|
It suddenly occurred to me that in recent discussion involving the Translator Conceit, there has been a confounding of ideas that need distinction. The two ideas are:
(1) The translator conceit that Tolkien set up with great care throughout the Legendarium
(2) The choice of the reader to view this translator conceit in terms of a Received Tradition of Venerable Recorders or a Series of Fallable Historians whose interpretations may be called into question.
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.
However, I think it we would do ourselves a favor to have this confoundment cleared up and realize which view each of us tends to intepret the Legendarium from.
I know that I (with rare exceptions) proceed from the Venerable Recorders framework, and generally prefer to. This also frees me from the rather unpalatable position I have previously taken of making light of the Translator Conceit when it seemingly failed to take me in the direction my thoughts tended. Now I see that that had to do with the confounding of the two distinct approaches.
So I hope this little post helps others in their thinking about Tolkien and the Legendarium as much as it already has mine.
|