as if one hadn't read the Silmarillion...