![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||||||||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering
This is the first draft of an expaned version ot the Story of Túrin Turambar NA. Our basis text is: Unfinished Tales; part 1; The First Age ; chapter 2: The Narn i Hîn Húrin (Narn). All additions from other sources are marked.
For a easier discussion the text will be devided into three parts: 1. The Fostering of Túrin: Reaching from the intro to the Narn until the end of Dor-Curathol 2. Beleg & Falivirn: Takes the story until the Fall of Nargothrond 3. The End of the Narn Part 1 corrospondes more or less to the part of the Narn given in Unfinished Tales up to the big break at the end of Of Mîm including what is given in the Appendix to the Narn Part 2 does fill the break in the Narn as given in Unfinished Tales. In this part only we will try to take up parts of the old Lay of the Children of Húrin. Part 3 is the End of the Narn as given in Unfinished Tales. And there is not much to add or to change in this part. In addtion one thread will hold the general changes. We have 4 groups of changes: NA-zz: General changes given and discussed in the list below. These changes are taken up in the text, but they are not indicated by "editorial markers" NA-RG-zz: These changes are semi general. They are normaly forced by a change in the nomuclature but could within the lines of a poem that are added not dealt with by simple replacment. The changed nomuclature is listed but not numbered with the general changes below. NA-SL-zz: Changes done to make the storyline fit to the later sources. These editorial markers are also sometimes used when a change was not made that could or should be considered and discussed in view of the stroyline of a later text. NA-TI-zz For text that is takenin from other sources since it was left out in the version given in the Unfinisched Tales. NA-EX-zz For expansions taken from some other source to make the story more detailed. This also includes some changes made in the expansion, and texts takenin which I marked for easier reference. Some conventions of my writing: Normal Text is from the basic text that is mentioned above (when I change the basic-Text it will be mentioned) Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {example} = text that should be deleted [example] = normalised text, normaly only used for general changes <source example> = additions with source information example = text inserted for grammatical or metrical reason /example/ = outline expansion Normally if an inserted text includes the beginning of a new § these is indicated by a missing “>” at the end of the § and a missing “<” at the beginning of the next. Quote:
NA-EX-01: Since we already agreed to use the info given in this passaage, I don’t see any good reason not to use it. NA-EX-02: The name is only given in text A. It might need a linguistical check. NA-SL-01: Since Aelfwine is no longer the trading person, we should deleat all references to English. NA-EX-03: This is only needed if we take up parts from the old “Lay of the Children of Húrin” as I desiere to do. NA-EX-04: I moved the sub-heading since what follows is by our additions much more than only Túrins childhood. Quote:
NA-EX-05: We do not know how this was dealt with inthe original text but in Sill77 the reference of “that battle” is clear from the circumstances but in this place it is not. NA-TI-03: This changes s mentioned in GA. NA-EX-06: This sentence was not in the original Narn version, but I think we should add it. NA-EX-07 - NA-EX-14: Here we start with the incooperation of the material concerning the Fifth Battle. Since the Narn will be the only text in The Translation from the Elvish that does discribe that battle we have to add more then only the battle itself. Therefor I started here with a subheading taken from LQS. The following text is a reconstruction of the text edited by Christopher Tolkien for Sil77 from its original sources incooperated into the Narn were there are some faint hints of that action of Maedhros. NA-EX-15 From this place onward the Narn did return to Túrin and therefore I think here is the apropirate place for this subheading. Quote:
NA-TI-04 & NA-EX-18 - NA-EX-22: In the Narn paper there was here an account of the battle which is mentioned in the Note 2 to the Narn and discribed in the appended note 2 to the Grey Annals. This does corosponds with the chapterstructer I developed (see the thread in the public forum). If we follow this the sub-headings must be changed. But while working closer on the text then I did before, I found some changes in the subheadings of the Narn are in order too (as I have done in the text). The problem with this account of the Battle is that it does contradict all earlier once and does not provide any details of the eastern battle which we have to integrate. At least the story of Azaghâl woundig Glaurung was clearly still present when the Narn was written. I have first recreated the text of the Narn as good as possible and then done what I could with additions from other sources. Thus the course of the battle is based on the Narn version, but we must consider these changed course ot the battle. It might prove to be unworkable. NA-EX-17: See the Table of the house of Haleth and the discussion of the matter in LQS. NA-EX-22.5: This is contradicting the Tale of Berenand Lúthien were it is told that the grave of Finrod was never disspoiled as long as Beleriand stood. I do not know for sure which version is later, but I think it is the one in Beren and Lúthien. NA-EX-23 - NA-EX-25: These are again additions necessary because this is the only text in our worke describing these period of time. NA-EX-26: Here we return tho the Narn and thus this seems the right place for the subheading. Quote:
Quote:
NA-TI-06: As before I think we should take the content of the note into the body of the text. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-27.5: The name needs a checking. As the note 16 gives a lot of variants: “Elsewhere the Sindarin name of the Petty-Dwarves is given as Noegyth Nibin (so in The Silmarillion p. 204) and Nibin-Nogrim. The "high moorlands that rose between the Vales of Sirion and Narog", north-east of Nargothrond (p. 104 above) are more than once referred to as the Moors of the Nibin-noeg (or variants of this name).” NA-EX-27.7: This note also looks a bit as if it was in the original, we must consider it as a footnote to our text. NA-TI-09: I think since Mîm died not with an dart in his throat, it is better to use the alternative cruse. In my mind this form would not refer to Húrins coming to Nargothrond but to Mîm’s capture by the Orcs. But the reference of the cruse is a minor point. Quote:
NA-TI-10: What follows is a wild mixture of text from the appendix of the Narn and the Sil77. I hope it can be follwoed how it is builded. NA-TI-11: I can already hear Aiwendil ask for the original source of this passage. I don’t think we can find it. It is based on Quendi and Eldar but it is heavily edited to make it fitting. We could try to make the same again, but I don’t see why we should invent the wheel a second time. NA-EX-28.5: I found that the info from note 19 should be incooperated and this seemed the right place. In reading it now, I find that the reference to Túrins band and Andróg reads a bit strange. Maybe we can find a beter way to put these passages together. NA-TI-12 - NA-TI-15.7: Belegs arrival must again be build out of many sources. The Sil77 provides the structure of the narrative. NA-EX-29 - NA-EX-36: The Appendix to the Narn gives some further deatils. NA-EX-29: The story of the raid is the best solution we have for Beleg finding them. But here we take at first only the reason for it to emphasys their situation. NA-EX-30: Now here it is time for Andróg to search some food and discover the stair. NA-EX-31 & NA-EX-32: Now here we come to the fated foray and I read the passage so that Andróg was wounded in that foray. NA-EX-33 & NA-EX-34: I think we must decied which version (the camp in the wild or Bar-en-Danwedh we take and delete the other one. NA-EX-35: In accordance to the Appendix to the Narn this bit about the Lemabas must be palced here. NA-EX-36: The healing of the wound is thus associated with the healing of Túrins Man by Beleg in general. NA-EX-37 - NA-EX-40: These are the best sources for the story of Dor-Curathol. The arangement must be discussed and also the details of editing. NA-EX-41: As I put these passages together the revealation of the stair by Andróg is told some what in retrospect, but that was for the moment the best I found. NA-SL-02: It is atested in Aelfwine and Dirhaval that Andróg survied, so we must make a change here. That’s all for part 1 in the moment. Respectfully Findegil |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
The Kinslayer
|
![]()
In NA-TI-01, there are some accents that are missing: Dírhaval, Húrin, Andvír, Rûdh and Túrin.
I noticed that you erased the references to Eressëa and changed it to elves at first and then the plain deletion. I'm not 100% sure that they should be deleted but it seems as the best thing to do. Regarding your work in the Nirnaeth, I think that you did a good job. It is true that trying to make an unifying battle seems difficult because of the diferent versions of the Narn and the Annals. I will post later my alternative.
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
A few comments
I had hoped to get further with this, but I might as well post what comments I do have (up to EX-14). NA-TI-01: Two thoughts on using the "Aelfwine and Dirhaval" text: 1. Is the use of first person ("But here I will tell as I may a Tale of Men that Dirhaval of the Havens made . . .") out of keeping with the rest of the project? I suppose one could call this a stylistic matter - however, I think that if our work is supposed to be merely an absolute narrative of events, the "I" should go. Who is "I", anyway? If the Aelfwine story is out, the introduction seems a bit out of place. 2. We must decide whether Andvir mentioned here contradicts the story of Turin and the outlaws as it stands in the Narn and the other late sources. I suppose that if one wants to get technical about it, it is nowhere stated that Androg did not have a son nor that none escaped the battle. But the story as it stands certainly suggests, to me at least, that the defeat of the outlaws was complete: only Beleg, Turin, and Mim survived - because they were, respectively, an Elf, taken alive by the Orcs, and a traitor. I am very hesitant to introduce the point that Andvir somehow survived and letting it stand alongside the latest versions of the battle. Also it would be remarkable that such a full text of the Narn omitted all mention of the fact that Androg had a son who was also in the band. So there are three options here: a. We could decide there is no contradiction after all. b. We could eliminate Andvir. c. We could try to edit the Narn so as to resolve the contradiction in favor of the Andvir story. Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-09: No problem with this, but isn't the source QS37 rather than Q30? NA-EX-12: I wonder whether this is contradicted by GA: Quote:
NA-EX-14: I don't understand this. In Q30 and QS37 Maedhros's "first trial of strength" is not present. Whence comes this text and why do we need it? |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
NA-TI-01:
Aiwendils 1. point: I wondered about the first person style here myself. If we decide not to use it that way we could also use the older version of the text instad of reforming the newer version. Aiwendils 2. point: What we used was the information that Mablung did outlife the fall of Doriath and could be interviewed by Dirhaval. The problem with Andvír is even greater: As Christopher Tolkien points out the text is clear that it is not Andvír that survived the battle of the sumit of Amon Rûdh but Andróg himself. From what I have understand in Aelfwine and Dírhaval even the first version of the text is younger than all accounts of the battle we have. Thus I think we have Andróg as the single survivor. And I did introduce that into the text (NA-SL-02). NA-EX-02: From the text and its representation in Aelfwine and Dírhaval Version A and the information in note 3 to that chapter it seems clear to me that the name is "minlamad thent/estent". NA-EX-05: I still think the addtion is neccesary. In GA and in Sil77 the battle of the Orcs against the combined forces of Brethil and Doriath is discriebed just before. But here in the Narn we do not tell about that battle at all. And in our work a full chapter of about 100 pages has gone by since that battle. NA-EX-09: Sorry my mistake. You are right the source is QS37. NA-EX-12: Well, I already halfe agreed to that when I made the text. If we skip this here we must also change the corrosponding sentence in the Lay of Leithian. But it is the saver way to deal with it. NA-EX-14: Sorry my mistake, again. The source is QS37. But that is a minor point. My idea was, that the early victories that the Union of Maedhros achieved were all only false, as it was stated in QS37. Clearly the "first trial of strength" was not present, but the sentence lifted form QS37 shows that the short freedom won by the Union for all Beleriand and even Dorthonion was already present and was deciefing of Morgoth. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Looks like I will be going through the text piece by small piece. Further comments up to NA-EX-26:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-21 , -22: I don't understand why sections 231 and 232 of GA have been switched; indeed, it makes senseless the "yet" in "Yet neither by wolf, balrog, nor dragon . . ." Findegil wrote: Quote:
Another general consideration is to what extent we can trust that the QS77 text is an accurate presentation of the Narn text. Christopher tells us that "other features of the story as told in The Silmarillion that are not found in GA are derived from the Narn", and gives a few specific examples. Yet I can't help but to wonder whether any further changes were made. Actually, it would be quite uncharacteristic of his general procedure in the '77 to use a large passage from any text without at least a few modifications. Mister Underhill has noted (some time ago) that the whole element of Gothmog's "troll guard" (which may raise several problems with regard to trolls functioning in sunlight) is found nowhere but in this passage in the '77, which we can only guess comes from the Narn. Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Sorry for the late response, thing are becoming dense in my privat life.
NA-EX-16: Aiwendil posted: Quote:
NA-TI-04: Aiwendil posted: Quote:
NA-EX-18: Okay, I did not think of deleting the sentence. It is a good idea. NA-EX-19: What about this: Quote:
Quote:
But after producing the text as it stands now I don’t think it is impossible to take the course of the battle described in the Narn as a basis. Beside the fact that it is Tolkiens last idea, I think it is in my view better than the old story. In the old story I got the feeling that had Maedhors timing worked, the battle would have had a different result. In the Narn the timing did work, but the forces of Morgoth were so overwhelming that Maedhors planed failed (mostly because of the treachery of the Easterlings). Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
About the problems with the troll-guard: When Húrin killed 70 of them it was night so that does not create a problem. We are told about Trolls, that they were a product of the earlier day when there was no sun-light. Gothmog was also around at that time so it is possible that his guard was a relic of older days, not really much useful in the days of the sun, but still a force of his own that he could use anywhere in the underground kingdom of his master, and during the night also outside of it. Beside that the last stand of Húrin took place near to Taur-nu-Fuin, and I think that in a wood of such a name it might be that Trolls could even move around during the daylight. In conclusion I see the problem but I can’t feel it a good reason to mistrust it origin of the troll-gurad from JRR Tolkien. Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-12: I still hesitate to eliminate the motive of the “treacherous shaft of Curufin remembered by Men” completely. Would it be possible to add it in this weekend form: NA-EX-12<QS The treacherous shaft of Curufin that wounded Beren was remembered among Men. Therefore{ of} the folk of Haleth that dwelt in Brethil{ only the half came forth, and they} went not to join {Maidros}[Maeðros], but came rather to Fingon{ and Turgon} in the West.> Some thoughts of mine to this: The folk of Brethil had to that time not made any alliance to the Elves save only Doriath. Thus Maedhros could have hoped to add them to his force since they were long ago rescued by Caranthir. But with the deeds of Curufin remembered about them they did disobey Maedhros bidding and joined Fingon. So fare for the moment. Respectfully Findegil |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
b & c) I stick by my original suggestion regarding the "alternate" curse, but the original curse could work with your version, which I like as well. Last edited by Aran e-Godhellim; 03-09-2009 at 06:12 PM. Reason: grammar |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
It seems Androg turns out to be rather a difficult issue. Sorry in advance for a long post.
Findegil wrote: Quote:
Let me take a step back for a moment and try to look at the problem in my usual pedantic way. I think there are three critical questions: 1. Does the sentence in 'Aelfwine and Dirhaval' refer to Andróg or Andvír? 2. Does A&D pre-date or post-date the 'Narn' texts that contain the story of Andróg's death? 3. To what extent does the statement in A&D contradict the story in the 'Narn'? The real meaning of this question depends on the answer to 2; if A&D is later, the question is whether it sufficiently indicates 'the details of what is to be changed' per principle 2b; if A&D is earlier, the question is whether the 'Narn' necessitates that the statement in A&D be removed. On question 1, I am still inclined toward the Andróg-interpretation, though I agree with Aran that it is not the only tenable one. The main reason is that I find it curious that, if Andvír was a member of Turin's band, he was never mentioned in the 'Narn', particularly if we accept CT's guess that the two texts are very roughly contemporaneous. If A&D was written shortly before the relevant portions of the Narn, then surely Tolkien would have introduced Andvír in the latter. If A&D was written shortly after the Narn, it is strange (though not impossible) that Tolkien would invent a new character so at odds with the story he had just formulated. I actually think it most probable that Tolkien intended Andróg to survive and sire Andvír after the battle at Amon Rudh and simply did not observe the inconsistency in the dates when he wrote that Andvír was 'very old' when Dirhaval spoke with him. But I don't have any hard evidence for this conclusion. Question 2 is yet another place where a 'History of the Turin saga' would be a great help. As it is we have nothing to go on save CT's brief remarks on the dating in XI. Actually, when taken at face value CT seems to contradict himself. He says of the text A of A&D first that: Quote:
Quote:
If I had again to venture a guess as to the truth, my guess would be that A&D is later than the central portions of the Narn. It seems to me more likely that Tolkien would first invent Androg and his history and then later give him a son and use him to 'explain' the transmission of the legend than the reverse (that he would invent Androg and Andvir together to explain the transmission and then eliminate Andvir and/or create the story of Androg's death, thus ruling him out as the transmitter of the legend). Indeed, if it weren't for CT's surmise that A&D dates from much the same time as the 'Narn', I would have thought it a much later text, by which time Tolkien had either forgotten the details of the 'Narn' or had conceived of some large changes to its story. Again, though, there's no hard evidence. Finally, question 3. Clearly there is some contradiction between the Narn texts we have and A&D. I suppose the simplest scenario to evaluate would be the one where A&D was written before the Narn story was finalized (that is, as finalized as it ever was). In this case, since in the Narn Androg dies at Amon Rudh and Andvir is pretty clearly not in the story, the Narn would take precedence and the statement in A&D would have to be removed entirely. The much more difficult question is, if A&D is later than the Narn texts, is it sufficiently clear to us how the Narn should be changed that we can justify those changes? This is complicated (just our luck) by the fact that the answer may be contingent on the answer to 1 - is it Androg or Andvir that survives? If we could be sure it was Androg, then I think Findegil's suggestion about moving his healing by Beleg to after the battle would pretty clearly be the best way to go. However, this would leave us with another serious problem - the issue of the dates that Findegil has pointed out. If Andvir was not born until after 489, he cannot have been 'very old' before 538. That makes this path look like a dead end to me. What if we could be sure it was Andvir who was intended, as a member of Turin's band, to survive? I think this would necessitate some big changes to the 'Narn' - certainly more than just inserting mention of his name. Androg is said to have been hunted from Dor-lomin for the slaying of a woman. It seems to me very strange indeed that he should bring his son with him into outlawry. Worse, I think the portrayal of Androg in the Narn is rather at odds with his being old enough to have a grown son (especially given the point I made earlier about Algund, the oldest of the band, having been at the Nirnaeth). I don't know what conclusions to draw from all this, other than that the more I look at it, the thornier this issue becomes. My old fallback suggestion - ambiguity - is not really useful here, as it's simply not feasible (or desirable) to produce a version that does not state whether Androg survived the battle or whether he had a son in the band. Last edited by Aiwendil; 03-09-2009 at 11:33 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
About scop and walhstod:
Aran look into post #6. There we removed the younger text B and put in text A. Where by the problem you adressed correctly was solved. Aiwendil worte: Quote:
![]() Still the problem of Andróg is thorny. About Algund: The Year of Lamentation was 472 FA. But we are not told if Algund was young or old for soldier in that battle. Of course, if he was young man in that battle (lets say 20 years) he would in 484 FA (when Túrin became a member) not have been the oldest in the outlaw band. I think we have to picture him more like an old retainer who fled the filed. Let assume he is 60 when he dies at Amon Rudh, he would then porbably be still battle fit, even so long past his prime. He would then have been 55 when the band encounter Túrin. Still old enough to be the oldest of such a band. During the Arnoediad he would then have been 43, which is a good age for an old campainer. Seeing the figures we have here and in the last post, I would assume that most of the outlaws (Andróg included) did their crimes before the Nirnaeth Arnoediad. Especially if we consider the poeple from Dor-lómin, since that land was guarded after the battle. Follwoing that line of thinking, Andvír was born about 465, I assumed, thus he was only 7 years at the Nirnaeth. This makes it, for me unlikely that he was born and raised in Dor-lómin. Thus he probably was the son of an already outlawed Andróg. If I assume now farther that he was the son of Andróg with a wive from the wood-men south of Taeglin. As we see Andróg being part of such crimes of Forwegs planed rap of Larnachs daughter, Andvír could be the outcome of such crime or (more likely) of an willing sexual intercourse with a younger and supposedly atractiv Andróg. May that be as it is, Andvír was for sure with such an ancestry an outsider in his society. Thus he probably joined the band in which his father was prominent. The most likely time for that would be gathering of forces when the land of Bow and Helm was raised. That means he probably was not in the original tryst, but one of the newcomers stationed in the additional camps. All that is interesting but it does not help us any farther. Lets go back to the core sentence again: Quote:
- Andvír was the man interview by Dírhaval not Andróg. - Andvír was very old at that time -> born before the battle of Amon Rudh. - Andvír was the son of Andróg. - Andróg was in the outlaw-band of Túrin. - One of them (more likely Andróg, by the structer of the sentence) survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rudh. What do we learn from this: - Andvír was not necessarly a member of Túrins band. - Andvír was the source of information because he was Andrógs son, not on his own right. - Thus at one time or an other there must have been communication between Andróg and Andvír. This does give even more wieght to Andróg as the surviver of the battle on the summit of Amon Rudh. Now lets look at the story line of that battle in CoH: - Turin and Co. reach the summit, and defend themself at the outer stair. - Andróg is wounded by an arrow, and lies as death. - Turin and Beleg retreat with the others to the center stone and are taken capitive their, while the companiens are slain. - The Orcs carry Túrin away. - The Orcs prostrate Beleg. - The Orc ransack Bar-en-Danwedh - The Orcs depart from Amon Rudh. - When all is silent, Mîm comes to the summit. - Andróg frightens the dwarf away and frees Beleg, before he dies (if he does in our version). Would you not say, that the battle was over when the Orcs started the ransacking of Bar-en-Danwedh? Would it be a big stretch to say that Andróg survived the battle even so he died a few hours later from the wound recived there when obviously all other members of Túrins band died on the spot? Aside from that question, can we contrive a story line with Andvír the comunicator the tale and Andróg dying at the summit? I think we can. Andvír was in the band or in the greater army and had communications with Andróg, he might have searched the battle ground after the fight and read all the signs there to construct the tale we have. We can even assume that he communicated with Beleg before Beleg started the hunt after the Orcs. To be on the safe side we could simply skip the one half-sentence about the sole surviver. All the rest of the texts we have fits together. What we are left with are for one thing the sentence about Húrins later dealings with Mîm. And I am minded to let that simply stand as it is. Andvír could have been in Húrins Band without mentioning him any farther. Which only mean that in the deads of that band he had not role of prominence. He was simply a member and withnessed the events. Most probably he was not only the fromer member of Túrins troups of the land of Bow and Helm in Húrins band. The splinters of that troups would form a perfect source for Húrins collection. Another thing is the death of Mîm. And I am minded to seperate that now completly from the other points discussed. If we belive that Andrógs curse became true, Mîm must dy with an arrow in his throut. If not we can take the simple slaying of Mîm by Húrin from TT. For me it is on the one hand the death of a (otherwise unconnected) dwarf warden of a dragon hoard against the death of the traitor of Túrin. The connection of Mîm with the traitor of Túrin was a very late development. It did not find its way into the Grey Annals. Thus we are left with only two sources about the means of the death of the taitor: The Lay where it is Ban son of Bor and Andróg's curse against Mîm. Since they agree in the way in which the traitor dies, I think they should prevail over the death of Mîm the unconnected dwarf-warden. Respectfully Findegil P.S.: Probably I top your length, Aiwendil. Last edited by Findegil; 03-10-2009 at 06:02 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | ||||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, I'll try and break this sentence into clauses: 1. "From Mablung he learned much" - Okay, so Dirhavel talked to Mablung. Nothing helpful here. 2. "by fortune also he found a man named Andvír" - Dirhavel found a man named Andvír. Now we're getting somewhere. 3. "he was very old" - He (Andvír) was very old when Dirhavel spoke to him. 4. "but was the son of that Andróg who was in the outlaw-band of Túrin" - Andvír was the son of the same Andróg who was in Túrin's band. 5. "and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh." - Someone survived the battle at Amon Rudh. Now, let me make my point. In clause 2, Andvír was introduced. Then he is described in both clauses 3 and 4. My point is this; if he is being described in one clause, and then again in the next, is it so much of a stretch to assume the next clause describes him as well? I know that Tolkien's comma makes things messy when the sentence is all together, but you have to remember that Professor Tolkien did not follow what are now the standard rules for punctuation. When you forget the punctuation, and simply break the sentence down into it's logical progression of thought, it becomes much easier to see that the sentence is more likely referring to Andvír. Last edited by Aran e-Godhellim; 03-10-2009 at 06:22 PM. Reason: grammar |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Let me come back to the three questions I posed.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I still think, however, that the absence of any reference to Andvir in the Narn texts suggests the Androg-interpretation. This is particularly true if A&D A precedes the relevant portion of the Narn. For if he had just invented Andvir and intended for him to be a member of Turin's band, why then introduce Androg but not Andvir in the Narn? And if he had already rejected this version of the transmission of the legend, why introduce Androg at all? Quote:
Quote:
Though I still think the question of the relative dating is a very difficult one that may not in the end be answerable, the more I think about it the more likely it seems to me that A&D A was written after the middle portions of the Narn. When Tolkien says in A&D that Andvir 'was the son of that Andróg who was in the outlaw-band of Túrin' it sounds rather more to me like he is referring to a character named Androg who already exists than like he is inventing a new character. One thing that gives me pause, however, is that it would be a little surprising for Tolkien to so casually contradict the story of Mim's curse and Androg's death, which he had so carefully developed, without projecting some alternative. In this connection, I find Findegil's proposal very interesting: Quote:
Quote:
I do have one small doubt about this reading, though. To go back once more to the infamous sentence in A&D: Quote:
Now I'll try to enumerate our possible courses of action: 1. Leave the 'Narn' and the statement in A&D unaltered. 2. Remove the reference to Androg's survival from A&D but keep Andvir and leave the Narn unaltered. 3. Remove the sentence from A&D completely. 4. Alter the Narn so that Androg does not die after the battle. 5. Alter the Narn so that Andvir is a member of the band and he survives the battle. I have left out solutions that involve leaving Androg's survival or Andvir's presence in the band ambiguous, as I think we all agree those are not practical. If we accept Findegil's most recent interpretation, then option 1 is the best. Findegil proposes option 2 to be safe. I would note, however, that if A&D post-dates the Narn, we can only justify this if we decide the reference to Androg's survival is an unworkable projected change. Option 3 is the most conservative choice and it sounds to me (though I'm not sure) as though Aran may favour this. Options 4 and 5 can only be considered if we accept that A&D post-dates the Narn. Option 4 requires further that we interpret A&D as asserting that Androg does not die after the battle; it could be accomplished along the lines of Findegil's earlier proposal, by moving the healing by Beleg to after the battle. Conversely, option 5 can only be justified if we interpret A&D as asserting that Andvir, also a member of Turin's band, survives the battle. As usual, I come to no particular conclusions. I do think, however, that in view of the doubt surrounding the relative dating of the texts, options 4 and 5 are probably too risky. Last edited by Aiwendil; 03-10-2009 at 11:56 PM. |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |