Pero no tiene porque...

..no tiene porque hacer referencia a nada en el concilio...bueno, a ver si no me he perdido, el de Elrond, entiendo que dices, no ?



Por cierto, en el prefacio del libro de los cuentos perdidos I, Michael Tolkien dice : (ingles jejeje)

"
The tracing of this long evolution is to me of deep interest,
'and I hope that it may prove so to others who have a taste for
this kind of enquiry: whether the major transformations of
plot or cosmological theory, or such a detail as the premon-
itory appearance of Legolas Greenleaf the keen-sighted in
the tale of The Fall of Gondolin. But these old manuscripts
are by no means of interest only for the study of origins.
Much is to be found them that my father never (so far as one
can tell) expressly rejected, and it is to be remembered that
'The Silmarillion', from the 1926 'Sketch' onwards, was
written as an abridgement or epitome, giving the substance
of much longer works (whether existing in fact, or not) in a
smaller compass.
"

Yo eso lo entiendo como que es el mismo, aparecio alli, y nunca se nego que no fuera el mismo, aunque el personaje literariamente evolucionara.

En el libro de los cuentos perdidos II, dice :

"
In the tale appears the keen-sighted Elf Legolas Greenleaf, first of the
names of the Fellowship of the Ring to appear in my father's writings "

O sea...mas de lo mismo...segun eso se corresponderian ambos.


No he dormido mucho y estoy espesito a estas horas...espero que estas citas os puedan aclarar algo al menos