Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering

[Findegil]

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 Secondary priority is given to the latest ideas found among Tolkien's unpublished texts and letters, except where they: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

[Aiwendil]

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 Secondary priority is given to the latest ideas found among Tolkien's unpublished texts and letters, except where they: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.

A corollary 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.

Well, I suppose I’d argue that the alliterative ‘Turin’ is (in these sections) invalidated by principle 2, as it does not represent Tolkien’s ‘latest ideas’. I do understand where you’re coming from, though, and I suppose one could argue from your side that as long as the earlier material (the lay in this case) does not contradict the later material, it is not invalidated by principle 2, even if the later material contains a full account of Tolkien’s latest ideas.

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.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

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.

[Aiwendil]

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:

. . . proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed.

Indeed, I’m still not completely convinced that even the statement that Andróg survived the battle doesn’t fall into that category.

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).

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

You may be right on Tolkien's decision, I was just pointing out that it's not quite as clear cut as could be hoped, and it might be good to salvage most of A somehow for the sake of added detail.

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.

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:



Indeed, I’m still not completely convinced that even the statement that Andróg survived the battle doesn’t fall into that category.

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).

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.

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.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

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."

[Aiwendil]

Your translation of 'Minlamad thent/estent' agrees with that proposed by Patrick Wynne and Carl Hostetter in their essay 'Three Elvish Verse Modes'.

As I think more about it, it seems clearer to me that 'thent/estent' indicates two possible versions of the name ('minlamad thent' or 'minlamad estent'), as Aran argues, rather than the name being 'minlamad thent/estent'. Wynne and Hofstetter do argue that the latter is a possibility and that 'thent/estent' means something like 'short/short' (other possible verse modes, presumably, being 'short/long', 'long/long', etc.) But if this were the case, I can't understand why two different forms of the word for 'short' would be used. (Unless maybe the difference has to do with lenition? That whole phenomenon is rather obscure to me).

Findegil, I believe you earlier expressed the opinion that the name was intended to be 'minlamad thent/estent' and that these are not variants. Can you offer an argument for this?