Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
03-22-2005, 05:42 PM | #1 | ||||||||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering
This is the first draft of an expaned version ot the Story of Túrin Turambar NA. Our basis text is: Unfinished Tales; part 1; The First Age ; chapter 2: The Narn i Hîn Húrin (Narn). All additions from other sources are marked.
For a easier discussion the text will be devided into three parts: 1. The Fostering of Túrin: Reaching from the intro to the Narn until the end of Dor-Curathol 2. Beleg & Falivirn: Takes the story until the Fall of Nargothrond 3. The End of the Narn Part 1 corrospondes more or less to the part of the Narn given in Unfinished Tales up to the big break at the end of Of Mîm including what is given in the Appendix to the Narn Part 2 does fill the break in the Narn as given in Unfinished Tales. In this part only we will try to take up parts of the old Lay of the Children of Húrin. Part 3 is the End of the Narn as given in Unfinished Tales. And there is not much to add or to change in this part. In addtion one thread will hold the general changes. We have 4 groups of changes: NA-zz: General changes given and discussed in the list below. These changes are taken up in the text, but they are not indicated by "editorial markers" NA-RG-zz: These changes are semi general. They are normaly forced by a change in the nomuclature but could within the lines of a poem that are added not dealt with by simple replacment. The changed nomuclature is listed but not numbered with the general changes below. NA-SL-zz: Changes done to make the storyline fit to the later sources. These editorial markers are also sometimes used when a change was not made that could or should be considered and discussed in view of the stroyline of a later text. NA-TI-zz For text that is takenin from other sources since it was left out in the version given in the Unfinisched Tales. NA-EX-zz For expansions taken from some other source to make the story more detailed. This also includes some changes made in the expansion, and texts takenin which I marked for easier reference. Some conventions of my writing: Normal Text is from the basic text that is mentioned above (when I change the basic-Text it will be mentioned) Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {example} = text that should be deleted [example] = normalised text, normaly only used for general changes <source example> = additions with source information example = text inserted for grammatical or metrical reason /example/ = outline expansion Normally if an inserted text includes the beginning of a new § these is indicated by a missing “>” at the end of the § and a missing “<” at the beginning of the next. Quote:
NA-EX-01: Since we already agreed to use the info given in this passaage, I don’t see any good reason not to use it. NA-EX-02: The name is only given in text A. It might need a linguistical check. NA-SL-01: Since Aelfwine is no longer the trading person, we should deleat all references to English. NA-EX-03: This is only needed if we take up parts from the old “Lay of the Children of Húrin” as I desiere to do. NA-EX-04: I moved the sub-heading since what follows is by our additions much more than only Túrins childhood. Quote:
NA-EX-05: We do not know how this was dealt with inthe original text but in Sill77 the reference of “that battle” is clear from the circumstances but in this place it is not. NA-TI-03: This changes s mentioned in GA. NA-EX-06: This sentence was not in the original Narn version, but I think we should add it. NA-EX-07 - NA-EX-14: Here we start with the incooperation of the material concerning the Fifth Battle. Since the Narn will be the only text in The Translation from the Elvish that does discribe that battle we have to add more then only the battle itself. Therefor I started here with a subheading taken from LQS. The following text is a reconstruction of the text edited by Christopher Tolkien for Sil77 from its original sources incooperated into the Narn were there are some faint hints of that action of Maedhros. NA-EX-15 From this place onward the Narn did return to Túrin and therefore I think here is the apropirate place for this subheading. Quote:
NA-TI-04 & NA-EX-18 - NA-EX-22: In the Narn paper there was here an account of the battle which is mentioned in the Note 2 to the Narn and discribed in the appended note 2 to the Grey Annals. This does corosponds with the chapterstructer I developed (see the thread in the public forum). If we follow this the sub-headings must be changed. But while working closer on the text then I did before, I found some changes in the subheadings of the Narn are in order too (as I have done in the text). The problem with this account of the Battle is that it does contradict all earlier once and does not provide any details of the eastern battle which we have to integrate. At least the story of Azaghâl woundig Glaurung was clearly still present when the Narn was written. I have first recreated the text of the Narn as good as possible and then done what I could with additions from other sources. Thus the course of the battle is based on the Narn version, but we must consider these changed course ot the battle. It might prove to be unworkable. NA-EX-17: See the Table of the house of Haleth and the discussion of the matter in LQS. NA-EX-22.5: This is contradicting the Tale of Berenand Lúthien were it is told that the grave of Finrod was never disspoiled as long as Beleriand stood. I do not know for sure which version is later, but I think it is the one in Beren and Lúthien. NA-EX-23 - NA-EX-25: These are again additions necessary because this is the only text in our worke describing these period of time. NA-EX-26: Here we return tho the Narn and thus this seems the right place for the subheading. Quote:
Quote:
NA-TI-06: As before I think we should take the content of the note into the body of the text. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-27.5: The name needs a checking. As the note 16 gives a lot of variants: “Elsewhere the Sindarin name of the Petty-Dwarves is given as Noegyth Nibin (so in The Silmarillion p. 204) and Nibin-Nogrim. The "high moorlands that rose between the Vales of Sirion and Narog", north-east of Nargothrond (p. 104 above) are more than once referred to as the Moors of the Nibin-noeg (or variants of this name).” NA-EX-27.7: This note also looks a bit as if it was in the original, we must consider it as a footnote to our text. NA-TI-09: I think since Mîm died not with an dart in his throat, it is better to use the alternative cruse. In my mind this form would not refer to Húrins coming to Nargothrond but to Mîm’s capture by the Orcs. But the reference of the cruse is a minor point. Quote:
NA-TI-10: What follows is a wild mixture of text from the appendix of the Narn and the Sil77. I hope it can be follwoed how it is builded. NA-TI-11: I can already hear Aiwendil ask for the original source of this passage. I don’t think we can find it. It is based on Quendi and Eldar but it is heavily edited to make it fitting. We could try to make the same again, but I don’t see why we should invent the wheel a second time. NA-EX-28.5: I found that the info from note 19 should be incooperated and this seemed the right place. In reading it now, I find that the reference to Túrins band and Andróg reads a bit strange. Maybe we can find a beter way to put these passages together. NA-TI-12 - NA-TI-15.7: Belegs arrival must again be build out of many sources. The Sil77 provides the structure of the narrative. NA-EX-29 - NA-EX-36: The Appendix to the Narn gives some further deatils. NA-EX-29: The story of the raid is the best solution we have for Beleg finding them. But here we take at first only the reason for it to emphasys their situation. NA-EX-30: Now here it is time for Andróg to search some food and discover the stair. NA-EX-31 & NA-EX-32: Now here we come to the fated foray and I read the passage so that Andróg was wounded in that foray. NA-EX-33 & NA-EX-34: I think we must decied which version (the camp in the wild or Bar-en-Danwedh we take and delete the other one. NA-EX-35: In accordance to the Appendix to the Narn this bit about the Lemabas must be palced here. NA-EX-36: The healing of the wound is thus associated with the healing of Túrins Man by Beleg in general. NA-EX-37 - NA-EX-40: These are the best sources for the story of Dor-Curathol. The arangement must be discussed and also the details of editing. NA-EX-41: As I put these passages together the revealation of the stair by Andróg is told some what in retrospect, but that was for the moment the best I found. NA-SL-02: It is atested in Aelfwine and Dirhaval that Andróg survied, so we must make a change here. That’s all for part 1 in the moment. Respectfully Findegil |
||||||||||
03-22-2005, 10:24 PM | #2 |
The Kinslayer
|
In NA-TI-01, there are some accents that are missing: Dírhaval, Húrin, Andvír, Rûdh and Túrin.
I noticed that you erased the references to Eressëa and changed it to elves at first and then the plain deletion. I'm not 100% sure that they should be deleted but it seems as the best thing to do. Regarding your work in the Nirnaeth, I think that you did a good job. It is true that trying to make an unifying battle seems difficult because of the diferent versions of the Narn and the Annals. I will post later my alternative.
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
03-24-2005, 03:14 PM | #3 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
A few comments
I had hoped to get further with this, but I might as well post what comments I do have (up to EX-14). NA-TI-01: Two thoughts on using the "Aelfwine and Dirhaval" text: 1. Is the use of first person ("But here I will tell as I may a Tale of Men that Dirhaval of the Havens made . . .") out of keeping with the rest of the project? I suppose one could call this a stylistic matter - however, I think that if our work is supposed to be merely an absolute narrative of events, the "I" should go. Who is "I", anyway? If the Aelfwine story is out, the introduction seems a bit out of place. 2. We must decide whether Andvir mentioned here contradicts the story of Turin and the outlaws as it stands in the Narn and the other late sources. I suppose that if one wants to get technical about it, it is nowhere stated that Androg did not have a son nor that none escaped the battle. But the story as it stands certainly suggests, to me at least, that the defeat of the outlaws was complete: only Beleg, Turin, and Mim survived - because they were, respectively, an Elf, taken alive by the Orcs, and a traitor. I am very hesitant to introduce the point that Andvir somehow survived and letting it stand alongside the latest versions of the battle. Also it would be remarkable that such a full text of the Narn omitted all mention of the fact that Androg had a son who was also in the band. So there are three options here: a. We could decide there is no contradiction after all. b. We could eliminate Andvir. c. We could try to edit the Narn so as to resolve the contradiction in favor of the Andvir story. Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-09: No problem with this, but isn't the source QS37 rather than Q30? NA-EX-12: I wonder whether this is contradicted by GA: Quote:
NA-EX-14: I don't understand this. In Q30 and QS37 Maedhros's "first trial of strength" is not present. Whence comes this text and why do we need it? |
|||||
03-24-2005, 04:32 PM | #4 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
NA-TI-01:
Aiwendils 1. point: I wondered about the first person style here myself. If we decide not to use it that way we could also use the older version of the text instad of reforming the newer version. Aiwendils 2. point: What we used was the information that Mablung did outlife the fall of Doriath and could be interviewed by Dirhaval. The problem with Andvír is even greater: As Christopher Tolkien points out the text is clear that it is not Andvír that survived the battle of the sumit of Amon Rûdh but Andróg himself. From what I have understand in Aelfwine and Dírhaval even the first version of the text is younger than all accounts of the battle we have. Thus I think we have Andróg as the single survivor. And I did introduce that into the text (NA-SL-02). NA-EX-02: From the text and its representation in Aelfwine and Dírhaval Version A and the information in note 3 to that chapter it seems clear to me that the name is "minlamad thent/estent". NA-EX-05: I still think the addtion is neccesary. In GA and in Sil77 the battle of the Orcs against the combined forces of Brethil and Doriath is discriebed just before. But here in the Narn we do not tell about that battle at all. And in our work a full chapter of about 100 pages has gone by since that battle. NA-EX-09: Sorry my mistake. You are right the source is QS37. NA-EX-12: Well, I already halfe agreed to that when I made the text. If we skip this here we must also change the corrosponding sentence in the Lay of Leithian. But it is the saver way to deal with it. NA-EX-14: Sorry my mistake, again. The source is QS37. But that is a minor point. My idea was, that the early victories that the Union of Maedhros achieved were all only false, as it was stated in QS37. Clearly the "first trial of strength" was not present, but the sentence lifted form QS37 shows that the short freedom won by the Union for all Beleriand and even Dorthonion was already present and was deciefing of Morgoth. Respectfully Findegil |
03-30-2005, 11:20 PM | #5 | ||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Looks like I will be going through the text piece by small piece. Further comments up to NA-EX-26:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-21 , -22: I don't understand why sections 231 and 232 of GA have been switched; indeed, it makes senseless the "yet" in "Yet neither by wolf, balrog, nor dragon . . ." Findegil wrote: Quote:
Another general consideration is to what extent we can trust that the QS77 text is an accurate presentation of the Narn text. Christopher tells us that "other features of the story as told in The Silmarillion that are not found in GA are derived from the Narn", and gives a few specific examples. Yet I can't help but to wonder whether any further changes were made. Actually, it would be quite uncharacteristic of his general procedure in the '77 to use a large passage from any text without at least a few modifications. Mister Underhill has noted (some time ago) that the whole element of Gothmog's "troll guard" (which may raise several problems with regard to trolls functioning in sunlight) is found nowhere but in this passage in the '77, which we can only guess comes from the Narn. Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
04-05-2005, 02:40 PM | #6 | |||||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Sorry for the late response, thing are becoming dense in my privat life.
NA-EX-16: Aiwendil posted: Quote:
NA-TI-04: Aiwendil posted: Quote:
NA-EX-18: Okay, I did not think of deleting the sentence. It is a good idea. NA-EX-19: What about this: Quote:
Quote:
But after producing the text as it stands now I don’t think it is impossible to take the course of the battle described in the Narn as a basis. Beside the fact that it is Tolkiens last idea, I think it is in my view better than the old story. In the old story I got the feeling that had Maedhors timing worked, the battle would have had a different result. In the Narn the timing did work, but the forces of Morgoth were so overwhelming that Maedhors planed failed (mostly because of the treachery of the Easterlings). Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
About the problems with the troll-guard: When Húrin killed 70 of them it was night so that does not create a problem. We are told about Trolls, that they were a product of the earlier day when there was no sun-light. Gothmog was also around at that time so it is possible that his guard was a relic of older days, not really much useful in the days of the sun, but still a force of his own that he could use anywhere in the underground kingdom of his master, and during the night also outside of it. Beside that the last stand of Húrin took place near to Taur-nu-Fuin, and I think that in a wood of such a name it might be that Trolls could even move around during the daylight. In conclusion I see the problem but I can’t feel it a good reason to mistrust it origin of the troll-gurad from JRR Tolkien. Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-12: I still hesitate to eliminate the motive of the “treacherous shaft of Curufin remembered by Men” completely. Would it be possible to add it in this weekend form: NA-EX-12<QS The treacherous shaft of Curufin that wounded Beren was remembered among Men. Therefore{ of} the folk of Haleth that dwelt in Brethil{ only the half came forth, and they} went not to join {Maidros}[Maeðros], but came rather to Fingon{ and Turgon} in the West.> Some thoughts of mine to this: The folk of Brethil had to that time not made any alliance to the Elves save only Doriath. Thus Maedhros could have hoped to add them to his force since they were long ago rescued by Caranthir. But with the deeds of Curufin remembered about them they did disobey Maedhros bidding and joined Fingon. So fare for the moment. Respectfully Findegil |
|||||||
04-21-2005, 04:54 PM | #7 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
A few more comments, up to TI-07.5. Sorry I'm moving along with this so slowly.
NA-TI-05: I'm not certain about this. Here is a case where it would really be helpful to have the actual Narn texts instead of just CRT's version. It's possible, after all, that the reason the statement is not in the "final" text is that Tolkien decided against it. I am somewhat inclined to exclude the note to be safe. NA-TI-06: I have less of a reservation about using this note; but I think the placement of it may be awkward. NA-EX-27: I agree that this is not a perfect place for this material; but you are right that it must be included somewhere. This place seems as good as any to me. NA-TI-07: I would rather not include this note. Again, I wish we knew more about this "variant text". But in this case it offers a distinctly different story from the given text. When and to whom Turin reveals his true identity is not a trivial point. I would take the safer course and follow the more authoritative "final text", in the absence of other evidence. NA-TI-07.5: A similar problem. If we knew that the final text given by CRT was in fact Tolkien's final intention, then clearly we would omit the note, leaving the geography what it is in that text, whether it makes sense or not. But of course we don't know that. I suppose I can agree with adding the explication from the note. However, as the emendation stands it is ungrammatical and seems to alter the intended movements: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Aiwendil; 05-29-2005 at 05:59 PM. |
||
04-27-2005, 03:34 AM | #8 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Posted by Aiwendil:
Quote:
NA-EX-27: So we agree on this. NA-TI-05: In this particular case you might be right. Christopher Tolkien said in his forword: Quote:
NA-TI-06: What about this palcement: Quote:
NA-TI-07.5: Reading it again I must say that we should even make the first part past perfect since it is already in retrospect. What does not sweet me in your version is the loss of "remained in the Vale of Sirion". Thus I would suggest: Quote:
Findegil |
||||
09-16-2005, 04:31 PM | #9 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
In answer to post #5 were Aiwendil remarked that he missed some markings of my editing, I have reworked the section in question. I give here therfore the complet battle in full text (I think the text is short enough for such a treatment). Mark that all editings NA-TI-04 to NA-TI-04.8 are based on GA, appended Note 2.
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
09-30-2005, 09:54 AM | #10 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
I am really very sorry for my long absence. I hope that I can get around to looking over more of the changes sometime this weekend.
NA-EX-19: I think we might actually stay closer to the original with: Quote:
NA-EX-21, -22: I'm still unsure about this. The trouble as I see it is that the Narn version is told exclusively from the point of view of the western host. Reading what we are given of the Narn version I do not feel at all sure that Uldor's plot was removed entirely. We have only the indirect evidence that Fingon sees dust rising in the east. There is also something of a minor mystery in the Narn text - though Maedhros sets forth at the right time, he does not fire the beacon. I suppose one could blame this on the second host sent from Angband to attack him - but wasn't the whole point of Maedhros's assault to draw out the forces of Angband, at which time the beacon would be fired? So I still see think it quite possible that Uldor's machinations were retained and simply omitted from the Narn version, which focuses only on the western battle. I suppose, though, that this may not be enough to justify any actual, explicit reference to Uldor's plot. I need to think about this a little bit more. Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
It is only for this reason that I wish we had more tangible proof that the troll-guard are in the Narn text. Ultimately, though, I agree that it is probably best to include them, despite the problems this creates. NA-TI-01b: This version looks good to me. One very minor point - I would delete a comma: Quote:
NA-TI-06: I suppose this placement works. NA-TI-07: Findegil wrote: Quote:
NA-TI-07.5: I guess I'm a little worried here about whether there is a conflict between the "final" version where "it seems necessary to suppose . . . that they remained in the Vale of Sirion" and the "tentative version" wherein "they went away southwards . . . but the men becoming discontented in that "harbourless land", Turin was persuaded to lead them back." It seems to me that the implication in that tentative version is that they did not remain in the Vale of Sirion, but departed southward and later returned to the Vale of Sirion. I would, then, either say simply that they remained in the Vale of Sirion (and exclude the bit where they go south) or say that they went southward (and exlude the claim that they "remained in the Vale of Sirion"). |
|||||
10-01-2005, 06:45 AM | #11 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
I don't mind how slow the project goes on, as long as it still has a chance to go on at all!
NA-EX-19: Aiwendil worte: Quote:
NA-EX-21, -22: The not fired bacon is really a riddle, but the course of the battle is clearly changed in the Narn version. From what we get in the Narn it seems clear to me that Maedhros was not late with his attack. There were no wishpers of treason in the western army. Thus if Uldor's machinations were still present they were not effective in the way they had been in Sil77. On the basis of this I can't see how we could work them in, without creating an entirely new thread in the story. A reason why the beacon never was fired could be that Maedhros was cut of from Dorthonion by the Easterlings of Uldor before he could sent the order to fire it. And afterwards he would not fire it in the hope that Fingon would be save from the disaster of that day when he stayed in Hithlum, not knowing that Fingon was already involved in fights of his own. On the other hand it would not be any great wonder if a bacon fired when Fingon was already fare out on Anfauglith would not be marked by many and not found any mention in the battle description. Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
In the fight of Gothmog and Fingon there is no mention of the troll-guard, thus they were possibly not there. They might have been in the fighting the night before when Fingon was surrounded and hid themselves during the day in some dark place near at hand (Taur-nu-Fuin?), approaching the fight again when the sun went down behind Ered Wethrin. In the The Hobbit the trolls changed into stone exactly when the sun peeped over the rim of the mountains, thus the trolls could stand the dawn, and I suppose the dusk as well. Aiwendil wrote: Quote:
NA-TI-01b, NA-EX-12 & NA-TI-06: So these points are done. NA-TI-07: So what is about using the words of Algund in the place were Túrin takes up the helm. Thus we would get some more material for the rather week Dor-Cúrathol part: Quote:
Could it be that you, Aiwendil, placed the Woodman nearer to the crossing of Taeglin, as I did at first myself? Then a southward movement would clearly lead out of the vale of Sirion. But the map does provide us with a place for the Woodman and the Outlaws that fits all statments in the text, I created, with the sole exception of Túrin twice crossing the road south of the crossing of Taeglin in a journey of only three days. But for that problem it is possible to disagree with Christopher Tolkiens statment "that that they were not far from their previous haunts at the time of the Orc-raid on the homes of the Woodmen". It seems probable that they were much father to the west at that time. Respectfully Findegil |
||||
10-01-2005, 08:59 PM | #12 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
A few more comments for the moment.
NA-TI-08.5: We might as well make this a footnote. NA-EX-27.5: Again, we have "alternate" forms without any indication what their chronological relations are. I can at the moment think of no later source wherein we'd find the name, so I suppose we have no reason to think any form superior to the others. I suppose in that case, it's best to go with "Nibin-noeg". NA-EX-27.7: This also looks okay to me as a footnote. NA-TI-09: I'm not sure that the alternative form of the curse must be used - it's possible that Androg's curse simply didn't come true. It's Dwarves' curses that one is supposed to have to fear, not Mens'! Again, I wish we knew more about the various texts of the Narn and why Christopher used the version he did and called the other an "alternative". I suppose that since we don't have any information that suggests either version to be of higher priority, we may as well use the alternative. NA-TI-11: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On to the previous discussion: NA-EX-19: Ah, I missed that alteration in the sequence of assaults. NA-EX-21, -22: I suppose you're right. NA-TI-07: Good idea; using it there seems to work. NA-TI-07.5: I think you are right. I had been thinking of the "Vale of Sirion" as a smaller region - as, more or less, the area near the confluence of Taeglin and Sirion. But I suppose it makes more sense to think of it as a long valley cut by Sirion all the way down to Andram. Still, I think that the phrasing of the passage as it now stands suggests a contradiction (even though there isn't one); I would rather make it: Quote:
|
|||||
10-02-2005, 03:07 PM | #13 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
NA-TI-08.5, NA-EX-27.7: Both were planed as footnotes. Maybe my editing was not entierly clear in this.
NA-TI-11: Your suggestions is a good deal better then mine. NA-TI-28.5: I dessired to clear the riddle, and this was the only way I could think of doing so. If we retain it at all I would suggest to bring in a bit earlier: Quote:
NA-TI-07.5: I did split use of the note for the reason that it would take some time before the outlaws came the land above Aelin-uial and became discontent their. In addition I find it much better to make Beleg follow them before we tell that they came at least back to the place were Beleg first found their track. Respectfully Findegil |
|
10-04-2005, 01:13 PM | #14 | |||||||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
NA-EX-30:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-TI-15.3 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have become a bit troubled by the curse of Mim upon Androg. If Androg survives the battle, then the curse cannot be fulfilled. But it seems that at the time the curse was written about, it was most certainly intended to be fulfilled. I think there is a strong case for taking the statement that Androg survived as contradicting the curse of Mim. We must decide, then, from among the following: 1. Androg's survival does not contradict the curse. 2. The curse is to be excised from the narrative. 3. Androg's survival must be taken as a projected change that cannot be implemented. Old discussion: NA-EX-28.5: If we retain it, I think this placement is good. But it may not be clear in that position that the statement refers to the time they first came upon Mim. Maybe: Quote:
1. The outlaws remained in the Vale of Sirion 2. The outlaws went south to Aelin-uial and then became discontent and returned. I think we must either follow 1, follow 2, or decide that they are not contradictory and follow both. In other words, as I see it, the statement that they went south must be treated as an indivisble unit; I don't think we'd be justified in taking only part of that version. |
|||||||||||||||
10-04-2005, 05:05 PM | #15 | ||||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
NA-EX-34.5: I think that "... and ... and ..." isn't that good. What about:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-28.5: Your addition is good, even if I do not think it necessary to make it perfectly clear what was meaned. But you seem to have still some doubts about the inclusion? NA-TI-07.5: Posted by Aiwendil: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||||||
10-05-2005, 12:07 PM | #16 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
NA-EX-34.5: Your suggestions looks good.
Findegil wrote: Quote:
Quote:
NA-TI-07.5: Your first suggestion looks good to me. If this section is settled, I'll move on to the next section as soon as I get a chance - possibly tonight but more likely tomorrow or Friday. |
||
10-06-2005, 04:33 PM | #17 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
the Curse on Androg: What a bad argument on my side! That what a bad memory creats! Your suggestions is good, but I think wounded should be used to clear it up ultimatly:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
05-07-2007, 05:11 AM | #18 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Meadhros and Aiwendil, please let me know when it is okay for you that I start posting diffrences between The Children of Húrin and our version of the Narn. What I post might be bad spoilers to your reading of The Children of Húrin.
Also this is a warning to all: If you did not jet finish The Children of Húrin and are not interested knowing beforehand what is diffrent in that book DO NOT READ further in this thread. Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 05-09-2007 at 12:00 AM. |
05-07-2007, 09:13 AM | #19 | |
The Kinslayer
|
Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
|
05-08-2007, 01:24 PM | #20 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Yes, post away by all means.
|
05-15-2007, 01:08 PM | #21 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
First a general lock on the texts. I give here a part of the Appendix of CoH:
Quote:
In general therefore I followed the in my comparison the text and structure of CoH instead of the [b]Narn[B] or the Sil77. Exceptions of this will be mentioned. On exception is the use of 'thou' instead of 'you' etc.. In CoH 'you' is used throughout, but in Unfinished Tales it is attested that this is not the case in the original manuscripts. Therefore where ever we have the information that once there was a 'thou' used in a place I kept that. I have marked all changes that I introduce but I did not give a editing mark with a number to each change because of the great amount of changes. I will also not give here each and every small change of wording, since that would mean giving the text in full which is not appropriate (here). While reading and preparing the text I found a few possible addition from earlier sources that we missed as yet. They will also be given in the following posts. Respectfully Findegil |
|
05-15-2007, 01:32 PM | #22 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thus far for the moment. There is more to come soon. Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 05-17-2007 at 05:59 AM. |
||||
05-17-2007, 08:46 AM | #23 | |||||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Quote:
Quote:
NA-EX-22.7 does change the possition of the headline slightly. NA-EX-25.02 Here we come to the first text from an older source. I found that the Lay did recount the first conversation and the following torment of Húrin in much more elaborted form. Thus it seems fitting for me to insert it here. NA-RG-00.01 'Gods' must go here. I changed the sence but hoped to keep up with the aliteration. NA-EX-25.03 Húrin has no longer 'dark tresses', I hope 'doused' is any good in this place. I am always open for better ideas. NA-RG-00.02 Does Tirion fit in this line? NA-EX-00.03 Exiles is good in sence but otherwise? Quote:
NA-EX-25.05 I found that the yourney of Túrin to Doritah is underrepresentetd in the Narnand in CoH as well. The Lay has a lot more to tell about it. NA-RG-00.05 Here I think the neccessary change to Grithnir does not harm the line. NA-EX-25.06 and NA-EX-25.07 Beren and Lúthein do no longer run over fell and forest. Therefore I tried to change this to the sence that Carcharoth does spread fright over all the land. NA-RG-00.06 I did not finde a good replacement for 'Gnome'. I hope some one has an better idea. NA-RG-00.07 The same here for Hithlum which we must change since Huan did not dwell in Hithlum for any considerable long time to call him 'hound of Hithlum'. NA-RG-00.08 and NA-RG-00.09 'the henchmen' might be to long or does it fit? NA-EX-25.08 Here I tried to incooperate the only sentence from the prosa account that I felt was not covered by the Lay. But I doubt that my solution is good enough. It this worth doing it at all? NA-RG-00.10 I see no problem here. NA-RG-00.11 Again the terible 'Gods'! I hope my solution is not to bad. NA-EX-25.09 and NA-EX-25.10 Beleg is now attestd in the Nirnaeth, so we have to introduce some change here. NA-EX-25.11 Again the warm welcome Beleg gave them is much more elaborated in the poem. NA-RG-00.12 No problem with Noldor here I think. NA-RG-00.13 Can we call Valinor 'the land of good'? Quote:
NA-EX-27.04 I found the description of the warfare of Túrin and Beleg would add to the simple text given in the Narn. NA-RG-00.14 Gorthaur is longer, but I think it still fits. NA-EX-27.05 Since the Glaurung had never have wings I do not understand how these wings came ever to be part of the Helm at all, but we surely must eliminate them. NA-RG-00.15 Thû again. I think it is okay to leave the And out for the longer Gorthauer. NA-EX-27.06 The same replacement as in NA-EX-25.10. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Agian it is enough for the moment, I think. Next will be 'Of Mîm the Dwarf' and 'The Land of Bow and Helm', which will end this part. Respectfully Findegil |
|||||||
05-18-2007, 05:46 PM | #24 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Quote:
NA-EX-27.31 a small add but it brings more inside in Túrins thinking at that time. up to NA-EX-27.77 I have nothing to comment. In NA-EX-27.77 I skipt the finding of the stair by Andróg. The placing in the story when it is really winter seems much beter to me. NA-EX-28.5b I have slightly changed the position of this addition. NA-EX-28.51 'only the hardiest dared stir abroad;' is not in CoH but I find it stilll usefull and Narn seems to alow it. NA-EX-29 to NA-EX-33, NA-EX-34b and NA-TI-15.5 are also not in CoH but we took them from the appendix of the Narn because they add details to the story. Another stop for the moment. Later more. Respectfully Findegil |
|
05-20-2007, 04:30 AM | #25 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Quote:
NA-EX-34.5 to NA-EX-35.1: Quote:
NA-EX-37.2, NA-EX-37.5, NA-EX-38 and NA-TI-18: Mark that all this is skipt and brought in at diffrent positions following CoH. NA-EX-40.3 This passages is not in CoH but it shows what kind of help Nargothrond granted. NA-EX-40.4 From this point the material in [b}CoH[/b] much more elaborate than anything we had have before. It seems therefore best simply to take CoH as the basis text to be edited. (Sorry for all those that have no access to the text for not giving it here in full.) NA-TI-19a Here I used the tricky uternace of the Orc captian about not slaying Túrin. But I have some doubts if this can be done. NA-SL-02b and NA-SL-02.1 Following the intor we used Andróg can not be "mortally" wounded. NA-EX-41b, NA-SL-02 and NA-TI-20: Most of skipt, because it is told much fuller in CoH. I just used the cry of Beleg about the vengenace of the house of Hador. NA-SL-02.2: Again Andróg can not be dead at the end of the battle. NA-EX-42 Okay from here we would start in the next therad normaly, but I think it is better to give the insertion from CoH fully here and discuss also here the further details of Belegs and Andrógs survival. NA-TI-21b this is slightly changed because we have just told about his search for Túrin's body about the slain. NA-EX-42.1 I found this the best opportunity to give the information about Andróg survival. The question why then Beleg goes on the serach for Túrin alone I will discuss in the next part of our Narn editing were I found a nice way to address it inside the text without editorial text. Now I have posted the most tangeld part, in which CoH brought about the greatest amount of changes. All I did is of course open for discussion, so please feel free to disagree with me. Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 09-24-2008 at 07:45 AM. |
||
05-20-2007, 05:25 AM | #26 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Just an after thought: Seeing that we have now Andróg two times heald from deadly wounds of arrows by Beleg this seems a bit strange. If I were completlly free to deal with the text my edditng would run in this line:
- Andróg would curse Mîm to dy with an arrow in his throath. - Andróg would only be wounded at the battle of Amon Ruð, and then heald by Beleg. - Andróg would be a member of Húrins band when he comes to Nargothrond: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
05-27-2007, 03:56 AM | #27 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Interisting enough I found something, to support my idea of Andróg being a member of Húrins Band at Nargothrond. We used it already at the begining of the Narn:
Quote:
As yet this has only be a futtile idea, but since it finds now some support from inside Tolkiens on writings I like to concret the ideas of editing a bit more: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||
09-24-2008, 10:32 AM | #28 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Reading the parts of Andróg as member of Húrins band again I find myself moved to edit parts of it again:
Quote:
Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 09-26-2008 at 03:25 AM. |
|
09-25-2008, 08:42 AM | #29 | |||
The Kinslayer
|
Wow, it been a long time since I posted in the project. I need to ask a question first with the generalities of the text.
Since the new Children of Húrin, our base text for the story of Túrin are the Narn found in Unfinished Tales and what we have in the Published Silmarillion. Now that we have a new Narn, besides the small differences from the previous sources does it affects our base text. For example, if we have the same two parragraphs from both the Sil77 and the newNarn, should we present it belonging to which one? Ok, now to begin About NA-TI-02b. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
|||
09-26-2008, 02:15 AM | #30 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Basis text: If we would start from scratch right now we would for sure take CoH as our basis for the editing process. But as it is we have already done a lot with the Narn of the Unfinished Tales as basic text. Therefore what I did so fare was editing our text by introducing all diffrences I observed to CoH. This leads often to very confusing editings. If we have agreed of how the text should read in the end, I will undertake the task of 'cleaning' the editing. That means I will probably change the basic text and skip all preliminary editing. But for the moment I found it necessary to dokument how we had come to the text as it was before CoH.
Only in one point the are the text from Unfinished Tales and GA more reliable then the text from CoH and that is the use of the old personal pronome 'thou'. Na-TI-02b: My appologies for not been as clear as needed. In CoH the battle in which Húrin and Hour are driven ofer the Brithiach is not a specific one but one of a series of skirmishs at the nothern border of Brethil. In GA (and following this source in Sil77) it is a specially mentioned battle that came to pass after the capture of Tol Sirion by Sauron because the Orcs drove into Beleriand. The question is which source we follow. Or to be more specific do we mention the graeter geo-politic meaning of the fights. CoH has the higher priority as a source text, but GA provides more information. I scipt the text of GA and toke CoH instaed, but that could be discussed. I did incooperat the information about that battle from GA into the chapter Of the Ruin of Beleriand (which is not jet here in the forum) and found it textually difficult to repeat it here or to back-reference the reader. Therefore the solution in CoH to make the fight in which Húrin and Huor are lost unspecific worked very good for me. Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 09-26-2008 at 02:20 AM. |
09-26-2008, 03:14 AM | #31 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
So now some comments about the changes I introduced in posting #28:
NA-SL-02.1 Can we say ‘wounded to the death’ if the object of that phrase does in the event not died? NA-EX-41b I just cleaned the editing. NA-EX-41.15 Here I mixed the texts a bit more to make it more fluent. NA-EX-42.1b, NA-EX-36b & NA-EX44bThis gives a good reason for Andróg survival. The editing is of course fetching text from here and there, but due to my approach by taking up Andróg survival from Aelfwine & Dírhaval A we have to simplify the matter by deleting the other arrow-wound received during the foray in spring. Thus what was said at this point can be used here if it fits the scene as it does in my opinion. Especially the continued dislike and distrust comes in handy since it explains why Beleg hunted alone for the Orcs that had captured Túrin. That is also the reason why I put the part of the Lay at this position. In addition I re-entered the passage were we are told that the Orcs did tarried and hunted on the road while Beleg did not sleep. It makes Belegs catching up much more probable. RD-EX-02.7b RD-EX-03.1b This change follows the discussion about the Woodmen. The conclusion was that most probably the Woodmen had all fled to Brethil but were there not fully integrated fugitives that had no land of their own. RD-EX-02.5b I changed the position of the sub-chapter heading slightly. Now the heading is followed by a more narrated part before it changes back to direct speech when we arrive at Nargothrond. That seemed to me very fitting for the start of a sub-chapter. RD-EX-05.3 Here do I introduce the gathering of outlaws from the old sources, to get a good opportunity for Andróg to come into Húrins followers. RD-EX-11.51 At least we come to the reason we have for all this changes. We have Andróg now here in the Band of Húrin and he is so much angered by Mîm’s ‘It will bite again’ that he makes his own curse true by shooting the dying dwarf through his throat. It is now my opinion that this scene of the betrayer of Túrin’s Band killed with an arrow in his throat, was a lasting image in Tolkiens mind. It came up first in the Lay were it was Ban, Bors son, who broke the tryst and was killed then by an random flying shaft. Then Tolkien developed the story of Túrin further by introducing Mîm who had beforehand only been the warden of the Dragon hoard. But the image of the death of traitor survived since it is foretold by the curse of Andróg. Since Tolkien never touched the death of Mîm again after the Lost Tales we have Andrógs curse as the source text with highest priority. But of course curses must not always become true (even so they do very oft in Middle-Earth) and we have two competing versions of the curse. Now since we have established Andróg as the communicator of the story of Túrins years between his flight from Doritah and the battle of Amon Rudh and, as I believe, about the ‘further dealings of Húrin and Mîm’, we should also take up that image of the traitor of Túrin (now Mîm) dying with a shaft in his throat. Since the Lay is the only source for it, that is in my view what we have to take. Respectfully Findegil |
03-01-2009, 12:40 PM | #32 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
With the sincerest apologies for my long absence, I offer some comments on the proposed changes. Overall, I think you've done a very nice job of integrating the new information from CoH.
Quote:
I take it, though, that we decided to keep the account of the Orc attack on Brethil, when Beleg comes to their aid (s. 160 in GA) in the 'Ruin of Beleriand' chapter, thus separating it from the account of Hurin and Huor (is that right?). I now wonder whether this is advisable. Of course, this is done in the 'Narn', but that is in the context of a stand-alone tale, not a chapter in a longer Silmarillion. The impression I get from the texts, at any rate, is that the attack in which Hurin and Huor were lost always remained identified with the attack GA section 160 - in other words that it remained this 'special' battle with the Orcs - and that the more generalized reference in CoH is made simply to compress this early portion of the work. NA-EX-25.02: I'm very hesitant to use the alliterative lay here (and subsequently), though I appreciate that you have done a lot of nice work with the verse. This is, after all, one of the relatively few places where we have a late, complete 'long version' by Tolkien, and in such cases I think that generally the policy should be (and has been) not to insert earlier material for the sole purpose of elaboration. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I must give the whole matter of Androg some thought before I comment on the changes and proposals relating to him. |
|||||
03-01-2009, 06:14 PM | #33 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
NA-TI-02b: Since we did as yet not start the discussion of Of the Ruin of Beleriand, we did not decide as a group if that battle will be included in that chapter. But I included it in my proposal for that chapter.
In our earlier version based only on Narn and Sil we included this battle, without any big discussion. In Posting #3 you commented on an inclusion of clearification which battle was meant (NA-EX-05). The text of CoH offered an other way to deal with that issue: To leave it open if Húrin and Hour got lost in the "main" battle between the forces of Angband coming down Sirion and Brethil and Doriath or in a smaller scirmish which took place at that time. Since that seemed better to me than the back reference, I used the text of Coh as I did. NA-EX-25.02: Aiwendil worte: Quote:
Or do you refer to the opening part of the Narn only, which Tolkien finished himself to a high degree? I thought that the inclusion of parts of the poem in the earlier parts of the Narn would help to make the, in my view inascapable, changes between poesy and prosa in the later part more bearable. And I only included parts were the poem has some points of detail to add to the text of CoH and/or Narn. NA-EX-27.25: What is strange to me in that paragrph in CoH is that the reader does not know that beleg will return to Túrin until halfe a page later. Even to the contary: just a view sentences before ion the same page Beleg answeres Túrin that it might be best if that parting would be thier last. So what was the reason for Melain to give him the lembas? to use them in his fight at the north marches? All the passage becomes much more natural if Beleg tells that he will go back to Túrin. NA-TI-15.7: Your rewording is good, but didn't you argue to remove it? I could find any other source either, so porbably we should realy skip it because it is an Christopher Tolkien addition to Sil77. But then, it could also be part of an alternativ Narn fragment. NA-TI-16: In Sill77 it was a questionmark, in CoH it is a fullstop. I agree that a question mark is gramaticaly correct and should be restored. Respectfuly Findegil |
|
03-01-2009, 08:55 PM | #34 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
NA-TI-02b: Okay, thanks for reminding me about this. I think the latest version is good.
Quote:
NA-EX-27.25: I suppose you're right - Melian's gift of lembas makes little sense if Beleg is simply returning to the north-marches, but in CoH there's no suggestion he's going to join Turin. NA-TI-15.7: Yes, I agree we should probably just drop the sentence. |
|
03-02-2009, 07:01 AM | #35 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
NA-EX-25.02, Na-EX-25.06 to Na-EX-25.12 und Na-EX-27.04 to NA-EX-27.06 (the material from the Lay added in the first part of the Narn): So what we discuss about are 4 passages from the Lay. The first is the treatment of Húrin before the talk with Morgoth. The second is the journey to Doriath and the song of Lúthien, the third is the guided entrance to Doriath with the rest at Belegs lodge and the fourth is the praising of Turins powers in the warfare at the marches.
The list is just to make clear for all what we are talking about. It also shows that the aesthetic argument was only a faint support argument and not the reason to add these parts. In each part information are given that are not in the text of the Narn. Some of course are only minor details. But especially the first two seem more substantial to me. I must say that I was not around when the principals of editing the early Tuor were discussed. So I did not recognise that principal at all. But it is a sound one and it worked very well in the Tour text. And I remember that such an argument was brought up before. What I was think about when I added this parts of the poem was the last sentence of our general principles: “A corallary is that we may not disregard any text or note, old idea or projected change, by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles, explicitly or implicitly; that is, we must have a REASON for rejecting something.” This does of course open a wide field of argumentation, since it contradicts in part the meaning of principles 2 made clear by the statement at the beginning of principal 3: “2. Secondary priority is given to the latest ideas found among Tolkien's unpublished texts and letters, except where they: a. violate the published canon without specifically correcting an error or b. are proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed. 3. If no sources that fall under number 2 can be used to form the actual narrative of a section, …” Respectfully Findegil |
03-03-2009, 12:08 PM | #36 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I think a reasonable counter-argument would be that the relevant portions of the lay are contradicted, implicitly, by the Narn. In many cases we must make the difficult judgement of whether a certain detail that appears in an early source but not in a late one was rejected by Tolkien or merely omitted. When the late text we’re dealing with is the Quenta Silmarillion or the Annals, it’s often easy to argue that the detail in question was merely omitted due to compression of the narrative (hence, our retention of the mechanical dragons for example). But here, the late text is the full ‘Narn i Chin Hurin’, the long version of the longest tale of the Elder Days and intended, as we may suppose from ‘Aelfwine and Dirhaval’, as a prose translation of the same primary source that the old lay was supposed to be verse translation of. It seems, then, very reasonable to me to think that when Tolkien omitted a detail that was found in the alliterative lay, it was because he had rejected it. Despite this argument, I’m still of two minds about this and, to be honest, there are some lovely details in the passages of the lay you excerpt. Maybe we need a third opinion on this (Maedhros, if you happen by here, perhaps you could give us your thoughts?) I plan to have a look at all the Androg-related material this evening and will post on that as soon as I’ve looked over it. |
||
03-03-2009, 01:49 PM | #37 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
|
If I may make a suggestion here, I don't think that the two forms of "Aelfwine and Dirhavel" are mutually exclusive. I think it might be best to keep A as a "Translator's Note" and to keep B as the "Preface," since those are essentially their roles. They cannot strictly be two versions of the same note, as one professes to be Tolkien's work, and the other Aelfwine's.
Also, the phrase "Minlamad thent / estent" should probably be dropped, as it doesn't seem to fit the linguistic situation perfectly. You could just say "the form of Elvish verse that was of old particular to the Narn," as that is how Tolkien described it. |
03-04-2009, 02:05 PM | #38 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Aran - Interesting idea. However, I'm hesitant to do this because so much material is repeated in both A and B. Certainly, it's possible for there to be some redundancy between a 'Translator's Note' and a 'Preface', but I think that in this case it seems clear that Tolkien intended B to replace A rather than stand alongside it.
Can you explain your reservations about the name 'minlamad thent/estent'? I'm not aware of any problems with it, though I'm no Sindarin scholar. On Andróg: Well, Findegil, I think you’ve come up with some very intriguing ideas here! Personally, I rather like the idea of Andróg as a member of Hurin’s band. 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. Perhaps if I lay out the inferences and revisions inolved in your proposal I can better make my point: 1. We have to interpret “In this way also the matter of Mîm and his later dealings with Húrin were made clear” to assert that Andróg was a member of Hurin’s band at Nargothrond. 2. We change the ‘Narn’ so that Andróg does not die at Amon Rudh. 3. We move Beleg’s healing of Andróg from the place where it stands in the ‘Narn’ to after the battle. 4. We add to our ‘Ruin of Doriath’ text mention of Andróg being one of Hurin’s band. 5. We change the slayer of Mîm from Hurin to Andróg. 6. We assume (implicitly) that Andróg is killed by an arrow at some future point. When I look at all that’s involved, it seems clear to me that this solution, as nice as it is, is too speculative for us. First of all, I don’t think that point 1 is at all clear-cut. It is certainly a very fascinating statement by Tolkien, and I’m grateful to you for pointing out it’s possible implications. But is Andróg as a member of Hurin’s band really the only way to read it? ‘In this way’ could, I think, be read as referring more generally to what was said before – i.e., that Dirhavel ‘gathered all the tidings and lore that he could of the House of Hador, whether among Men or Elves, remnants and fugitives of Dorlómin, of Nargothrond, or of Doriath.’ Or one could read it as implying that Andvír, rather than Andróg, was with Hurin. Moreover, even if there were no ambiguity in point 1, the implementation of that change in points 2-6 might involve more speculation than we are allowed. In other words, even if we accept that Tolkien decided Andróg was one of Hurin’s followers, I think a good argument could be made that this falls under 2b in our principles: Quote:
You also make an interesting observation about the recurrence of the motif of the traitor to Turin being killed by an arrow. But, though I think this too is an astute observation, what then do we make of the alternative form of Andróg’s curse (‘May he lack a bow at need ere his end’)? Also, there is no suggestion anywhere that Andróg himself is the one who kills the Dwarf, even if we consider Andróg’s curse a ‘source text’ for the death of Mîm (which is a bit of a stretch). So in the end, I think that while your idea itself is great, it is not suitable for our project. On the smaller matter of whether Andróg survives Amon Rudh at all, I think we are in safer territory. I am still not entirely convinced on this point, though. What bothers me is that when it was written, Mîm’s curse was clearly supposed to be fulfilled during the attack on Amon Rudh. Having Andróg survive that battle doesn’t contradict the letter of the curse, but it does retroactively change the import of the curse from what it was when that part of the narrative was written. That’s not necessarily sufficient reason to reject Andróg’s survival, but it at least ought to be considered. If I had to make a decision, I suppose I would vote against the revision that incorporates Andróg into Hurin’s company but for the less drastic revision that has him survive Amon Rudh (in spite of my reservations). |
|
03-04-2009, 02:50 PM | #39 | ||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
|
Quote:
As to "minlamad thent / estent," my primary problem is that it seems to have no sure translation in the later Sindarin. Also, I doubt the form would have been retained as such, especially as Tolkien himself did not use it in B. I will try and look into it more, and see if I can trace it's etymology to anything coherent. In any case, I'd say the surest thing is to simply avoid naming it outright. Quote:
If I may, I suggest that we use the alternate version of Andróg's curse, and note that Mîm "reached about for a weapon, but found none" when Húrin kills him, or something to that effect. Last edited by Aran e-Godhellim; 03-04-2009 at 06:02 PM. Reason: grammar |
||
03-04-2009, 06:06 PM | #40 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
|
Upon further reviewing the linguistic situation of "Minlamad thent / estent," I have changed my mind. It appears to be a name made of both an acceptable form and an uncertain one. Here is my reasoning:
"Minlamad" seems to mean 'first [sound]-echoing,' refering to the alliterative form of the verse. I have come to believe, however, that "thent / estent" is not intended as a real title, but rather is the result of Professor Tolkien being unsure of which form he liked better; "thent" or "estent." Both seem to relate to "thenn," meaning 'short'. This likely refers to the fact that the alliterative verse is typically broken into two balanced, "short" lines. Due to other evidences, I would say that "thent" was probably the form finally chosen. As a final note, it might be appropriate to change "thent" to the plural form "thint." This leaves us with "Minlamad thint" as the Elvish name of alliterative verse. (Or 'Minlamad thent' in unaltered form.) What do you think? EDIT: 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." Last edited by Aran e-Godhellim; 03-04-2009 at 06:15 PM. |
|
|