[Aiwendil]

Maedhros wrote:

I don't see a contradiction or a the need for a rewrite of the Narn with the fact that Gil-Galad being in Nargothrond when Túrin arrives. If Gil-Galad were not to be mentioned in the Narn, it does not means that he was not there and that he didn't escaped as the note in the Parentage of Gil-Galad suggests. The date could well be 495.

I have a very hard time believing that Gil-Galad could have been at Nargothrond during Turin's stay and not even be mentioned in the Narn. It would be like saying that Turgon had a son who was simply not mentioned during the Fall of Gondolin.

And how would you alter the narrative concerning the Battle of Tumhalad so that Gil-Galad could escape?

Then, how would you explain the fact that he went to the havens, which were now deserted save for Cirdan's "foothold" there (whatever that may be), and took up residence there, apparently alone?

It just seems to me that the proposal wherein Gil-Galad is in Nargothrond until 495, then goes to the havens and remains there until the attack of the Feanorians, requires too much justification and invention.

I think that the notes seems to imply that Gil-Galad would have escaped the Fall of Nargothrond and eventually came to the Mouths of Sirion.

Certainly, the word "escaped" can be interpreted as referring to the Fall of Nargothrond. But need it be taken that specifically? Surely it could simply mean that it so happened that Gil-Galad was no longer in Nargothrond when it was attacked, and thus escaped the sack.

We have the fact that the 456 travel of Gil-Galad to the Havens was rejected

It's not quite that simple. We have a reference to Gil-Galad, son of Fingon, being sent to the havens in 456. We have the later rejection of Fingon as his father. Does this amount to a rejection of 456? Certainly it casts that date in doubt. But it is not at all equivelant to a note that states "Gil-Galad was not sent to the havens in 456".

Also we have to remember that the Narn was written ca. 1950, while the Shibboleth was written ca. 1968

Yes, but the Narn (and associated GA material) is the latest narrative we have for Turin, so if some proposed changes cannot be made to fit into it then they must be rejected.

Is there is a principle that goes against using the late not of JRRT?

I think that there are really two questions here. One regards the interpretation of the note. Both the "escaped" and "Mouths of Sirion" bits are vague - they can each be interpreted either strictly (he was at Nargothrond in 495 and escaped; he actually dwelt on the mainland) or loosely (events contrived it such that he was not in Nargothrond when it was attacked; he was with Cirdan on Balar but with a "foothold" on the mainland, etc.).

The other question revolves around principle 2b. Even if it were clearly said in the note that Gil-Galad remained in Nargothrond until 495, then escaped the sack, and then lived at the mouths of Sirion but not on Balar until the Feanorian attack, is that a change that can actually be implemented, or is it merely a proposed change that cannot be fit with the existing narratives? I have given the reasons for which I think that it would pose a serious problem for the Narn and that it would leave a crucial plot point (Gil-Galad's dwelling at the havens) unexplained. I also think that the emendations to the Earendil story that Findegil has proposed are quite risky.

Petty Dwarf wrote:

I always accepted the latter meaning of the term Quendi "The Speakers" as all elvenfolk, including the Avari, as per Quendi and Eldar. I understood the significence of "the Quendi" here to mean "the Vanyar".

I had misunderstood this point. You are right. "Quendi" from QS refers to the first kindred of the Elves. It should be changed to "Vanyar".

I'm not sure. While it is most probable that it was a slip, we have to see that the typescript is certainly the later version of it. If JRRT did indeed read that part and did not add Finarfin as the leader of the host of the Noldor, then it could be that he could have changed his mind.

But we are dealing with the last parts of LQ2, where his corrections were fairly erratic and cursory. Remember, he let such things as the founding of Gondolin after the Nirnaeth stand in this typescript.

And there is no reason at all to think that he had the manuscript (on which he had made the correction to "Finarfin") in front of him when he made the cursory corrections to the typescript.

I think these corrections ought to be taken at face value: in one place, he notices the error and corrects it by changing "Ingwiel" to "Finarfin". In another place, he fails to notice the error but makes the unrelated correction of the name "Ingwiel" to "Ingwion".