[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Are the inscriptions on the door of Moria from a the revised edition? Seems incredulous that any Elf of Gondolin would leave place the mark of Feanor above their door unless they were from there.

The markings on the Door are from the first edition, yes, but see note 7 to Of Dwarves And Men.

Christopher Tolkien's language appears to suggest that he believes the text comes after the revision of Celebrimbor's ancestry. Since he says he 'again' appears as an Elf from Gondolin.

I think he means 'again' as this concept had appeared previously in this chapter. In Unfinished Tales when Christopher Tolkien says 'again' he refers the reader back to the text Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn (CG&C). And in note 7 he uses the word 'reappears', noting again both CG&C and The Elessar. After quoting CG&C, Christopher writes:

He reappears as a jewel-smith of Gondolin in the text The Elessar (...); but against the passage in concerning Galadriel and Celeborn just cited my father noted that it would be better to 'make him a descendant of Feanor'. Thus in the second edition (1966)...'

Note 7, Of Dwarves And Men

At the beginning of this note, CJRT explains:

'The earliest statement on the subject [Celebrimbor] is found in the post Lord of the Rings text Concerning Galadriel And Celeborn.'

And so far I can't find any reference to Celebrimbor being a descendant of Feanor in the drafts for The Lord of the Rings.

I tend to go with what it was published unless it was a huge mistake. I think we can all accept that Celebrimbor was the son of Curufin.

Yes Celebrimbor the Feanorean was never in question for me.

I think any history should work around author-published concepts, as things become very subjective when considering the possibility of what Tolkien intended to do, again, especially given his memory and late texts. JRRT clearly intended to make ros a Beorian word for example, until he realized already published text hindered him.

Would Tolkien have contradicted history (already in print) about Galadriel's role in the Rebellion, she being a rather major character? I don't think so... others might... he did alter that 'Finrod' was her father for example, from the first edition, but we know that for certain because JRRT himself published the revision.

In the end we have author-published text with RGEO, which is a description written in consideration of Galadriel's own words in The Lord of the Rings as well, versus a posthumously published account that never got beyond an adumbrated state and shows no indication that Tolkien was aware he would be dealing with some notable contradictions to history already on public bookshelves, so to speak.

I am more inclined to have Glorfindel returning at some point in the 2nd Age replace Gandalf in the text and hand her the Elessar. Glorfindel being from Gondolin would be very aware of it's powers perhaps more so than even Gandalf.

It's also possible that Tolkien intended to 'garble' this chronology a bit -- or rather let's say, perhaps he purposely allows the reader to wonder why Galadriel would not simply use Nenya at this point -- to inject a measure of doubt with respect to this version, although that's pure speculation on my part, admittedly.