Quote:
Originally Posted by Galin
Well, sorry to be pedantic but do we know these two versions are not Tolkien simply changing his mind?
I have a vague memory of CJRT giving a possible explanation about how to reconcile two 'somethings' about Dol Amroth... but I'm pretty sure there [if this is the same matter], he also admits or suggests the likelihood of these being two accounts that were not necessarily both meant to be confused from a story-internal perspective.
I mean we could have more than two versions of The Elessar if we merely look at what JRRT wrote about it, but The Elessar as a text is clearly treating the variant tales as both found within the subcreated world...
... which is why, as I say above: it's one thing to chose version B as a reaction to something seemingly problematic in A, but version A was not merely a discarded idea by comparison [Tolkien rejecting A for B], and is still intended as a tale within the conceit.
|
This is why I said I assumed they are 'internal'. However, even if this is a case of Tolkien changing his mind we have Imrahil's words that the story of extra Elf blood flowing through the veins of the princes is internal.
'So it is said in the lore of my land'
So we can accept that there is at least one internal story of the Princes being descendant of an elf.
As for whether this was simply Tolkien changing his mind or two external stories, Christopher Tolkien seemed to favour the latter idea.
'While not impossible (merging the two stories) these explanations to save consistency seem to me less likely that that of two distinct and independent 'traditions' of the origins of the Lords of Dol Amroth'