Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aiwendil · 03-04-2009, 09:34 PM

Your translation of 'Minlamad thent/estent' agrees with that proposed by Patrick Wynne and Carl Hostetter in their essay 'Three Elvish Verse Modes'.

As I think more about it, it seems clearer to me that 'thent/estent' indicates two possible versions of the name ('minlamad thent' or 'minlamad estent'), as Aran argues, rather than the name being 'minlamad thent/estent'. Wynne and Hofstetter do argue that the latter is a possibility and that 'thent/estent' means something like 'short/short' (other possible verse modes, presumably, being 'short/long', 'long/long', etc.) But if this were the case, I can't understand why two different forms of the word for 'short' would be used. (Unless maybe the difference has to do with lenition? That whole phenomenon is rather obscure to me).

Findegil, I believe you earlier expressed the opinion that the name was intended to be 'minlamad thent/estent' and that these are not variants. Can you offer an argument for this?

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-05-2009, 05:59 PM

The change to "estent" cannot be due to Lenition, or any other mutation, as 'th' is a non-mutative consonant. I also doubt the alternate meanings ("very short" or "long"), as they do not match the known Elvish words for those two terms.

Findegil · 03-06-2009, 04:51 PM

Andróg: Aiwendil wrote:

Quote:

Unfortunately (and I think you predicted I would say this), I fear it goes a bit too far and entails too much supposition to be justifiable within this project.

To be honest, when I first had the idea of Andróg being the one to fulfill his curse on Mîm (re-reading the Lay), I posted it to draw you back to the project. I hoped that this idea that I found at first reducules would up set you to an extend that would make not posting right away against it unbearable.

But then I found the passage in about clearing up of Húrins later dealings with Mîm and I got cought in my own net, so to speak. The idea routed it self in my brain and I am convinced that this is the interpretation of the situation for me hence forward.
But that does not mean that we have to adopt it and make it explicit in this project. It does mean that I will agree only with very much reluctance to any explicit statement that would make this story line impossible. Thus I can see good reason not to include a reference to Andróg as a member of Húrins band. But I see very good reason for Andrógs survival of the battle of Amon Ruð. The best evidence for it is found in the commentray to Ælfwine and Dírhaval (emphasies is mine):

Quote:

Now the story of Turin and Beleg in Mim's hidden dwelling on Amon Rudh and the short-lived 'Land of Bow and Helm', Dor-Cuarthol, belongs (like all the rest of the huge extension of this part of the 'Turins Saga') to the period after the publication of The Lord of the Rings; and the mention in text A of the man Andvir, 'the son of that Androg who was in the outlaw-band of Turin, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rudh' (see note 2) shows that this story was fully in being (so far as it ever went) when A was written - indeed it seems likely enough that A belongs to the time when my father was working on it.

For me that means, that the A text was later then most of the workings on that part of the story and would therefore have precidence.

If we can agree on this, as seems possible, then I still think that we have to transfer his healing by Beleg to the time after the battle. To have a repeated healing will not go in my oppionion.

Minlamad thent/estent: I can't contribute much to that discussion. To take it at one name and not fariants was not more then the expression in HoME 11. Aiwendil could you point me to were I would find the essay of Wynne and Hofstetter? I would like to read what they have to say before discussing that farther.

Ælfwine and Dírhavel A and B: Text B are not a forword by Tolkien but by Ælfwine. Since Ælfwine is out of our version A can not be used as it is. Anyway I cant see a proper place for an editorial forward other then the before the start of the text of 'Translations from the Elvish'. And such a forward is probably our responsibility.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-06-2009, 05:07 PM

I have disagreed with Christopher Tolkien's reading of that passage ever since I set eyes on it. He seems to think that it is impossible the line refers to Andvír, but I think he is wrong. The line is slightly ambiguous, certainly, but it makes far more sense that it refers to Andvír, and despite his opinion the construction of the line does not make that impossible.

Aiwendil · 03-07-2009, 12:31 PM

Findegil wrote:

Quote:

To be honest, when I first had the idea of Andróg being the one to fulfill his curse on Mîm (re-reading the Lay), I posted it to draw you back to the project. I hoped that this idea that I found at first reducules would up set you to an extend that would make not posting right away against it unbearable.

I'm sorry that this didn't work! I actually do rather like the idea, and if this were a more 'fan-fictionalized' Silmarillion, I would be all for it's inclusion. Although I think personally I might like even better the interpretation that it was Andvír who was in Hurin's band.

But I think we agree in principle on how to treat this here - we don't add this story explicitly but we try to avoid any statement that excludes it as a possibility. This is still tricky.

The most obvious issue is Andróg's survival of the battle on Amon Rudh. Aran has argued against this:

Quote:

I don't think having Andróg survive is a valid idea. Regarding the convoluted story of the "curse," Tolkien seems to have decided at the very least that Andróg was to die on Amon Rudh. I would agree with the suggestion of having Andvír be in Húrin's band.

Quote:

I have disagreed with Christopher Tolkien's reading of that passage ever since I set eyes on it. He seems to think that it is impossible the line refers to Andvír, but I think he is wrong. The line is slightly ambiguous, certainly, but it makes far more sense that it refers to Andvír, and despite his opinion the construction of the line does not make that impossible.

I also do not agree with CT that the passage unambiguously refers to Andróg rather than Andvír. However, I do think that on balance it is more likely that Andróg is meant. For one thing, it would be rather strange for Andróg to have a grown son who is also a member of the outlaw band. This would make Andróg on the order of 40 years old or so, twice Turin's age, whereas I think his portrayal in the 'Narn' suggests someone much younger (and more or less of an age with Turin). Algund is said to be the oldest in the band, yet he fought at the Nirnaeth and was thus probably a young man in 473, just ten years or so earlier. Also, it seems a little strange that Andróg's (then presumably very young) son would go with him when he is chased out of Dor-lomin for the slaying of a woman. So all in all I lean toward the 'Andróg' interpretation.

But however we interpret it we can't escape the fact that the note poses some contradiction with the text of the 'Narn'. If it refers to Andróg then obviously the account of his death, and quite possibly certain details of the curse and his healing by Beleg, are contradicted. If it refers to Andvír then it contradicts the 'Narn', in which, though not explicitly stated, it is pretty clear that Andróg does not have a son who is also in the band. Also, it contradicts the account of the battle at which all but Mim, Beleg, and Turin were slain. So if we accept the statement in 'Aelfwine and Dirhaval', we must change the 'Narn' in some way.

So suppose we have Andróg survive the battle. The next question is: are we justified in moving his healing by Beleg to after the battle? I think a case could be made must do this if Andróg survives the battle. In the 'Narn' material it is suggested that when Andróg was wounded, it was only the power of Beleg's healing that averted Mim's curse. Therefore if Andróg survives the battle, one could infer that he must have been healed by Beleg then or else he would have died per Mim's curse. But it seems just about impossible that the healing would be repeated twice in the story. So we are left with the transferal of the episode to after the battle.

So I think we are actually on fairly safe ground with these two projected changes. Where things are more difficult, I think, is in Mim's death and Findegil's proposal that he is killed by Andróg with an arrow. The question here is first of all whether we should make Mim's death in our version ambiguous enough that it does not contradict this story and second, if we do, then how? We discussed the death of Mim at some length in working on the 'Ruin of Doriath'. To summarize the sources briefly, we have:

1. In TT, Hurin smites Mim for his 'evil words'.
2. In Q30, Hurin's men kill Mim 'though Hurin would have stayed them".
3. In the annalistic plot-synopsis for the 'Narn' (partially given in XI with 'Wanderings') there is a brief statement that 'Hurin comes to Nargothrond and slays Mim'.

We decided that 3 represents a reversion to the earlier story (the rejected alternative being to assume that what is really meant is 'Hurin and his men come to Nargothrond and slay Mim') and we formed the text for this section using TT as our basis. So, in light of 3, can we really justify not having Hurin kill Mim? And, perhaps more difficult still, if we do opt for this, how do we form a text that does not identify Mim's killer?

On another topic, Aran wrote:

Quote:

As an aside, if Aelfwine and all references to old England are to be removed, then the words "scop and walhstod" should be rendered in modern English: "poet and translator."

Good catch. There should be no Old English in our version!

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-07-2009, 05:47 PM

The only problem is that "Aelfwine and Dirhavel" most certainly precedes the text of the Narn, does it not? This would make the Narn text the final written version of Andróg's role on Amon Rudh, so should it not take precedence? As to the issue of time and age, I'll have to investigate that more deeply before commenting. Perhaps it might be best to drop the reference to Andvír altogether.

Aiwendil · 03-07-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

The only problem is that "Aelfwine and Dirhavel" most certainly precedes the text of the Narn, does it not?

I had been operating under the assumption that it was the other way around, with the 'Narn' preceding 'Aelfwine and Dirhaval'. But now I realize it may not be so clear. Christopher surmises that 'this story [i.e. the part of the Narn with Androg in it] was fully in being (so far as it ever went) when A [i.e. the first version of 'Aelfwine and Dirhavel'] was written - indeed it seems likely enough that A belongs to the time when my father was working on it.'

If, then, we agree with CT's assessment, 'Aelfwine and Dirhaval' is contemporary with or very slightly later than the middle portions of the 'Narn'. But I can't find anything that offers a clue as to whether it preceded or followed the plot-outline that tells of Androg's death at Amon Rudh.

So we clearly have one story being replaced with another, but it is no longer clear to me which was replaced by which.

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-07-2009, 06:58 PM

Ah, yes. I remember that now! That adds another wrinkle. I would still suggest keeping Andróg's death in the story, though, as removing it requires much more revision of (and addition to) Tolkien's original work. Still, the added doubt is annoying. Oh, how I wish I had the original copies to look at!

Aiwendil · 03-07-2009, 07:56 PM

Findegil wrote:

Quote:

Aiwendil could you point me to were I would find the essay of Wynne and Hofstetter? I would like to read what they have to say before discussing that farther.

Unfortunately, I can't find it anywhere on the web. I have it in the book Tolkien's Legendarium, a collection of essays edited by Hostetter and Verlyn Flieger.

Findegil · 03-09-2009, 03:23 PM

The simple matter first:
Posted by Aran:

Quote:

As an aside, if Aelfwine and all references to old England are to be removed, then the words "scop and walhstod" should be rendered in modern English: "poet and translator."

Since we used Text A neither of the words are included.

Posted by Aiwendil:

Quote:

Unfortunately, I can't find it anywhere on the web. I have it in the book Tolkien's Legendarium, a collection of essays edited by Hostetter and Verlyn Flieger.

Okay, I don't have thta book, but properbly I should add it to the wish list.
Anyway by longer thought I got the feeling that we should keep save in this matter. What ever we do, we forth a decision on our reader in a matter were it is not necessary. I think we should skip the sentence.

Now to Andróg, Andvír and all that matter: Dírhaval composed his Lay in the Haevens after he spoke to Mablung. Thus not before 507 FA. He perished in the attack of the Feanorians up on the Haevens in 538 FA. The battle on the sumit of Amon Rudh took place in the year 489 FA. Now Andvír is described as very old in text A. I would think that means about 70 years. Even if he was found late by Dírhaval, let's say in 535 FA he would have been born around 465 FA and would have been around 24 years at the battle of Amon Rudh. Even assuming that Andvir was only 65 at that late date would make him 19 at the battle. Thus Andróg must have been older than what we expected. At the very least about 40 years.
It seems I have down argued my own nice idea: Thinks would be much simpler if Andvír is the sole surviver of the battle on the summit of Amon Rudh. As Aiwendil and Aran, I also can not see that the sentence in Dírhaval Text A can only mean that it was Andróg who survived.
Let's assume it was Andvír who survived: I would even go sofare not to include him at all in the actual description of the battle, he is mentioned at the start of the Tale and that's all. Androg would be wounded once and healed by Beleg. Mîm could utter his 'it will bite again' and Andróg would bekilled by an arrow but only dying after he realeased Beleg.
Andvír then is in Húrin's Band, but again we need not name him, since all a reader needs is put one and two togther from the opening of the Narn to the Húrins encounter with Mîm.
Now there remain a view questions to be cleared:
a) When did Andróg got his wound healed by Beleg?
Christopher Tolkien did place it in CoH not at the raid in the winter, which brought Beleg upon the track of the outlaws but in the spring of that year. Christopher Tolkien did not use that winter raid at all. Do we us it? And if so, is this the oportunity for Andróg to get his wound?
b) Which curse does Andróg utter against Mîm?
Christopher Tolkien used in CoH the one with the arrow in the throat. And reading the Narn he gives that version some more wieght their as well.
c) How does Mîm die in the end?
My image from the text of TT was a blow with Húrins fist that felt the old Dwarf. At least it was not with bow and arrow since it was said Húrin 'smite' him. But then we have the Q30 text and last but not least the note in the plot synopsis given in WH, which do not at all mention how Mîm dies.

About c) that is my first idea: We try to get Húrin aktily smite him so Mîm does not die at once. When he utters his curse above the Huirn's men carrying the dragon hoard of, one unnamed kills him with an arrow as ban was done with in the Lay:

Quote:

§275 (§4a) Sil77 Then the Dwarf answered: 'I am Mîm; and before the proud ones came from over the Sea, Dwarves delved the halls of Nulukkhizdīn. I have but returned to take what is mine; for I am the last of my people.><TT O {Úrin}[Húrin], little did I think to see thee, a lord of Men, with such a rabble. Hearken now to the words of Mîm{ the fatherless}, and depart, touching not this gold no more than were it venomous fires. For has not {Glorund}[Glaurung] lain long years upon it, and the evil of the drakes of {Melko}[Morgoth] is on it, and no good can it bring to Man or Elf, but I, only I, can ward it, Mîm the dwarf, and by many a dark spell have I bound it to myself.'
§276 (§4d) TT Then {Úrin}[Húrin] wavered, but his men were wroth at that, so that he bid them seize it all, and Mîm stood by and watched, and he broke forth into terrible and evil curses.
§277 (§5) TT Thereat did {Úrin}[Húrin] smite him, saying: ‘We came but to take what was not thine - now for thy evil words we will take what is thine as well, even thy life.{'}> RD-EX-11.5 <Sil77 And{and} not unknown is it to me by whom the Dragon-helm of Dor-lómin was betrayed.'>
§278 (§6) <TT But Mîm dying said unto {Úrin}[Húrin]: ‘Now Elves and Men shall rue this deed, and because of the death of Mîm the dwarf shall death follow this gold so long as it remain on Earth, and a like fate shall every part and portion share with the whole.’ And {Úrin}[Húrin] shuddered, but his folk laughed.> RD-EX-11.51b<editorial bridge And it is sung that
><Lay of the Children of Húrin {The}the dawn over {Doriath}[Narog] __ dimly kindled {695}
saw {Blodrin Bor's son}[Mîm the petty-dwarf] __ by a beech standing
with throat thriléd __ by a thrusting arrow,
whose shaven shaft, __ shod with {poison}[iron],
and feather-wingéd, __ was fast in the tree. [5]
He bargained the blood __ of {his brothers}Túrin's band for gold: {700}
this his meed meted - __ in the mirk at {random}[Narog];
by an {orc-}arrow __ his {oath}[curse] came home.>
§279 (§8) RD-SL-05 {And the curse came upon the possessors in this wise. Each one of Húrin's company died or was slain in quarrels upon the road; but Húrin went unto Thingol and sought his aid, and the folk of Thingol bore the treasure to the Thousand Caves.}<TT Now {Úrin}[Húrin] caused his followers to bear this gold to the halls of {Tinwelint}[Thingol], ...

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-09-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Findegil

The simple matter first:
Posted by Aran:Since we used Text A neither of the words are included.

You added them in:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Findegil

Quote:

Narn e·mbar Hador
Narn i Chîn Húrin
or
Narn e·’Rach Morgoth
The Tale of the Children of Húrin
...though this verse mode is not unlike the verse NA-SL-01{of the English}[I know], I have rendered it NA-EX-03<editorial addition most often it> in prose, judging my skill too small to be at once scop and walhstod. Even so my task has been hard enough...

See?

Quote:

Now there remain a view questions to be cleared:
a) When did Andróg got his wound healed by Beleg?
Christopher Tolkien did place it in CoH not at the raid in the winter, which brought Beleg upon the track of the outlaws but in the spring of that year. Christopher Tolkien did not use that winter raid at all. Do we us it? And if so, is this the oportunity for Andróg to get his wound?
b) Which curse does Andróg utter against Mîm?
Christopher Tolkien used in CoH the one with the arrow in the throat. And reading the Narn he gives that version some more wieght their as well.
c) How does Mîm die in the end?
My image from the text of TT was a blow with Húrins fist that felt the old Dwarf. At least it was not with bow and arrow since it was said Húrin 'smite' him. But then we have the Q30 text and last but not least the note in the plot synopsis given in WH, which do not at all mention how Mîm dies.

About c) that is my first idea: We try to get Húrin aktily smite him so Mîm does not die at once. When he utters his curse above the Huirn's men carrying the dragon hoard of, one unnamed kills him with an arrow as ban was done with in the Lay:

Respectfully
Findegil

a) I suggest retaining the winter raid, and moving the healing then.

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.

Aiwendil · 03-09-2009, 10:03 PM

It seems Androg turns out to be rather a difficult issue. Sorry in advance for a long post.

Findegil wrote:

Quote:

Now to Andróg, Andvír and all that matter: Dírhaval composed his Lay in the Haevens after he spoke to Mablung. Thus not before 507 FA. He perished in the attack of the Feanorians up on the Haevens in 538 FA. The battle on the sumit of Amon Rudh took place in the year 489 FA. Now Andvír is described as very old in text A. I would think that means about 70 years. Even if he was found late by Dírhaval, let's say in 535 FA he would have been born around 465 FA and would have been around 24 years at the battle of Amon Rudh. Even assuming that Andvir was only 65 at that late date would make him 19 at the battle. Thus Andróg must have been older than what we expected. At the very least about 40 years.

After presenting such a nice solution earlier, you have made a very good case against it! I had forgotten about the upper limit of 538 FA for the meeting of Dírhaval with a 'very old' Andvír. In view of this, my earlier suggestion that Andróg was a young man when in the outlaw band and that Andvír was born after the battle at Amon Rudh is completely untenable.

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:

this story [i.e. the part of the Narn with Androg in it] was fully in being (so far as it ever went) when A was written

This would suggest that A&D was written after the Androg story in the 'Narn' was already worked out. But then he adds:

Quote:

indeed it seems likely enough that A belongs to the time when my father was working on it.

This, on the contrary, suggests that at the time A&D was written, JRRT had not yet arrived at the 'final' form (such as it is) of the story of Androg's role in Turin's band - in which case, the final version of that story superceded the statement in A&D about Androg and Andvir. Possibly what CT means is that A&D is later but not much later. But in any case, CT here seems to be drawing his conclusions based mainly on the content of A&D rather than external evidence and so is actually not much better a judge than we are.

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.

Findegil · 03-10-2009, 05:53 AM

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:

It seems Androg turns out to be rather a difficult issue. Sorry in advance for a long post.

There is no need to appology for long posts, we love them!

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:

From Mablung he learned much; and by fortune also he found a man named Andvír, and he was very old, but was the son of that Andróg who was in the outlaw-band of Túrin, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh.

Lest extract simple statments:
- 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.

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-10-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

It seems Androg turns out to be rather a difficult issue. Sorry in advance for a long post.

Findegil wrote:

After presenting such a nice solution earlier, you have made a very good case against it! I had forgotten about the upper limit of 538 FA for the meeting of Dírhaval with a 'very old' Andvír. In view of this, my earlier suggestion that Andróg was a young man when in the outlaw band and that Andvír was born after the battle at Amon Rudh is completely untenable.

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.

...

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?

There is actually one bit of evidence that hasn't been mentioned. Text B, which clearly does come after the Narn text, contains no mention of either Andróg or his son. This may be interpreted as meaning that text A did in fact precede the Narn text, and B was written so as to match the new story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Findegil

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.

My humblest apologies. I have the unfortunate predilection of spotting a single problem, and then immediately commenting on it before reading further. I must confess, I still haven't read every post in this thread.

Quote:

All that is interesting but it does not help us any farther.
Lets go back to the core sentence again:Lest extract simple statments:
- 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.

I agree with the bold parts, but I would like to comment on the underlined part. I'll quote the line again for clarity's sake:

Quote:

From Mablung he learned much; and by fortune also he found a man named Andvír, and he was very old, but was the son of that Andróg who was in the outlaw-band of Túrin, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh.

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.

Aiwendil · 03-10-2009, 11:48 PM

Let me come back to the three questions I posed.

Quote:

1. Does the sentence in 'Aelfwine and Dirhaval' refer to Andróg or Andvír?

It seems that Findegil is inclined to read it as referring to Androg and Aran as referring to Andvir. I must say that I don't think this can be answered from the structure of the sentence alone. The sentence could easily mean either. That is, it could be parsed as:

Quote:

and he was very old, but was the son of that Andróg {who was in the outlaw-band of Túrin}, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh.

or:

Quote:

and he was very old, but was the son of that Andróg {who was in the outlaw-band of Túrin, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh}.

There's simply no way of telling based on the syntax whether 'he' or 'who' is the subject of 'survived'.

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:

2. Does A&D pre-date or post-date the 'Narn' texts that contain the story of Andróg's death?

Aran wrote:

Quote:

There is actually one bit of evidence that hasn't been mentioned. Text B, which clearly does come after the Narn text, contains no mention of either Andróg or his son. This may be interpreted as meaning that text A did in fact precede the Narn text, and B was written so as to match the new story.

A good point, but we must bear in mind that B is also briefer and rather different in intention from A. It seems to me, then, very likely that the absence of Androg and Andvir from B does not imply the rejection of this version of the transmission.

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:

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.

. . .

- 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.

. . .

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?

I must admit I never thought of the possibility that Andvir was born after Androg was outlawed but before the time when Turin joins the outlaws, nor that he was alive then but not in the band. And I think you make an excellent point that in the Narn Androg does survive the battle and dies shortly thereafter. This interpretation is particularly attractive since it would provide a very nice answer to my third question:

Quote:

3. To what extent does the statement in A&D contradict the story in the 'Narn'?

If we accept Findegil's proposal, then the answer is that A&D does not contradict the Narn at all. Which, of course, would mean that both A&D and the Narn could stand without further alterations needed to either.

I do have one small doubt about this reading, though. To go back once more to the infamous sentence in A&D:

Quote:

From Mablung he learned much; and by fortune also he found a man named Andvír, and he was very old, but was the son of that Andróg who was in the outlaw-band of Túrin, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh.

On Findegil's interpration, while this statement is completely true, the clause 'and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh' would appear to be a bit of a non sequitur. The rest of the sentence is concerned with establishing the credentials of Dirhavel's sources. It is mentioned that Androg is Andvir's father because this explains how Andvir knew details of the story. But why then mention that Androg survived the battle? If, as in the Narn, he died immediately after it, then this statement cannot have any relevance to Andvir's knowledge. On the other hand, if we interpret this last statement to mean that Androg lived a for a significant length of time after the battle, and presumably had communication with Andvir during that time, then it is quite relevant.

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.

Findegil · 03-11-2009, 03:04 AM

A good enumeratuion, Aiwendil.
I agree that 4 and 5 are too risky.
For option 3 I see no real reason why we have to remove Andvír. Since our rules say we need a reason to reject something, I don't thing that is a good possiblity.
I see your doubts about option 2. When text A postdates the middle of the Narn, which is likely, then we can only change the sentence if it is a an workable palned change of the naritive. And if we think it is a change that is not absoultly necessary it would be a stylistic change, that is not wanted.
Thus I think we are left with option 1.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aiwendil · 03-11-2009, 06:26 AM

Quote:

For option 3 I see no real reason why we have to remove Andvír. Since our rules say we need a reason to reject something, I don't thing that is a good possiblity.

And we could only have a reason if we decided that Androg's having a son contradicts the Narn. At one time I thought this was the case, but I think you've made a good argument that the dates, ages, and so forth can be made to cohere. So I agree that 3 is probably not the right way to go.

Quote:

I see your doubts about option 2. When text A postdates the middle of the Narn, which is likely, then we can only change the sentence if it is a an workable palned change of the naritive. And if we think it is a change that is not absoultly necessary it would be a stylistic change, that is not wanted.

That leaves us with the question of whether or not A&D represents a 'projected change' from the story of Androg's death in the Narn. You've correctly pointed out that the statement about Androg's survival is technically true in the Narn. But what do you think of the concern I expressed earlier concerning the intended meaning? To repeat myself:

Quote:

On Findegil's interpration, while this statement is completely true, the clause 'and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh' would appear to be a bit of a non sequitur. The rest of the sentence is concerned with establishing the credentials of Dirhavel's sources. It is mentioned that Androg is Andvir's father because this explains how Andvir knew details of the story. But why then mention that Androg survived the battle? If, as in the Narn, he died immediately after it, then this statement cannot have any relevance to Andvir's knowledge. On the other hand, if we interpret this last statement to mean that Androg lived a for a significant length of time after the battle, and presumably had communication with Andvir during that time, then it is quite relevant.

I would add that Christopher Tolkien (and indeed each of us) originally read the statement as asserting not just that Androg survived the fighting but that he was not mortally wounded there at all - so this may very well have been what Tolkien meant.

So I think I am for either option 1 or 2, with the above concern being issue that the decision is depends upon. I suppose option 2 may in fact be the way to go if we consider that the risk of including an invalid/contradictory statement outweighs the risk of excluding valid one.

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-11-2009, 11:20 AM

I favor option 2 more. The reason is that I inherently dislike any non-Tolkien writing being added at all, except where absolutely necessary. Since Tolkien wrote nothing of Andróg's survival anywhere else, that means we would have to add in our own version of events extrapolated from a mere scrap. From my (admittedly strict) opinion, that makes the story of Andróg's survival an unworkable (for us) planned change, even if it was a change Tolkien seriously considered later.

Option 1 would be acceptable to me, but it is rather ambiguous and leaves room for confusion. Of course, one ancient scholar's interpretation of an event could differ from another scholars; the difference between"Andróg survived" and "Andróg died shortly thereafter" could well be compared to the difference between a scholar who notes "the enemy had 900 men" and the scholar who says that "the enemy had 1000 soldiers."

Findegil · 03-11-2009, 12:49 PM

Aiwendil worte:

Quote:

On Findegil's interpration, while this statement is completely true, the clause 'and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh' would appear to be a bit of a non sequitur. The rest of the sentence is concerned with establishing the credentials of Dirhavel's sources. It is mentioned that Androg is Andvir's father because this explains how Andvir knew details of the story. But why then mention that Androg survived the battle? If, as in the Narn, he died immediately after it, then this statement cannot have any relevance to Andvir's knowledge. On the other hand, if we interpret this last statement to mean that Androg lived a for a significant length of time after the battle, and presumably had communication with Andvir during that time, then it is quite relevant.

Thinking around three corners I could say that the author of the text wanted to give all the credential he could to Dírhavals sources and thereby had overdone it. By excident or by propose he decievd us to belive at this point that Andvír had communication with Andróg, though we later learn that this is impossible.
It is as well possible that the fact that Andróg did life long enough to free Beleg (which is from the point of the storyteller the reason for his short survival) had some important impact on the father eloborated story of the tradition of the tale that Tolkien had in mind but never write down.

Since that sound very theroetical I will examplify that last point:
Since we have only Beleg and Túrin as long time suviver of the battle and we learn that neither Túrin nor Gwindor revaled much about the time at Amon Rudh, we need someone to who knows details of the fighting to get the story we have. Beleg is the most probable source. To whom did he speak after the battle? We know for sure that he spoke with Gwindor, but he is dead and of tradition as we learn. Now would the son of his rescuer not be a potential communication partner for Beleg? We could either think that Andvír and probably other members of the greater army of Dor-Cúrathol came to Amon Rudh after all signals stop from there or probably Beleg, knowing were Andvír was, and that being in the right direction could have visitied him, to give meassage of the vailant death of his father. Thinking farther in that direction, Andvír must for that storyline not even be a member of Dor-Cúrathols forces at all. He could have lifed in Brethil at that time since Beleg passed that country by when he hunted for the Orcs, and Andvír could have been visitied by his father at some point when Dor-Cúrathol prospered.

I still hesitate between option 1 and 2. But the more I think about it the more option 1 gets the upper hand. I have more then once said that our project must not solve all questions for the reader. If the text does hold a confusing sentence, why not? As long as there are possible conclusions and as long as we did not creat that confusion by our editing, let it stand.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aiwendil · 03-12-2009, 02:12 AM

It sounds like we are close to an agreement; at least the three of us agree it must be option 1 or 2.

Findegil wrote:

Quote:

Thinking around three corners I could say that the author of the text wanted to give all the credential he could to Dírhavals sources and thereby had overdone it. By excident or by propose he decievd us to belive at this point that Andvír had communication with Andróg, though we later learn that this is impossible.

So you suggest that the author may be deliberately misleading? I admit this is possible, but I think it is a little bit of a stretch. The 'author' of this text is, after all, the modern editor, i.e. Tolkien, is it not? And in any case, since this is a preface to the Narn, any reader who is succesfully misled into thinking that Androg lived for a long time after the battle will find out otherwise in short order.

I also find the possibility of Beleg communicating with Andvir plausible but not entirely convincing - largely because it seems to me that Beleg would have set out after Turin as quickly as possible and would not have made any other stops. Of course, one could imagine that he happened by chance to meet Andvir on the way.

But I keep coming back to the simple fact that it seems everyone who reads the passage in A&D initially and unhesitatingly interprets it to mean that Androg lived for a significant time after the battle. If this is so, does that not suggest that the wording of the passage favors that interpretation? And if that is so, does it not seem likely that this was the meaning Tolkien intended when he wrote it?

I was browsing through some old discussions earlier (since it's been such a long time since I was heavily involved in the project) and I happened upon a quote from Jallanite connected with the discussion of our principles that has perhaps some relevance here. In talking about the cursory LQ2 revisions, Jallanite wrote:

Quote:

This better indicates that latest idea is not always latest text than trying to word this into the principles.

In other words, the principles compel us to use Tolkien's 'latest ideas' wherever possible, not necessarily his 'latest text'. In the case of Androg's 'survival', while the letter of the text does not contradict the Narn, it may be that the idea Tolkien was trying to express does.

Add to this the fact that if we delete the reference to Androg's survival, we have either deleted something contradictory (which would be good) or deleted something redundant (since it is told later that he lives past the fighting). I think, therefore, that I now lean toward agreeing with Aran that option 2 is the safest.

Findegil · 03-12-2009, 06:55 AM

Okay, I can live with both option 2 or option 1 thus I would think it is option 2 if no body will come up to complaine about it.

After that is settled, we may come back to connected questions I brought up earlier:

Quote:

a) When did Andróg got his wound healed by Beleg?
Christopher Tolkien did place it in CoH not at the raid in the winter, which brought Beleg upon the track of the outlaws but in the spring of that year. Christopher Tolkien did not use that winter raid at all. Do we us it? And if so, is this the oportunity for Andróg to get his wound?
b) Which curse does Andróg utter against Mîm?
Christopher Tolkien used in CoH the one with the arrow in the throat. And reading the Narn he gives that version some more wieght their as well.
c) How does Mîm die in the end?
My image from the text of TT was a blow with Húrins fist that felt the old Dwarf. At least it was not with bow and arrow since it was said Húrin 'smite' him. But then we have the Q30 text and last but not least the note in the plot synopsis given in WH, which do not at all mention how Mîm dies.

Aran prefered for a) the winterraid and Andrógs wounding in that, which I all think is the more logical story.
For question b) and c) Aran suggested to use the alternative curse of lacking a bow at need, but finds the version of Mîm death with an arrow in his throut workable. I think that the arrow in the throut has to be taken since it is Tolkiens lasting image of the traitors death. And I can also not see any good connection about the lake of bow and arrow and the secen of Mîms death. Of course a curse must not become true, but that could be used with both curses.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-12-2009, 01:10 PM

I would just like to point out that I did not read the line originally as referring to Andróg's survival, but that could be just because I was already so familiar with the story of his death that I didn't consider it. It doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd say it.

And actually, I have begun to have my doubts about Andróg's healing occurring during the raid. In CoH, Christopher Tolkien puts it at a later date. I must assume he had some reason for doing so, so we must take into account that that version of the healing may be a later one, as in UT he states that there were in fact many versions of the healing.

That said, I do believe we need to retain the winter raid, even if the healing is moved.

Aiwendil · 03-13-2009, 10:16 AM

Aran wrote:

Quote:

I would just like to point out that I did not read the line originally as referring to Andróg's survival, but that could be just because I was already so familiar with the story of his death that I didn't consider it. It doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd say it.

Okay, fair enough. But unless I'm mistaken, you read it is saying that Andvir survived and lived for a long time after the battle; so my point stands that we all initially read "survived" to mean something more than "lived for a few more hours".

I need to think a little bit about Findegil's further questions, but I should have some comments by later today.

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-13-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Okay, fair enough. But unless I'm mistaken, you read it is saying that Andvir survived and lived for a long time after the battle; so my point stands that we all initially read "survived" to mean something more than "lived for a few more hours".

That's true.

Aiwendil · 03-23-2009, 10:51 AM

Sorry for my unannounced absence (at least it was days and not months this time!).

Findegil wrote:

Quote:

a) When did Andróg got his wound healed by Beleg?
Christopher Tolkien did place it in CoH not at the raid in the winter, which brought Beleg upon the track of the outlaws but in the spring of that year. Christopher Tolkien did not use that winter raid at all. Do we us it? And if so, is this the oportunity for Andróg to get his wound?
b) Which curse does Andróg utter against Mîm?
Christopher Tolkien used in CoH the one with the arrow in the throat. And reading the Narn he gives that version some more wieght their as well.
c) How does Mîm die in the end?
My image from the text of TT was a blow with Húrins fist that felt the old Dwarf. At least it was not with bow and arrow since it was said Húrin 'smite' him. But then we have the Q30 text and last but not least the note in the plot synopsis given in WH, which do not at all mention how Mîm dies.

a) Here again it would be useful to know whether CT adopted the version in CoH because he concluded that it was the final idea found in the Narn texts or merely for editorial reasons. Certainly in UT it seems to be suggested that the winter raid constitutes the 'main' story insofar as that can be discerned. And again in UT there is no clear suggestion of when and how Androg was to be wounded if not during that raid. In the absence of a 'History of the Narn', I'm inclined to take UT as more authoritative in this instance and therefore to keep the raid and place Androg's wounding and healing there.

b) Here what appears to be the 'main version' in UT (where the alternative curse is, after all, an 'alternative') agrees with what is used in CoH. Therefore, I'm inclined to keep the 'dart in his throat' version of the curse.

c) This is, of course, related to b but should really be considered independently. As Findegil notes, a curse (particularly that of a mere man) need not come true. On the other hand, Findegil also makes a strong case that image of the traitor to Turin’s band dying with an arrow in his throat seems to have been a lasting one. My one reservation about this argument is the ‘alternative curse’. Even if we decide not to follow it, doesn’t the fact that Tolkien considered this as a possibility indicate that Mim’s death by an arrow was not completely fixed in his mind? On the other hand, it may be that he rejected the alternative curse in favor of the ‘main version’ precisely because he wanted Mim’s fate to be the same as that which had been Blodren’s. So I think there is a good (if not perfect) case for having Mim killed by an arrow.

A distinct question is who kills Mim. Here I think we have a good (though again not perfect) case that it must be Hurin. To repeat my earlier summary of the sources:

Quote:

1. In TT, Hurin smites Mim for his 'evil words'.
2. In Q30, Hurin's men kill Mim 'though Hurin would have stayed them".
3. In the annalistic plot-synopsis for the 'Narn' (partially given in XI with 'Wanderings') there is a brief statement that 'Hurin comes to Nargothrond and slays Mim'.

So Tolkien’s last word on the identity of Mim’s killer seems to be that it was Hurin. We have, then, three possibilities:

1. Hurin kills Mim with an arrow. This would be ideal but it may be difficult to form the actual text.
2. Hurin kills Mim but not with an arrow. Violates both Androg’s curse and (probably) Tolkien’s final idea on how Mim was killed. Very easy to do, since we can largely follow TT. This is what we did previously.
3. One of Hurin’s men kills Mim with an arrow. Violates (probably) Tolkien’s final idea on who killed Mim. Probably easier to accomplish textually than 1 but harder than 2.

I am somewhat inclined toward 1, though I need to look further into how difficult this would be to implement.

Findegil · 03-23-2009, 03:36 PM

In point a) and b) I agree with Aiwendil.
About c): I will try what we can do with this the text to bring in Aiwendil suggestion of Húrin killing Mîm with an arrow:

Quote:

§273 (§3b) RD-EX-08 <TT Now therefore when those {Elves}[Men] approached the dwarf stood before the doors of the cave that was once the abode of {Galweg}[Orodreth], and he cried: ‘What will ye with me, O outlaws of the hills?’>
§3c (§274) RD-EX-09 <Sil77 But Húrin said: 'Who are you, that would hinder me from entering the house of Finrod Felagund?'
§275 (§4a) Sil77 Then the Dwarf answered: 'I am Mîm; and before the proud ones came from over the Sea, Dwarves delved the halls of Nulukkhizdīn. I have but returned to take what is mine; for I am the last of my people.>
<TT But {Úrin}[Húrin] answered: 'We come to take what is not thine.' Then said {that dwarf, and his name was }Mîm: 'O {Úrin}[Húrin], little did I think to see thee, a lord of Men, with such a rabble. Hearken now to the words of Mîm{ the fatherless}, and depart, touching not this gold no more than were it venomous fires. For has not {Glorund}[Glaurung] lain long years upon it, and the evil of the drakes of {Melko}[Morgoth] is on it, and no good can it bring to Man or Elf, but I, only I, can ward it, Mîm the dwarf, and by many a dark spell have I bound it to myself.'
§276 (§4d) TT Then {Úrin}[Húrin] wavered, but his men were wroth at that, so that he bid them seize it all, and Mîm stood by and watched, and he broke forth into terrible and evil curses.
§277 (§5) TT Thereat did {Úrin}[Húrin] smite him, saying:>RD-EX-11.5b Sil77 'Then you shall enjoy your inhertiance no longer,{' said Húrin; '}for I am Húrin son of Galdor, returned out of Angband , and my son was Túrin Turambar, whom you have not forgotten; and he it was that slew Glaurung the Dragon, who wasted these halls where now you sit; and not unkown is it to me by whom the Dragon-helm of Dor-lómin was betrayed.'>
§278 (§6)TT<But Mîm dying said unto {Úrin}[Húrin]: ‘Now Elves and Men shall rue this deed, and because of the death of Mîm the dwarf shall death follow this gold so long as it remain on Earth, and a like fate shall every part and portion share with the whole.’ And {Úrin}[Húrin] shuddered, but his folk laughed.> TT<‘We came but to take what was not thine - now for thy evil words we will take what is thine as well, even thy life{.},'>RD-EX-11.51b<editorial bridge said Húrin. And it is sung that
><Lay of the Children of Húrin {The}the dawn over {Doriath}[Narog] __ dimly kindled {695}
saw {Blodrin Bor's son}[Mîm the petty-dwarf] __ by a beech standing
with throat thriléd __ by a thrusting arrow,
whose shaven shaft, __ shod with {poison}[iron],
and feather-wingéd, __ was fast in the tree. [5]
He bargained the blood __ of {his brothers}Túrin's band for gold: {700}
this his meed meted - __ in the mirk at {random}[Narog];
by an {orc-}arrow __ his {oath}[curse] came home.>
§279 (§8) RD-SL-05 {And the curse came upon the possessors in this wise. Each one of Húrin's company died or was slain in quarrels upon the road; but Húrin went unto Thingol and sought his aid, and the folk of Thingol bore the treasure to the Thousand Caves.}<TT Now {Úrin}[Húrin] caused his followers to bear this gold to the halls of {Tinwelint}[Thingol], ...

I had to take some speech from the Sil77, but I think it reads not that bad.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-23-2009, 07:12 PM

Hmm. That's not bad. (though still ambiguous!)

I agree with point a) and point b) as well.

Aiwendil · 03-25-2009, 09:59 AM

I think that the difficulty with this solution is this: it seems strange that, standing close enough to Mim to converse with him, Hurin would take up a bow, nock an arrow to it, aim, and fire, rather than simply striking Mim with his sword, particularly after he has already 'smitten' him as in our version (following TT). Indeed, there is no indication that Hurin was carrying arrows and a bow at all.

On the other hand, Findegil’s version may make the exact sequence of events sufficiently ambiguous to alleviate this concern, particularly since, following the Lay, the result of Mim’s being shot is described rather than the shooting itself. One problem, however, is that after Hurin ‘smites’ him but before he is shot, we say:

Quote:

But Mîm dying said unto {Úrin}[Húrin]:

Does ‘dying’ perhaps suggests that it is Hurin’s smiting that killed him, making the arrow superfluous? I suppose that if we observe the letter of Androg’s curse, it does not specifiy that the dart in Mim’s throat is what killed him, only that he had one there when he died. However, I think we might at least eliminate the word ‘dying’ to avoid a possible conflict.

Findegil · 03-25-2009, 02:04 PM

I considered removing 'dying' myself, but then the sentence looks very ode to me. Any replacement would be inventing. And why should it not have been Húrins blow that killed and the Arrow that stilled the dwarve. (Soryy for the bad wordplay, I couzldn't resist.)

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-25-2009, 02:24 PM

"Dying" doesn't mean "dead." It's possible that the blow would have killed him, but it was the arrow in fact. I think we should leave it with as little tampering as possible.

Aiwendil · 03-25-2009, 02:57 PM

All right, I'm convinced.

I think we've finally come to an agreement on all these points.

Findegil · 03-26-2009, 05:48 AM

Okay, since we are done with Andróg and Mîm now, I will incooperate the changes we agreed on.

What is left from the discussion before, are the part of the Lay included in the earlier Narn by me and disputed half-heartedly by Aiwendil.
Form the arguments given it seems to me that we are here on the borderline of our principals. In such a case the input form more people is highly desired.

Gondowe told us in an other thread, that our work confinced him to take up parts of the Lay in his own version, but he did not tell if that counts also for the earlier part of the Narn.

So please Maedhros, Aran, Gondowe and who ever else is reading occasionly here, speak up and help us decied what to do.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 03-26-2009, 01:45 PM

It seems to me that the Lay was largely displaced by the Narn. And it cannot be thought to be the "Lay" Ælfwine (or Bilbo) translated either, as many of its details do not match the Narn. Even when it does match and provides more detail, I hesitate in using it, because Tolkien seems to have thought most of the Narn to be finalized. (At least, as final as any of his works ever got!)

gondowe · 03-26-2009, 05:26 PM

In my old work in the Narn i had token the old lay to have a body for the pats of dor Cuarthol to the history of túrin in Nargothrond.
And this is what I want to do now, combine the text in TCoH (that is of the Silm77) of this part with this my old text, as prose of course. So we have the picture of Ivrin, and nargothrond and have a less schematical body of text in the Taur -nu fuin scenes with Beleg and Gwindor. I´m going to maintain the healing of the hurts of Beleg in Doriath ( not in bar-en-danwedh).
I did´nt take more material from other parts, I think the Narn is overall

As an appendix I have a chapter called The Wanderings of Hurin, edited with the end taken from the Tale of Turambar, mantaining the prophecy of Mormegil that stands well with the end of the QS and the second P of Mandos.

Greetings

Aiwendil · 04-07-2009, 07:00 PM

I still lean toward leaving out the parts of the lay that would be used merely for 'expansion' of finalized portions of the Narn. I agree with Aran:

Quote:

Even when it does match and provides more detail, I hesitate in using it, because Tolkien seems to have thought most of the Narn to be finalized.

If Tolkien omitted from the Narn a detail found in the alliterative Lay, I think there's at least a reasonable case to be made that he did so because that detail had been rejected. In contrast to the more common situation where we have an older 'full version' and a briefer, more compressed later version, here we have a late full version. So I think the usual argument that details found in the older text were not rejected but merely suppressed holds less weight.

Findegil · 04-08-2009, 03:10 AM

I can see the point of the argument of course. It is just that I do not agree fully to it. Especially when the portions of the Lay that I used replace portions of the Narn that read like summary of the Lay. Let us look at the cases in turn:

NA-EX-25.02: We skip "he[Morgoth] sought to daunt him[Húrin] with his eyes. But Húrin could not yet be daunted, and he defied Morgoth. Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him,". Exactly the same story comes along in the Lay more fully told.

NA-EX-25.06 & NA-EX-25.12: We skip: "at last, weary and haggard, they reached the confines of Doriath. But there they became bewildered, and were enmeshed in the mazes of the Queen, and wandered lost amid the pathless trees, until all their food was spent. There they came near to death, for winter came cold from the North; but not so light was Túrin's doom. Even as they lay in despair they heard a horn sounded. Beleg the Strongbow was hunting in that region, for he dwelt ever upon the marches of Doriath, and he was the greatest woodsman of those days. He heard their cries and came to them, and when he had given them food and drink he learned their names and whence they came, and he was filled with wonder and pity." Which again what we have in the Lay elobarted.

NA-EX-27.04: Skipt are: "Then many wondered, saying: ‘Can the spirit of Hador or of Galdor the Tall return from death; or has Húrin of Hithlum escaped indeed from the pits of Angband?’
One only was mightier in arms among the march-wardens of Thingol at that time than Túrin, and that was Beleg Cúthalion; and Beleg and Túrin were companions in every peril, and walked far and wide in the wild woods together." Which again what is told in the protion of the Lay that I added.

Now your argument is that Tolkien did not use the details of the Lay by propose. But I am not so sure about this. I think we have no evidence that he acctually had the Lay infront of him composing the Narn, and this, I think, would be a needed to be sure that Tolkien found the details not fiting in the later story (for what ever reason). My impression is that Tolkien wrote the Narn based on his memory and the shorter text he had writen to fit the different versions of The Silmarillion, the Annals and probably his plot sysnopsis. In such a work parts that were told elaborated to his satisfaction before hand would probably catch his mind less then spots that he had not jet told in great maner, or were he felt that a change was needed. I think that once you have told the part fully to your satisfaction the (motion-)picture is definied in your mind and you might be able to recapture it for yourself with only a fiew words. But if you have to work out the secne for yourself you will for sure need more words and therewith transport the scene better to a reader unfamillar with it. If we could find some internal reasons to doubt the valibity of the scenes in the portions of the Lay I added, I would agree that we can not use them. But the outer reason that we have a shorter version in later writen fully told story does not fully convince me.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 04-08-2009, 11:32 AM

But you see, I don't think Tolkien need even have rejected the details. He just left them out. He told the story one way in the Lay, and another in the Narn. Apparently, he thought the Narn passages sufficient.

He was not trying to relate the whole story in all its detail, he was trying to relate the story as it was formed in that particular text. For instance, the Annals of Aman and the Quenta Silmarillion are parallel often, but Tolkien put details in one that were not in the other. This is not because he rejected the details, or even because he thought that they should be left out. It is simply because they were different documents.

Findegil · 04-08-2009, 11:42 AM

But we do not try to creat the Narn as Tolkien would have written it. Our goal is to tell the story of Middle-Earth in the most possible detailed, 'canon' friendly version. With this goal I don't think it is enough that Tolkien told the story without this details in his latest version of the Narn.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 04-08-2009, 01:12 PM

Perhaps. I personally don't find it justified, but I don't think it's a great crime either. I would prefer to make a Narn and re-write the Lay, to keep them separate, but perhaps that's too much.

Aiwendil · 04-08-2009, 10:48 PM

I think there are three distinct arguments being made by Aran and me:

The Canonical concern: Details omitted from the Lay may have been rejected.

The Literary concern: Introducing excerpts from the Lay mars the cohesive narrative of the Narn.

The Textual concern: The Narn and the Lay represent different texts within Middle-earth that should not be mixed.

The Textual argument is, in my opinion, not really a valid one within the context of this project, since we are not making a 'veritable' Narn i Chin Hurin; that is, we're not claiming that the text we produce actually represents the text written by Dirhaval. I would further argue that the Narn and the Lay should not actually be considered distinct intra-Middle-earth documents, but rather that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he intended it as a replacement for the Lay.

The Literary argument is stronger, I think, but again it's not compelling. Granting that the additions detract from the literary value of the Narn (which is debatable), one could argue that our goal is not a text of literary value; rather, it's a text telling the 'true' history of Arda as fully as possible. Now, there has historically been a certain tension inherent in the project between the literary view and the 'true history' view (and I'm sure if Lindil were around he'd argue eloquently in favour of the former). But at least this throws doubt on the argument that the Canonically valid portions of the Narn cannot be altered or added to because they represent Tolkien's finished text (though I admit the argument does have some force for me personally).

We're left with the Canonical argument which at the very least is clearly relevant. But Findegil counter-argues rather persuasively that the further details found in these portions of the Lay are relatively few and that they seem to make explicit things passed over quickly in the Narn, rather than to add any new substance.

Of course, for those very reasons, one could ask whether anything is really to be gained by adding them. If we view them simply as longer-winded ways of saying what's already less explicitly said in the Narn, then adding them adds nothing of substance to the text (one could argue that it adds something of literary quality to the text, but this is of course question-begging).

Not really a critical issue in the end, but this is proving (to me at least) a somewhat vexing question. I remain ambivalent (which I know is not very helpful, but so it goes).

03-04-2009, 09:34 PM	#41
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	Your translation of 'Minlamad thent/estent' agrees with that proposed by Patrick Wynne and Carl Hostetter in their essay 'Three Elvish Verse Modes'. As I think more about it, it seems clearer to me that 'thent/estent' indicates two possible versions of the name ('minlamad thent' or 'minlamad estent'), as Aran argues, rather than the name being 'minlamad thent/estent'. Wynne and Hofstetter do argue that the latter is a possibility and that 'thent/estent' means something like 'short/short' (other possible verse modes, presumably, being 'short/long', 'long/long', etc.) But if this were the case, I can't understand why two different forms of the word for 'short' would be used. (Unless maybe the difference has to do with lenition? That whole phenomenon is rather obscure to me). Findegil, I believe you earlier expressed the opinion that the name was intended to be 'minlamad thent/estent' and that these are not variants. Can you offer an argument for this? Last edited by Aiwendil; 03-09-2009 at 11:29 PM.

03-05-2009, 05:59 PM	#42
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	The change to "estent" cannot be due to Lenition, or any other mutation, as 'th' is a non-mutative consonant. I also doubt the alternate meanings ("very short" or "long"), as they do not match the known Elvish words for those two terms.

03-06-2009, 05:07 PM	#44
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	I have disagreed with Christopher Tolkien's reading of that passage ever since I set eyes on it. He seems to think that it is impossible the line refers to Andvír, but I think he is wrong. The line is slightly ambiguous, certainly, but it makes far more sense that it refers to Andvír, and despite his opinion the construction of the line does not make that impossible.

03-07-2009, 05:47 PM	#46
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	The only problem is that "Aelfwine and Dirhavel" most certainly precedes the text of the Narn, does it not? This would make the Narn text the final written version of Andróg's role on Amon Rudh, so should it not take precedence? As to the issue of time and age, I'll have to investigate that more deeply before commenting. Perhaps it might be best to drop the reference to Andvír altogether.

03-07-2009, 06:58 PM	#48
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	Ah, yes. I remember that now! That adds another wrinkle. I would still suggest keeping Andróg's death in the story, though, as removing it requires much more revision of (and addition to) Tolkien's original work. Still, the added doubt is annoying. Oh, how I wish I had the original copies to look at!

03-11-2009, 03:04 AM	#56
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,720	A good enumeratuion, Aiwendil. I agree that 4 and 5 are too risky. For option 3 I see no real reason why we have to remove Andvír. Since our rules say we need a reason to reject something, I don't thing that is a good possiblity. I see your doubts about option 2. When text A postdates the middle of the Narn, which is likely, then we can only change the sentence if it is a an workable palned change of the naritive. And if we think it is a change that is not absoultly necessary it would be a stylistic change, that is not wanted. Thus I think we are left with option 1. Respectfully Findegil

03-11-2009, 11:20 AM	#58
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	I favor option 2 more. The reason is that I inherently dislike any non-Tolkien writing being added at all, except where absolutely necessary. Since Tolkien wrote nothing of Andróg's survival anywhere else, that means we would have to add in our own version of events extrapolated from a mere scrap. From my (admittedly strict) opinion, that makes the story of Andróg's survival an unworkable (for us) planned change, even if it was a change Tolkien seriously considered later. Option 1 would be acceptable to me, but it is rather ambiguous and leaves room for confusion. Of course, one ancient scholar's interpretation of an event could differ from another scholars; the difference between"Andróg survived" and "Andróg died shortly thereafter" could well be compared to the difference between a scholar who notes "the enemy had 900 men" and the scholar who says that "the enemy had 1000 soldiers."

03-12-2009, 01:10 PM	#62
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	I would just like to point out that I did not read the line originally as referring to Andróg's survival, but that could be just because I was already so familiar with the story of his death that I didn't consider it. It doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd say it. And actually, I have begun to have my doubts about Andróg's healing occurring during the raid. In CoH, Christopher Tolkien puts it at a later date. I must assume he had some reason for doing so, so we must take into account that that version of the healing may be a later one, as in UT he states that there were in fact many versions of the healing. That said, I do believe we need to retain the winter raid, even if the healing is moved.

03-23-2009, 07:12 PM	#67
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	Hmm. That's not bad. (though still ambiguous!) I agree with point a) and point b) as well.

03-25-2009, 02:04 PM	#69
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,720	I considered removing 'dying' myself, but then the sentence looks very ode to me. Any replacement would be inventing. And why should it not have been Húrins blow that killed and the Arrow that stilled the dwarve. (Soryy for the bad wordplay, I couzldn't resist.) Respectfully Findegil

03-25-2009, 02:24 PM	#70
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	"Dying" doesn't mean "dead." It's possible that the blow would have killed him, but it was the arrow in fact. I think we should leave it with as little tampering as possible.

03-25-2009, 02:57 PM	#71
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	All right, I'm convinced. I think we've finally come to an agreement on all these points.

03-26-2009, 05:48 AM	#72
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,720	Okay, since we are done with Andróg and Mîm now, I will incooperate the changes we agreed on. What is left from the discussion before, are the part of the Lay included in the earlier Narn by me and disputed half-heartedly by Aiwendil. Form the arguments given it seems to me that we are here on the borderline of our principals. In such a case the input form more people is highly desired. Gondowe told us in an other thread, that our work confinced him to take up parts of the Lay in his own version, but he did not tell if that counts also for the earlier part of the Narn. So please Maedhros, Aran, Gondowe and who ever else is reading occasionly here, speak up and help us decied what to do. Respectfully Findegil

03-26-2009, 01:45 PM	#73
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	It seems to me that the Lay was largely displaced by the Narn. And it cannot be thought to be the "Lay" Ælfwine (or Bilbo) translated either, as many of its details do not match the Narn. Even when it does match and provides more detail, I hesitate in using it, because Tolkien seems to have thought most of the Narn to be finalized. (At least, as final as any of his works ever got!)

03-26-2009, 05:26 PM	#74
gondowe Wight Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 246	In my old work in the Narn i had token the old lay to have a body for the pats of dor Cuarthol to the history of túrin in Nargothrond. And this is what I want to do now, combine the text in TCoH (that is of the Silm77) of this part with this my old text, as prose of course. So we have the picture of Ivrin, and nargothrond and have a less schematical body of text in the Taur -nu fuin scenes with Beleg and Gwindor. I´m going to maintain the healing of the hurts of Beleg in Doriath ( not in bar-en-danwedh). I did´nt take more material from other parts, I think the Narn is overall As an appendix I have a chapter called The Wanderings of Hurin, edited with the end taken from the Tale of Turambar, mantaining the prophecy of Mormegil that stands well with the end of the QS and the second P of Mandos. Greetings

04-08-2009, 03:10 AM	#76
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,720	I can see the point of the argument of course. It is just that I do not agree fully to it. Especially when the portions of the Lay that I used replace portions of the Narn that read like summary of the Lay. Let us look at the cases in turn: NA-EX-25.02: We skip "he[Morgoth] sought to daunt him[Húrin] with his eyes. But Húrin could not yet be daunted, and he defied Morgoth. Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him,". Exactly the same story comes along in the Lay more fully told. NA-EX-25.06 & NA-EX-25.12: We skip: "at last, weary and haggard, they reached the confines of Doriath. But there they became bewildered, and were enmeshed in the mazes of the Queen, and wandered lost amid the pathless trees, until all their food was spent. There they came near to death, for winter came cold from the North; but not so light was Túrin's doom. Even as they lay in despair they heard a horn sounded. Beleg the Strongbow was hunting in that region, for he dwelt ever upon the marches of Doriath, and he was the greatest woodsman of those days. He heard their cries and came to them, and when he had given them food and drink he learned their names and whence they came, and he was filled with wonder and pity." Which again what we have in the Lay elobarted. NA-EX-27.04: Skipt are: "Then many wondered, saying: ‘Can the spirit of Hador or of Galdor the Tall return from death; or has Húrin of Hithlum escaped indeed from the pits of Angband?’ One only was mightier in arms among the march-wardens of Thingol at that time than Túrin, and that was Beleg Cúthalion; and Beleg and Túrin were companions in every peril, and walked far and wide in the wild woods together." Which again what is told in the protion of the Lay that I added. Now your argument is that Tolkien did not use the details of the Lay by propose. But I am not so sure about this. I think we have no evidence that he acctually had the Lay infront of him composing the Narn, and this, I think, would be a needed to be sure that Tolkien found the details not fiting in the later story (for what ever reason). My impression is that Tolkien wrote the Narn based on his memory and the shorter text he had writen to fit the different versions of The Silmarillion, the Annals and probably his plot sysnopsis. In such a work parts that were told elaborated to his satisfaction before hand would probably catch his mind less then spots that he had not jet told in great maner, or were he felt that a change was needed. I think that once you have told the part fully to your satisfaction the (motion-)picture is definied in your mind and you might be able to recapture it for yourself with only a fiew words. But if you have to work out the secne for yourself you will for sure need more words and therewith transport the scene better to a reader unfamillar with it. If we could find some internal reasons to doubt the valibity of the scenes in the portions of the Lay I added, I would agree that we can not use them. But the outer reason that we have a shorter version in later writen fully told story does not fully convince me. Respectfully Findegil

04-08-2009, 11:32 AM	#77
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	But you see, I don't think Tolkien need even have rejected the details. He just left them out. He told the story one way in the Lay, and another in the Narn. Apparently, he thought the Narn passages sufficient. He was not trying to relate the whole story in all its detail, he was trying to relate the story as it was formed in that particular text. For instance, the Annals of Aman and the Quenta Silmarillion are parallel often, but Tolkien put details in one that were not in the other. This is not because he rejected the details, or even because he thought that they should be left out. It is simply because they were different documents.

04-08-2009, 11:42 AM	#78
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,720	But we do not try to creat the Narn as Tolkien would have written it. Our goal is to tell the story of Middle-Earth in the most possible detailed, 'canon' friendly version. With this goal I don't think it is enough that Tolkien told the story without this details in his latest version of the Narn. Respectfully Findegil

04-08-2009, 01:12 PM	#79
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	Perhaps. I personally don't find it justified, but I don't think it's a great crime either. I would prefer to make a Narn and re-write the Lay, to keep them separate, but perhaps that's too much.

04-08-2009, 10:48 PM	#80
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	I think there are three distinct arguments being made by Aran and me: The Canonical concern: Details omitted from the Lay may have been rejected. The Literary concern: Introducing excerpts from the Lay mars the cohesive narrative of the Narn. The Textual concern: The Narn and the Lay represent different texts within Middle-earth that should not be mixed. The Textual argument is, in my opinion, not really a valid one within the context of this project, since we are not making a 'veritable' Narn i Chin Hurin; that is, we're not claiming that the text we produce actually represents the text written by Dirhaval. I would further argue that the Narn and the Lay should not actually be considered distinct intra-Middle-earth documents, but rather that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he intended it as a replacement for the Lay. The Literary argument is stronger, I think, but again it's not compelling. Granting that the additions detract from the literary value of the Narn (which is debatable), one could argue that our goal is not a text of literary value; rather, it's a text telling the 'true' history of Arda as fully as possible. Now, there has historically been a certain tension inherent in the project between the literary view and the 'true history' view (and I'm sure if Lindil were around he'd argue eloquently in favour of the former). But at least this throws doubt on the argument that the Canonically valid portions of the Narn cannot be altered or added to because they represent Tolkien's finished text (though I admit the argument does have some force for me personally). We're left with the Canonical argument which at the very least is clearly relevant. But Findegil counter-argues rather persuasively that the further details found in these portions of the Lay are relatively few and that they seem to make explicit things passed over quickly in the Narn, rather than to add any new substance. Of course, for those very reasons, one could ask whether anything is really to be gained by adding them. If we view them simply as longer-winded ways of saying what's already less explicitly said in the Narn, then adding them adds nothing of substance to the text (one could argue that it adds something of literary quality to the text, but this is of course question-begging). Not really a critical issue in the end, but this is proving (to me at least) a somewhat vexing question. I remain ambivalent (which I know is not very helpful, but so it goes).