the elessar

[cellurdur]

Like with the Princes of Dol Amroth, Tolkien left two versions. I personally now favour the version of Celebrimbor making a second Elessar.

The question of Gandalf turning up in the Second Age would raise all sorts of problems. At that point Sauron had not yet grown so powerful that the West could not defeat him unassisted.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Like with the Princes of Dol Amroth, Tolkien left two versions. I personally now favour the version of Celebrimbor making a second Elessar.

Is it like this however [it might be but I can't recall right now]?

In other words, are there two internal versions of something relating to the Princes of Dol Amroth?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Is it like this however [it might be but I can't recall right now]?

In other words, are there two internal versions of something relating to the Princes of Dol Amroth?

Well I assume they are 'internal'. We have the one story where the Princes are descendants of Imrazor and Mithrellas.

Then we have the other version where the princes are close relatives to Elendil and he personally raises them to the rank of 'prince'. This is the version I tend to favour, but we have two accounts, which though are not definitely conflicting like the case with the Elessar are not harmonious and cannot really be forced to fit together.

[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.

[cellurdur]

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'

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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'

But that's the same in my opinion, so I'm a bit confused here. That is, if we have Tolkien changing his mind, then we have two external stories.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

But that's the same in my opinion, so I'm a bit confused here. That is, if we have Tolkien changing his mind, then we have two external stories.

I don't think it is since both stories are internal. The legend of the Princes being descended from an Elf is something we hear about in LOTR. It is a legend that Imrahil addresses. This is not a case of Tolkien changing his mind for me, but rather adding another version ( a more accurate one) I believe.


As for the Elessar if Gandalf had brought it in the 3rd Age then Galadriel would have had no use of it. From the way Earendil used the Elessar, it seems to me like it had similar powers to the Silmarillion. They were similar in design. The Elessar captured the light of the corrupted sun, but the Silmarillions were not only superior in make but had the pure uncorrupted light.

[Ivriniel]

I've refreshed my reading on the Elessar, after having read materials here on thread as well, found that eye opening, because I also discovered why memory encoding tends to go the way it does, by looking at materials here and books at hand. And comparing.

For the Elessar version as: Olorin chatting to Galadriel in the woods, and Olorin bringing back an item for her from the West--after an obscure name we'll never hear anywhere else 'Enerdhil' made it FA and when it passed away. Where has that occurred elsewhere (artefact return from Valinor), post FA, except for the Palantiri and for very special reason, on Numenor, nigh to the Uttermost West and for comms.

The competing version has the difficult notion of Celebrimbor in Gondolin. And the idea of a second making is, um, okay-ish in my sense. The courtship jewell for Galadriel.

I found some other items, on an aside very interesting. The idea that Melkor is somehow 'affecting' the sun from the Void! And, perhaps, that was what Tolkien meant by the change in Middle Earth and lessening of Elves and Men and the Dunedain over time?

--and--there was reference to the Elessar somehow being exempt of the taint of the One (Ring) because it was made before it! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

There is another in-text item I cannot square. As noted above by another poster: how or why does Arwen get the jewel (or rights to it) through Celebrian?

Then I got wondering if the Elessar (doing greening/revival things) had that kind of 'radiance' effect in Gondor, upon the Dunedain of Isildur. Does this mean that Aragorn's realm was kinda being preserved longer? What of the influence on the White Tree? Did the sapling sprout because Aragorn arrived with the Elessar? And how did Gandalf know to look at Mindoluin for the new sapling?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galin

... 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.

In UT, the variant stories of the Elessar are said by CJRT to be on the same four page text. After the Gondolin made jewel was lost, the text reads:

In ages after there was again an Elessar, and of this two things are said, though which is true only the Wise could say, who are now gone.

Curiously, the text ends with:

The Elessar was made in Gondolin by Celebrimbor....But that passed away. But the second Elessar was made also by Celebrimbor in Eregion at the request of the Lady Galadriel.

It's difficult to see why, in light of the introduced ambiguity in the main body of the story, Tolkien would end in such a declarative fashion about which version was the truth.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

It's difficult to see why, in light of the introduced ambiguity in the main body of the story, Tolkien would end in such a declarative fashion about which version was the truth.

My explanation is that this 'concluding' section of the text is not a conclusion of the text proper, but an external summation with an intended revision from Tolkien regarding Celebrimbor and Enerdhil. Christopher Tolkien describes...

'Enerdhil appears in no other writing; and the concluding words of this text show that Celebrimbor was to displace him as the maker of the Elessar in Gondolin.'

And the seeming clarity that the first jool passed away could be a revision too, but I'm more inclined to think this is due to the brevity of summing up both tales. As I posted earlier, the further external factor is, in my opinion, that when Celebrimbor becomes a Feanorean he is arguably not going to remain a smith in Gondolin.

Thus if we take The Elessar as 'canon' it arguably reads better with Enerdhil anway!

In my opinion. Again to me it doesn't read like part of the text, but a summation of the two with an 'intended' change that never occurred.

[Inziladun]

I still favor the Celebrimbor version. However, returning to your question of why Olórin would have brought it to Galadriel, if she already possessed Nenya, I have an idea or two.

In the first place, it's possible Gandalf, when he arrived at the Havens in the Third Age, was coming in blind, maybe knowing little or nothing of the Rings of Power. If he'd been given the Elessar to pass to Galadriel, it might not have occurred to him to wonder why she needed it. Also, he made a point of telling her it was not intended for her sole keeping forever, but that she was to give it to a certain person in the future.
I wonder too, if the powers of the Elessar and the Three, though similar in healing properties, were nonetheless subtly different, owing to the gifts and intentions of their respective makers.