[Aiwendil]

Avranc should be changed to Daruin per WH note 55

RD-EX-02

<WH, Note 54, Text 2 At the Taeglin crossing they {fall}fell in with Asgon, who {has}had heard rumour of the wild deeds in Brethil, and of Húrin's coming, and {are}had now been venturing back into the land to seek him.

I think perhaps that ". . . and was now venturing back . . ." would sound more natural.

RD-EX-04

<WH, Note 54, Text 1 {Asgorn they choose }[Asgon] was chosen for captain but he {treats}treated Húrin as lord, and {does}did as he {will}wanted.

We could stick closer to the text with:

{Asgorn}[Asgon] they {choose} chose for captain but he {treats}treated Húrin as lord, and {does}did as he {will}willed.

RD-EX-05

<WH, Year 501 of The Grey Annals Of the wanderings of Húrin [and his man] there is no tale told, until {he}they came at last {late in this year} to Nargothrond.

Maedhros has noted the mistake "man" for "men".

I understand the deletion of "late in this year" because we are taking it out of the context of the annals - but couldn't we retain it by making it "late in the year"? Thus:

<WH, Year 501 of The Grey Annals Of the wanderings of Húrin [and his men] there is no tale told, until {he}they came at last late in {this} the year to Nargothrond.

RD-EX-06

and Húrin knew <editorial addition same of> what had befallen there.

Clearly it should be "some of". But I don't think I understand the need for this editorial addition.

RD-EX-08

<TT Now therefore when {those Elves}[Húrin and his following] approached the dwarf stood before the doors of the cave that was once the abode of {Galweg}[Guilin], and he cried: ‘What will ye with me, O outlaws of the hills?'>

We could simply change Elves to Men to stay closer to the text:

<TT Now therefore when those {Elves} [Men] approached the dwarf stood before the doors of the cave that was once the abode of {Galweg}[Guilin], and he cried: ‘What will ye with me, O outlaws of the hills?'>

Why is "Galweg" changed to "Guilin"? Galweg was Failivrin's father, not Gwindor's. Of course now her father is Orodreth; I would replace Galweg with Orodreth.

RD-EX-08 to EX-10:

I don't think the sequence of dialogue quite works. Hurin's "we come to take what is not thine" seems like it ought to follow directly from Mim's "what will ye with me, O outlaws of the hills?" Perhaps we could merge RD-EX-09 with RD-EX-10:

<TT But {Úrin}[Húrin] answered: ‘We come to take what is not thine. <QS77 Who are you, that would hinder me from entering the house of Finrod Felagund?'

§4a (§275) QS77 Then the Dwarf answered: 'I am Mîm; and before the proud ones came from over the Sea, Dwarves delved the halls of Nulukkizdîn. I have but returned to take what is mine; for I am the last of my people.> 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.'>

Come to think of it, whence derives the dialogue from QS77? I don't have all the books at hand, but I can't think of a source. Did Christopher invent it? If so, we might just drop it completely and follow the dialogue in TT.

RD-EX-11

{But the folk of Mîm were few}, and the outlaws filled with the lust of the treasure slew {them}him, though Húrin would have stayed them, and at his death Mîm cursed the gold.

I think it would serve the sense better to start a new sentence and to use "but":

But {the folk of Mîm were few, and} the outlaws filled with the lust of the treasure slew {them}him, though Húrin would have stayed them, and at his death Mîm cursed the gold.

I still go back and forth, to be honest (and this is a storyline issue), on whether GA represents a reversion to the story that Hurin killed Mim. But it's a minor point, and one that could easily be changed if we change our minds.

RD-EX-17
Hurin's words here ("Receive thou thy fee . . .") were intended to be what he said immediately upon revealing the treasure. It doesn't work to first use his words from TT and to simply follow them with the equivalent words form QS77. Also the words "where Finrod thy kinsman left it behind him . . ." don't seem to work when the treasure is no longer just the Nauglamir (I think these are Christopher's invention, though I could be wrong). Perhaps:

§12 (§284) Then Húrin bade cast it all at the feet of Thingol, RD-EX-15 <TTuncovering it so that all that court were dazzled and amazed – but {Úrin}[Húrin]'s men understood now what was forward and RD-EX-16 <editorial addition many> were little pleased. RD-EX-17 <QS77 ‘Receive thou thy fee,' he cried, 'for thy fair keeping of my children and my wife! For this is the {Nauglamír}[the hoard of Glaurung], whose {name}[fame] is known to many among Elves and Men,> bought by the death of {Nienori}[Nienor] with the blood of Túrin slayer of the worm. Take it, O craven king, and be glad that some Men be brave to win thee riches.'>

I altered "treasure" to "hoard" to match more closely the equivalent words in TT.

Also, I don't understand the need for the change "name" > "fame".

§15 (§286) Yet Thingol would not take the hoard, and long he {bore}had bornewith Húrin; but now when Húrin scorned him again,

This piece is a bit problematic. I see the purpose of your changes: to alter it so that it is describing, in the pluperfect, what has just passed. But if it does so and nothing more I see no reason to keep it. Why not just:

§15 (§286) {Yet Thingol would not take the hoard, and long he bore with Húrin; but Húrin scorned him}, RD-EX-18 <TTThen were {Úrin}[Húrin]'s words more than {Tinwelint}[Thingol] could endure, and he said: ‘What meanest thou, child of Men, . . .

Other than that, everything in this section looks good to me.