![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Findegil wrote:
Quote:
However, we can't simply read it in isolation. Christopher Tolkien seems rather confident that the third note replaced the second - and this is supported by the fact that the second note was struck out. In the third note, Gil-Galad is clearly Felagund's son, not Orodreth's. I think this strongly suggests that the second note was intended to refer to Felagund's wife/son as well. It seems very unlikely to me that Gil-Galad's parentage would be switched from Felagund to Orodreth and then switched back, without other evidence for such a progression. More likely, he was Felagund's son in all three QS notes and the second note, probably written in haste, was unintentionally expressed ambiguously. I'm also skeptical of taking the date of Gil-Galad's departure from these QS notes. Christopher Tolkien seems quite certain that these predate the note in GA that places Gil-Galad's (there Fingon's son) departure in 456. Now, one could perhaps speculate that with the final placement of Gil-Galad as Orodreth's son there is an implicit return to the date in the second QS note. But I think such a proposal is highly speculative. If, as I suggest, all three QS notes have Gil-Galad as Felagund's son, then all three would appear to depend on Felagund's movements. In the first proposal, his wife and son depart after his defeat in the Bragollach. In the second, they depart when he leaves on the quest of the Silmaril. In the third, they depart after hearing of his death. I don't see any reason that any of these dates should be particularly favoured if they are in fact Orodreth's wife and son. So at this point, my vote is still to go with the 456 date and place their departure in this chapter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
I'm fine with either date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||
|
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 249
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Greetings. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Well, Deluwaith (no "d") would be modern Sindarin for Deadly Nightshade. Taur-nu-Fuin would be "Forest under Shadow," or "Mirkwood." I think we must keep the first line's distinction between the two names intact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 249
![]() |
Yes, I agree, I wanted to mean that there are redundant the two paragraphs and only maintain the names in the context of the last one.
Greetings |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Oh, okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |||
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I agree that the two statements about Taur-nu-Fuin are redundant, but it's not immediately obvious to me which should be kept and which removed. I suppose that GA being the later text, it should be the second, despite the fact that the QS description is more vivid. Of course, we could combine them, but this risks awkwardness. I think I would advise:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
|