My presumption, barring coming across something from CT saying he changed it (presumably to keep in line with LotR), or Hostteter saying CT changed it, is that it is just variants in the manuscripts.
This makes sense
Tar-E, considering there is stuff in the UT Paraphrase that isn't in the NOME version. I looked further into my comparison last night, and this point appears to have weight especially so with respect to the information in notes 10 and 11 to the UT Paraphrase.
In note 10, for example, Christopher
Tolkien explains that the text was emended to read
"the first White Council", but the NOME version ends relatively soon by comparison, and doesn't even get to any council!
Or a statement like
"but they failed to find the strength" being in quotes [UT Paraphrase] which would seem to suggest a Tolkienian quote -- yet this statement is again, not found in the NOME version.
I guess my confusion arose from the editorial commentary, which, to me, seemed to say we had one text with emendations, and earlier I had assumed that all emendations would be noted if I gathered up both presentations -- assuming again that Carl Hostetter did not include certain details that Christopher had already noted [like the revision about the native princes in Lorinand, for example].
But as I say, if such were the case, there should be more text to the NOME version in any case, and as the NOME version doesn't hesitate to illustrate "repetition" [or near repetition] with respect to the earlier sections of the UT Paraphrase, then where's the rest of the text in NOME?
Note that in
Elvish Ages &
Númenórean (edit for brevity) As an axplanation to: The best story seems to be that outlined under “
Galadriel”,[15] in which they take part in the settlement of Eregion, and later of its defence against
Sauron." While the Concerning MS does have Galadriel take part in the settlement, she does not take part in its defence other than (I presume) sending
Amroth, as she goes to and remains in
Lorien.
I've been assuming that [this statement could be taken to mean that] JRRT, while referencing this [now older] text, had forgotten
exactly what was said in it, or was even perhaps referring to the story now in his head [1965], even though it didn't sit perfectly with some of what he'd written.
Not only concerning whether or not Galadriel [UT Paraphrase] could be said to take part in the defence of Eregion, but the (to my mind) phrasing difference of
"take part in the settlement"
of Eregion -- compared to saying that they "
established" the
realm of Eregion, and indeed
ruled Eregion!
Take part? That seems a rather notable "part" to me!
The date for
Elvish Ages & Numenorean is right at the time Tolkien was working on revisions to the second edition, and it is not long after that
Celebrimbor is added to Appendix B as Lord of Eregion, as I know you know.
In other words, Galadriel and
Celeborn could indeed take part while Tolkien gave Celebrimbor the Feanorean the greater role: establishing Eregion [the Noldor went there for Mithril after all, according to Appendix B], and ruling there.
That's a bold, red
if, I know: neither the publication of Celebrimbor Lord of Eregion, or this "take part" in the settlement of Eregion [EA&N]
necessarily means that JRRT had given over the original lordship of Eregion to Celebrimbor, but I think it remains a good question to ask, and there's no additional revisions to
The Tale of Years to suggest that Celebrimbor only ruled
after Galadriel and Celeborn were ousted by the Jool-smiths.
There's also an interesting statement concerning this back in WPP, but I digress 🐾
Maybe time to e-mail CFH...
CFH sometimes posts over at TORN. I
might try to grab his eye over there, if I have the time, and if I have the wit to write a decent enough inquiry there.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Helpful, as always!
