Quote:
Originally Posted by cellurdur
Not when you take things into context.
For example Tolkien might call Galadriel a 'queen' in a letter to a friend outlining the story. He is not being literal here, because in the story we know she is not a 'queen' and in a more detailed letter he goes into it.
|
With respect to the sources, as far as I recall Gimli refers to Galadriel as a Queen in
The Lord of the Rings, as does the narrator of
Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age [a Queen of the Woodland Elves]. Of course the latter wasn't published by JRRT himself, but since it does not disagree with the story published by the author I see no reason for Christopher Tolkien to edit this.
And yes, later Tolkien seems to have changed his mind here: in the 'Zimmerman letter' for example, JRRT explained that Artanis was not in fact a Queen, and in a relatively late text in
Unfinished Tales he notes that she and Celeborn took no title of Queen and King, despite that they took up rule there.
Anyway, if we are talking about consistency, you characterizing your reference as not literal is, to my mind, you trying to explain a seeming inconsistency. And if we look at only what Tolkien himself chose to publish, in my opinion we have a different perspective concerning this matter.
Since Feanor is mentioned...
In the 1930s Tolkien wrote:
'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' Quenta Silmarillion
And then in the early 1950s Tolkien writes (Annals of Aman):
'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'
But yet in the early 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage I quoted, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this) -- thus if Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? Or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?
Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion:
The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?
Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.
In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A):
'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'
Of course this might be attributed to brevity, if Feanor was really the great-
est in more than arts and lore.
