[Aiwendil]

Findegil wrote:

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:

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.

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:

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!