Ruin of Doriath - Final Part

[Aiwendil]

Tolkien might not have thought about the implication it had for the story of Ost-in-Edhil if he involved the Belegost Dwarves, but he clearly had no reasons springing from the story of the Nauglamír to reject them. And, for me at least, their inclusion also means that this did not creat a glaring problem in any other story, otherwise Tolkien would probabaly have realised it.

It's that last part that I don't fully agree with. Tolkien may very well have written CtH with the intention that the Dwarves of Belegost took part in the Ruin of Doriath without it occurring to him that this created a problem for the story of Ost-in-Edhil.

However, Arvegil has at least convinced me of the first bit - that CtH in itself does imply that the attack on Menegroth was made by the Dwarves of both kingdoms.

I think a case could still be made for retaining the version in "Concerning Celeborn and Galadriel". But as it seems that others are inclined to reintroduce Belegost into the attack, I won't stand in the way of that. The matter of how to do this in the text is significantly trickier, and I will need to mull over Findegil's ideas above.

[gondowe]

I agree to Belegost part in the atack on Menegroth. I think is the story Tolkien had in mind in the 60s despite he 'could' have thougt another solution in 1955.
For my part I would change Indrafangs, etc for the general Naugrim. And the names of the Lords deriving from other traditions. But is a solution that I take in the context of my Thain's Book project.

Greetings.

[Findegil]

There was a discussion about 'Bodruith' as a name back in the past. The result was that the deficiant Sindarin would be okay, since the name is an outer Dwarve name and could be formed imperfectly by the Dwarves from any dialect the Belegost Dwarves had contact with. That would allow for any kind of imperfections.
The name was than skipped because it means 'revenge' and as the Belegost dwarves were taken out of the fight in Menegroth the reference for the name was lost.

For me that means when we take the Belegost Dwarves back into the fight, the name is back 'Bodruith' is back as well.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Findegil

There was a discussion about 'Bodruith' as a name back in the past. The result was that the deficiant Sindarin would be okay, since the name is an outer Dwarve name and could be formed imperfectly by the Dwarves from any dialect the Belegost Dwarves had contact with. That would allow for any kind of imperfections.
The name was than skipped because it means 'revenge' and as the Belegost dwarves were taken out of the fight in Menegroth the reference for the name was lost.

For me that means when we take the Belegost Dwarves back into the fight, the name is back 'Bodruith' is back as well.

Respectfully
Findegil

I believe that the etymology of the term bodruith ("revenge") was struck through by Tolkien, as per Parma Eldalamberon 11, p. 23.

However, the term (also meaning "revenge") later appears in the 'Noldorin Word-lists' in PE 13, p. 139.

[Findegil]

Anyhow we must not give the meanig if we have some doubts about it. We could simply use the name.

Respectfull
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Anyhow we must not give the meanig if we have some doubts about it. We could simply use the name.

Respectfull
Findegil

I agree. Even though I still have my problems with the early names: but since I'm (sort of) active on the 'Vinye Lambengolmor' Discord (which includes many prominent experts on the Elvish tongues, such as Paul Strack of the Eldamo), I'll try to ask for their advice on 'updating' these early Elvish names to a more fitting later conception of the Elven languages.

[Arvegil145]

I just remembered a late text (c. 1969) from the NoME that IMO implies that it was both the Dwarves of Nogrod and Belegost that took part in the attack on Doriath:

NB: the 'invention' ascribed to Dwarves by Elrond was of the invisible runes in moonletters only. All the same do not exaggerate Dwarvish linguistic ability. Though devised by the Sindar (owing to their enmity with the Dwarves of Nogrod and Belegost) it is probable (and was held true by the Noldor) that the idea of runes cut in stone etc. was derived ultimately from the Dwarves who had friendship with the sons of Fëanor.

- The Nature of Middle-earth, 'Part Three', 'Chapter XIX: Note on Dwarvish Voices', p. 371

The 'devised by Sindar' here refers to Cirth.

[Findegil]

But that quote must be meant for the time before the Fall of Doriath. Because when that 'enmity' caused by the Fall of Doriath came into being, Caranthir's rule ofer Talath Rhúnen had long fallen. Thus it must refer to some other earlier 'enmity' shared by both Nogrod and Belegost.

But anyhow, we already agreed that Belegost took part in the attack on Doriath.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Findegil

RD-EX-40b: Changed to the effect of the dwarves asking to put the Nauglír together with the Silmaril.

This seems to be in contradiction to earlier:

RD-EX-29c <TN {Wherefore he }summoned the greatest of all craftsmen that now were in the western world, since Nargothrond was no more (and Gondolin was not known), the Dwarves of Nogrod{ and Belegost}, that they might fashion the gold and silver and the gems (for much was yet unwrought) into countless vessels and fair things; and a marvellous necklace of great beauty they should make, whereon to hang the Silmaril.> With them he had dealings and some friendship, and long ago they had helped in the building of his grand underground halls and palace.

It seems to me that it can't (or shouldn't?) be both Thingol's plan and the Dwarves'.

[Findegil]

Despite my comment on it, the text in RD-EX-40b is edited so that the dwarves ask Thingol to give them the Silmaril for the task and not for the task itself. But it is a fine line we are walking and if you find the result not clear enough, we probably have to work on it.

But are we decided in all points? I will try a resume, going through all RD-SL-xx editing’s (“nothing changed” in the list, means we did not change anything following the CtH text) and add some of RD-EX-yy issues if they are undecided or new. In the process of editing the text some of the RD-SL-xx markers have been lost. In the next version of the text, I will reintroduce them. For easier understanding I will give in my list a short description of the issue and how we solved it or if I did not find consens my opinion on it.

RD-SL-00.5: CtH is the leading text for the story line from this point onward.

RD-SL-01: This is the forming of Húrin’s band, from a group from Brethil that did not like to serve Avranc, a group from Brethil that despaired in defending Brethil, some of the wood-men south of Taeglin, some homeless fugitives and the following of Asgon. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-02: Húrin’s decision to go to Nargothrond. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-03: Mîm’s death and the question who killed him and how. Húrin hit him, but one of his Band brought the curse of Androg home and killed him with an arrow through his throat pinning him to a beech trunk. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-03.5: Was the Nauglamîr made earlier for Finrod or was it created during the work of the dwarfs in Menegroth? We decided for the later.

RD-SL-04: The curse of Mîm upon the hoard. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-05: The quarrels of the outlaws upon the road to Doriath. We decided not to include them, since we do not need them as tool to get rid of the outlaws.

RD-SL-06: Húrin and his band passing the girdle. Solved by them being stopped by the guards (changed from the door wardens of Menegroth to the boarder guards of Doriath) and asking for admittance, which was granted by Thingol. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-07: Final fate of Húrin: Húrin leaves the hoard behind and goes alone and un-healed. His death in the sea is reported as a rumor. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-08: The fight between the outlaws and the Elves has to be reintroduced due to CtH.

RD-SL-09: As the outlaws are all killed, it is no question that they did not carry any part of the hoard away from Menegroth.

RD-SL-10: What was the final fate of the outlaws: None of them survives.

RD-SL-11: CtH makes it clear that Thingol himself is infected by the ‘dragon-sickness’, without someone (Ufedhin in TN) dragging him.

RD-SL-12: The engagement of the Dwarves and the details of the contract are now clearer.

RD-SL-13: Does Thingol ask the dwarves to make the Nauglamír or do they ask him? CtH does not address this issue. But only in the early TN the making the idea of the Dwarves (or Ufedhin). In any later text it is Thingol’s intention, so I think we stick to that. But least I think the Dwarves must ask Thingol to get the Silmaril for that work and he did only agree to it when he might be with them during the work.

RD-SL-14: Do the dwarven-smith already plan to get the Silmaril into their possession? As I read CtH it does not force us in any direction here. A lust for the Silmaril and some claims laid onto it by the smiths does not rule out that later attackers felt fully honest as long as they only took the promised loan and their ‘interests’ and only failed when they took the Nauglamír (no question because of the same lust for the Silmaril that already had been felt by the smiths). And in a way CtH does support this, since I don’t think the “warning of the wisest among them“ against taking the Nauglamír would be uttered on the spot when Naugladur took the Necklace. It was rather given when “Naugladur hold a secret council of the Dwarves of Nogrod, and sought how he might both be avenged upon {Tinwelint}[Thingol], and sate his greed.”

RD-SL-15: CtH makes it clear that Thingol really scanted his promised reward and gives his motive.

RD-SL-16: The Smiths are no longer forced out of Menegroth but go by their own choice without any reward.

RD-SL-17: There for we have no fight between the smiths and the Elves and no Dwarf killed (beside Mîm) at this stage. (This makes the dwarvish claim in The Hobbit much more fitting.)

RD-SL-18: The Dwarves from Belegost are back in the fight and with them Bodruith their leader.
General Change {Indrafangs}[?] and {Nauglath}[?]: Since up to now we had only the Dwarves of Nogrod in the fight the question to separate them by a name was not important. We adopted therefore {Nauglath}[Naugrim] and {Indrafangs}[dwarves] to have less repetition during the campaign against Doriath and if it still referred to them added the qualifier ‘of Belegost’. But that has to be changed now and it would be good for many reasons if we could name the kindreds differently. I would go here by the meaning and replace Nauglath for the Dwarves of Nogord by Broadbeams since both refer to some element of the bodily stature and Indrafangs for the Dwarves of Belegost by Firebeards, since both refer to the beards. We discussed that before, and decided not to address the question if the Firebeards were the Belegost dwarves and the Broadbeams the Nogrod dwarves or vice versa since there was no reason to do. But now I think we have a reason and should take the risc to decide. For sure we keep {Nauglath}[Naugrim] for the rest of our text when the reference is more general.

RD-SL-19: In CtH the violent death of Mîm and that the hoard was raped from him is back as a motive for the Dwarves.

RD-EX-51.1: Bodruith as the name of the Lord of Belegost at the time of the Ruin of Doriath. For me it is back in the Tale since the meaning of it is valid after the Belegost Dwarves are back in the fight, and even if the orthography is no longer fitting Sindarin that is okay since the outer names of Dwarves must not fit that language perfectly.

RD-EX-54 & RD-EX-54.5: I find the addition from UT very fitting and valuable here. So what if we put in a qualifier:

§307 (§33) RD-EX-54b <TN This then was the design; and by his deeds have the Dwarves been severed in feud for ever since those days with the Elves, and <editorial addition in the view of the Elves> drawn more nigh in friendship to the {kin}[following] of {Melko}[Morgoth]. RD-EX-54.5 < Unfinished Tales; Galadriel and Celeborn {Evidently not a lover of Dwarves, but one who looked only on their bad side (or knew no other side). He}This had some justification, for though no servants of the Evil Vala, the Dwarves were by nature and origin specially open to the degeneration of their love and admiration {[[the word “for” is corrected to “}of{”, written above the original word]]} works of “craft” into a fierce possessiveness. >Secretly he let send …

RD-SL-20: The treachery of some Elves is now no longer needed for anything. But under this marker we as well discussed the inclusion or exclusion of the hunt. Reading backwards through our discussion, I think we agreed in the end (all hesitatingly) to include it.

RD-SL-21: The Girdle is now made useless by the evil deeds within.

RD-EX-60b: Do we include the scene with Melian in Menegroth before the attack? Does anything speak against that?

RD-SL-22: Since we include the hunt, the details of Thingol’s death with Silmaril hanging to a bush and deliver him to Naugladur’s nonexciting merci are as well included.

RD-EX-60c: Do we include the scene with Melian in Menegroth during the attack? For me, yes and I would try to keep the role Ufedhin took here and later intact and give it to an unnamed Dwarf.

RD-SL-23: Melian is not mentioned in CtH in this part and the message of the first Fall of Doriath to Beren is given to fugitives. We took up Melian’s farther fate from TN where she later comes to Lúthien and Beren and warns them about the curse upon the Nauglamîr. And then her final fate from TY where she returned to Valinor. Nothing changed.

RD-EX-71.1: The infighting in dwarfish army - do we include it? For me it is the logical consequence of taking back in the Dwarves from Belegost and Bodruith their Lord.

RD-EX-71.2: Who slays Bodruith? For me this is the same unnamed Dwarf that talked to Melian. But it makes the reference a bit difficult.

RD-SL-24: The fighting of the dwarves is in Beren’s hands supported by CtH and Letter no. 247. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-25: Our version of a (small) company of Green-elves is confirmed by CtH where Berens fighters are called “a force”, which name I would adopt.

RD-SL-26: The fight of Beren against Naugladur is still unchanged from TN.

RD-SL-27: This point was as well settled for good by CtH. The Fight is at a ford over Ascar, therefore no need for the Greenelves to transport it. Part already fell into the water part was flung into it without any need to carry it far.

RD-SL-28: Lúthien still wears the Silmaril for a time. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-29: CtH still has Dior going to Doriath. Nothing changed.

RD-SL-30: Here we end the usage of CtH as basis for our story line. And Q30 becomes again our basic text.

Maybe this will help to get the discussion focused on the points left undecided.

Respectfully
Findegil

[gondowe]

Hello Findegil.

RD-SL-03: Mîm’s death and the question who killed him and how. Húrin hit him, but one of his Band brought the curse of Androg home and killed him with an arrow through his throat pinning him to a beech trunk. Nothing changed.

Could you refresh me why did you choose this end of Mîm? I assume that the source is fron TLotCoH, but why?

RD-SL-05: The quarrels of the outlaws upon the road to Doriath. We decided not to include them, since we do not need them as tool to get rid of the outlaws.

I think (if not neccesary) the quarrels cuold be included as some of them were lost and dead by quarrels. But only a few.

Otherwise, in general terms I agreed.

Greetings

[Findegil]

RD-SL-03: About the death of Mîm: you are right the scene with the arrow in his throat is in origin the death the traitor Ban from the Lay. We used that for Mîm because the same picture is called for in one version of the curse of Androg. Thus Tolkien seemed to had that kind of death in mind for the trator of Túrins band from a very early time he work on that story (the Lay) to the last (CoH).

RD-SL-05: I myself proposed the same use for the quarrels on the road. But Aiwendil pointe rightly out that this would be a kind of '(miss-) use the words of Tolkien to tell a different story'. We have done such things, but only when forced to by some observed need. In this case we would just add a detail that was in no version that Tolkien created.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Findegil

RD-SL-03: About the death of Mîm: you are right the scene with the arrow in his throat is in origin the death the traitor Ban from the Lay. We used that for Mîm because the same picture is called for in one version of the curse of Androg. Thus Tolkien seemed to had that kind of death in mind for the trator of Túrins band from a very early time he work on that story (the Lay) to the last (CoH).

But, isn't it explicitly stated in The Wanderings of Húrin that it is Húrin himself who slays Mîm? Quoting:

Húrin comes to Nargothrond and slays Mîm the petty-dwarf. He and his men carry off the treasure of Glaurung and bring it to Doriath. Húrin is admitted in pity.

- The War of the Jewels, 'The Wanderings of Húrin', entry 502, p. 258

[Findegil]

That is of course an argument against the story we produced, but as you mention yourself this come from a draft in form of a time-line that Tolkien produced while working on the story of Túrin/Húrin. You will find many examples where the later fully developed text of the Narn and/ or The Wanderings of Húrin differ from these priliminary draftings. And the two Versions of Androgs curse upon Mîm we considered to have more weight than this draft. Equaly which version of the curse one takes, none would fit the only full telling from JRR Tolkien of the encounter of Húrin and Mîm from TT nor the later short discribtions. Therefore we concluded that this 'arrow in the throat'was the lasting picture in Tolkiens mind that we should addopt for our version.

Respectfully
Findegi