**Ruin of Doriath - Pre-Revision speculation/proposal thread**

[Maédhros]

In the older versions the Dwarves had already crossed the girdle by help of treacherous Elves. The function of the hunt was to provide an opportunity for the Dwarves to surprise Thingol with only a small company.
I don't plan to change the function of the hunt, as to make it the way by which the girdle was overcome. I rather would like to use the hunt as an opportunity, for the Dwarves to lure Thingol more easily out of the girdle, since he is already near the borders. It would then in addition have old function to reduce Thingols forces involved in the conflict.
If the girdle should be any protection for Thingol he had to be inside for ever. Thus I think that the tarditional hunt in memory of the wolfhunt was held inside Doriath and the girdle. Since the effect of the girdle had changed, it could not be a wolfhunt - no wolf would be able to cross the girdle, if he was not carrying a Silmaril, which would not happen agian. Thus the hunt in memorian of Beren would be on other wild animals. It would not led Thingol outside the girdle but nearer to the border (Menegroth is nearly in the center of Doriath). Thus the hunt would be a chance for the Dwarves to provocate some rush aktion leding Thingol outside the protection of the girdle with only a small force around him.

This is exactly my way of thinking too. I don't see anything wrong per se in keeping the hunt.

After explaining this, I will go on to explain why I would like to have the treacherous Elves: in TN they were the way to bring the girdle down, but the girdle was in anyway no real protection. These function will be no longer possible. But if (and only if) the hunt is used by the Dwarves for provocing Thingol at this opportunity, than they did need very exact information about the hunt: where exactly and at which time was it lunched. In TN Narsec is recorded to bring exactly that information to Naugladur which he used for his plans. But Nasec is not named as leading the Dwarves through the girdle. These was done by some other treacherous elves. Thus if the hunt is uesd I would like to include Narsecs role but nothing more.

This is really a good point about the treachery of the Elves. Unfortunately for me, I don't see how could there be treacherous elves in Menegroth and have JRRT write so very little about them.
As the characters have evolved as time passed, we know now that the Dwarves in Nogrod had a long tradition with the Elves of Menegroth. Is it not possible that those dwarves could have know about the traditions of the Hunt (where it took place and when) because of their interaction with them. I would not want to see treacherous elves if we can avoid it.

Were is the reason for these changes? Clearly Beren is an adan, but isn't he one of fairest and goodliest of all mankind? And for Thingol it is the same: he is of the Eldar, but that does not make him no Elf. And what are the Maiar of the Blessed Realm other than the spirits divine of Valinor? At best the changes could be stilistic ones.

Ok, they were really changes in style and not substance.

[Aiwendil]

I must say that I am still unsure and have not yet made up my mind concerning the hunt. But the fact that ToY as written simply has the Dwarves invading Doriath, sacking Menegroth, and killing Thingol suggests to me that the whole of the story at this point was changed from Q30. In other words, the ToY version seems to me to contradict the story of the treacherous Elves and Thingol's hunt. Now it's true that the ToY story had the critical flaw that it ignored the Girdle of Melian, and this led Tolkien to the story projected in the note. But I don't see the note as necessarily representing a reversion to the elements of Thingol's hunt and the treacherous Elves.

However, that line of reasoning isn't entirely clear-cut since it depends on the truth of the proposition that ToY contradicts Q30, which is, I suppose, an unclear point.

I suppose the maint point is that, to me anyway, it feels canonically safer not to mention the hunt or the treacherous Elves. Whether that safety is worth dropping those elements is unclear to me.

Certainly, though, the idea that the treacherous Elves aided the Dwarves in luring Thingol outside the border is to some degree fan-fictional. For the function of the treacherous Elves in Q30 was to allow Dwarves in. To keep them and change their function entirely seems too much of a liberty to me. Indeed - one wonders why in such a story the Elves could not have done what they did in Q30 and simply let the Dwarves through the Girdle.

It seems to me far simpler (and as a result, better, at least in the one point) to have Thingol simply hear of the Dwarves' hostile intent and ride forth to war beyond the borders. That follows the note with minimal elaboration. Also, whether Thingol is "lured or induced" from Menegroth or from his hunt seems quite irrelevant with regard to its believability - Thingol is equally foolish for stepping outside the Girdle in either case.

[Findegil]

Aha Aiwendil, I think I begin to undestand your point of view now a bit better.

However, that line of reasoning isn't entirely clear-cut since it depends on the truth of the proposition that ToY contradicts Q30, which is, I suppose, an unclear point.

These proposition seems wrong to me, at least concerning the hunt. If we look at the diferent sources:

TN -> the hunt is mentioned, treacherous Elves are included
S -> the hunt is mentioned, treacherous Elves are included
Q30-> the hunt is mentioned, treacherous Elves are included

AB1 -> the hunt is NOT mentioned, treacherous Elves are included
AB2 -> the hunt is NOT mentioned, treacherous Elves are included
TY -> the hunt is NOT mentioned, treacherous Elves are EXEcluded

Thus the hunt was claerly part of the story when Ab1 and Ab2 where written. These Annals were much fuller than then TY (they were been accompanied by Tale of the Year versions, which we don't have). It seems wrong to me, to execlud the hunt, only because it isn't metioned in TY which Tolkien composed clearly with AB2 or the accompanying Tale of the Year version in front of him.
I see now that this is clearly otherwise for the treacherous Elves. They were included in AB2 and execluded from TY. Thus it seems that Tolkien rejected them. But Maedhros did give us the way to use the hunt without them:

As the characters have evolved as time passed, we know now that the Dwarves in Nogrod had a long tradition with the Elves of Menegroth. Is it not possible that those dwarves could have know about the traditions of the Hunt (where it took place and when) because of their interaction with them.

And so I agree (at last) to scip them from our version.

I suppose the main point is that, to me anyway, it feels canonically safer not to mention the hunt or the treacherous Elves. Whether that safety is worth dropping those elements is unclear to me.

It is clearly the case that the less details we provide, the more canonical-safty we get. But how riscy is it to include the hunt?
In view of the discussion, I think we are all now no longer absolutly sure about this issue. Thus I think we should find at first some common ground:
- Do we all agree that Thingol had not a great host of Sindarin Elves withhim when he was killed?
- If so, can we incooperat that into our version even if the hunt is not used?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Maédhros]

It seems to me far simpler (and as a result, better, at least in the one point) to have Thingol simply hear of the Dwarves' hostile intent and ride forth to war beyond the borders. That follows the note with minimal elaboration. Also, whether Thingol is "lured or induced" from Menegroth or from his hunt seems quite irrelevant with regard to its believability - Thingol is equally foolish for stepping outside the Girdle in either case.

What I don't understand is why can't you envision a story where there is the hunt and not the threacherous elves in it, unless I'm not getting your point.

It is clearly the case that the less details we provide, the more canonical-safty we get. But how riscy is it to include the hunt?
In view of the discussion, I think we are all now no longer absolutly sure about this issue. Thus I think we should find at first some common ground:
- Do we all agree that Thingol had not a great host of Sindarin Elves withhim when he was killed?
- If so, can we incooperat that into our version even if the hunt is not used?

I for one have never doubted about keeping the hunt, but to have some common ground:
I agree that Thingol had not a great host of Sindarin Elves and I do think that we can incorporate them in our plot.

[Aiwendil]

Findegil wrote:

Thus the hunt was claerly part of the story when Ab1 and Ab2 where written. These Annals were much fuller than then TY (they were been accompanied by Tale of the Year versions, which we don't have). It seems wrong to me, to execlud the hunt, only because it isn't metioned in TY which Tolkien composed clearly with AB2 or the accompanying Tale of the Year version in front of him.

That's a very good point. I suppose TY cannot be considered to contradict the hunt.

- Do we all agree that Thingol had not a great host of Sindarin Elves withhim when he was killed?

I don't see that this is necessitated. It's not beyond belief that the Dwarves of Nogrod could defeat the Sindar of Doriath in a straight battle.

Maedhros wrote:

What I don't understand is why can't you envision a story where there is the hunt and not the threacherous elves in it, unless I'm not getting your point.

Oh, I can. The treacherous Elves are indeed a distinct issue from the hunt.

I do not see the hunt as a potential way to make the story that Thingol was lured beyond the Girdle more plausible. As I said, I think it just as plausible that Thingol was lured outside in either case. For me, the decision comes down, very simply, to the question of Tolkien's intention at the time of the note to TY.

But Findegil's point has made me far less sure about TY contradicting the hunt. I still have some reservations; it still seems to me somewhat safer not to include it. But since I'm ambivalent and the two of you are clearly for the hunt, we might as well adopt it.

The treacherous Elves, though, I'm still rather inclined to drop.

[Aiwendil]

Going back a bit:

RD-16 Nauglath (dwarves of Nogrod) to Firebeards per The Peoples of Middle-Earth,

RD-17
Indrafangs (dwarves of Belegost) to Broadbeams per Home 12 see RD-17.

Do we know for certain that the Firebeards were the Dwarves of Nogrod and the Broadbeams those of Belegost? As I recall, the way things are phrased in HoMe XII leaves open the possibility that it was the other way around: Firebeards = Belegost and Broadbeams = Nogrod.

RD-21
Sarnathrod to Sarn Athrad per QS77.

Shouldn't this be Harathrad per a change made on the map and mentioned in "Of Maeglin" in XI?

RD-22
Lamp of Faëry to Silmaril (jewel of Fëanor) per Bolt II.

I don't understand this change.

[Maédhros]

I do not see the hunt as a potential way to make the story that Thingol was lured beyond the Girdle more plausible. As I said, I think it just as plausible that Thingol was lured outside in either case. For me, the decision comes down, very simply, to the question of Tolkien's intention at the time of the note to TY.

But Findegil's point has made me far less sure about TY contradicting the hunt. I still have some reservations; it still seems to me somewhat safer not to include it. But since I'm ambivalent and the two of you are clearly for the hunt, we might as well adopt it.

I see your point now. But throughout all of the stories that Findegil posted before regarding the evolution of the story of the Ruin of Doriath while it is true that it evolved greatly in time, there is no explicit mention that the Hunt was ever abandoned.
The way that I see it is that if we can use the hunt and that it might help us make the transition towards having the opportunity to having Thingol killed by the dwarves then we should do it.

The treacherous Elves, though, I'm still rather inclined to drop.

I have always been in favor of dismissing the elves and we all 3 are in agremeent in that one.

From The War of the Jewels: Of Maeglin

This text then becomes altogether illegible. At the mention of 'the last Ford over Gelion' he added a note that the name Sarn Athrad of this ford must be changed to Harathrad 'South Ford', 'in contrast to the much used northern ford where the river was not yet very swift or deep, nearly due east of Eöl's house (72 miles distant)'; and against Harathrad here he wrote Athrad Daer ('the Great Ford').
On another page the following names are proposed as replacements for Sarn Athrad: 'Athrad i-Nogoth [> Negyth] or Athrad Dhaer, "Ford of the Dwarves" or "Great Ford"'.

I think that you are right about this one.

Do we know for certain that the Firebeards were the Dwarves of Nogrod and the Broadbeams those of Belegost? As I recall, the way things are phrased in HoMe XII leaves open the possibility that it was the other way around: Firebeards = Belegost and Broadbeams = Nogrod.

Yes, as I have read it now it is ambiguous as to which is which so I think that I would rather say dwarves of Nogrod.

Having looked at Of Maeglin, I noticed another name that needs to be changed:

RD-38
Gelion to Duin Dhaer.

On line M at the foot of the map are these pencilled notes (again with the number 71, see p. 187, §30); 'These river-names need revision to etymologizable words. Celon should go. Gelion should be Duin Dhaer.' On these changes see pp. 336-7 and note 10.

Lamp of Faëry to Silmaril (jewel of Fëanor) per Bolt II.

What I meant by this is that the name Faëry no longer applies in the later works of JRRT and since the Lamp of Faëry implies that it is the Silmaril, I thought to use the name Silmaril instead.

I wonder, do we have any other major point of conflict with the storyline?