Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering

[Findegil]

A good enumeratuion, Aiwendil.
I agree that 4 and 5 are too risky.
For option 3 I see no real reason why we have to remove Andvír. Since our rules say we need a reason to reject something, I don't thing that is a good possiblity.
I see your doubts about option 2. When text A postdates the middle of the Narn, which is likely, then we can only change the sentence if it is a an workable palned change of the naritive. And if we think it is a change that is not absoultly necessary it would be a stylistic change, that is not wanted.
Thus I think we are left with option 1.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

For option 3 I see no real reason why we have to remove Andvír. Since our rules say we need a reason to reject something, I don't thing that is a good possiblity.

And we could only have a reason if we decided that Androg's having a son contradicts the Narn. At one time I thought this was the case, but I think you've made a good argument that the dates, ages, and so forth can be made to cohere. So I agree that 3 is probably not the right way to go.

I see your doubts about option 2. When text A postdates the middle of the Narn, which is likely, then we can only change the sentence if it is a an workable palned change of the naritive. And if we think it is a change that is not absoultly necessary it would be a stylistic change, that is not wanted.

That leaves us with the question of whether or not A&D represents a 'projected change' from the story of Androg's death in the Narn. You've correctly pointed out that the statement about Androg's survival is technically true in the Narn. But what do you think of the concern I expressed earlier concerning the intended meaning? To repeat myself:

On Findegil's interpration, while this statement is completely true, the clause 'and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh' would appear to be a bit of a non sequitur. The rest of the sentence is concerned with establishing the credentials of Dirhavel's sources. It is mentioned that Androg is Andvir's father because this explains how Andvir knew details of the story. But why then mention that Androg survived the battle? If, as in the Narn, he died immediately after it, then this statement cannot have any relevance to Andvir's knowledge. On the other hand, if we interpret this last statement to mean that Androg lived a for a significant length of time after the battle, and presumably had communication with Andvir during that time, then it is quite relevant.

I would add that Christopher Tolkien (and indeed each of us) originally read the statement as asserting not just that Androg survived the fighting but that he was not mortally wounded there at all - so this may very well have been what Tolkien meant.

So I think I am for either option 1 or 2, with the above concern being issue that the decision is depends upon. I suppose option 2 may in fact be the way to go if we consider that the risk of including an invalid/contradictory statement outweighs the risk of excluding valid one.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

I favor option 2 more. The reason is that I inherently dislike any non-Tolkien writing being added at all, except where absolutely necessary. Since Tolkien wrote nothing of Andróg's survival anywhere else, that means we would have to add in our own version of events extrapolated from a mere scrap. From my (admittedly strict) opinion, that makes the story of Andróg's survival an unworkable (for us) planned change, even if it was a change Tolkien seriously considered later.

Option 1 would be acceptable to me, but it is rather ambiguous and leaves room for confusion. Of course, one ancient scholar's interpretation of an event could differ from another scholars; the difference between"Andróg survived" and "Andróg died shortly thereafter" could well be compared to the difference between a scholar who notes "the enemy had 900 men" and the scholar who says that "the enemy had 1000 soldiers."

[Findegil]

Aiwendil worte:

On Findegil's interpration, while this statement is completely true, the clause 'and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh' would appear to be a bit of a non sequitur. The rest of the sentence is concerned with establishing the credentials of Dirhavel's sources. It is mentioned that Androg is Andvir's father because this explains how Andvir knew details of the story. But why then mention that Androg survived the battle? If, as in the Narn, he died immediately after it, then this statement cannot have any relevance to Andvir's knowledge. On the other hand, if we interpret this last statement to mean that Androg lived a for a significant length of time after the battle, and presumably had communication with Andvir during that time, then it is quite relevant.

Thinking around three corners I could say that the author of the text wanted to give all the credential he could to Dírhavals sources and thereby had overdone it. By excident or by propose he decievd us to belive at this point that Andvír had communication with Andróg, though we later learn that this is impossible.
It is as well possible that the fact that Andróg did life long enough to free Beleg (which is from the point of the storyteller the reason for his short survival) had some important impact on the father eloborated story of the tradition of the tale that Tolkien had in mind but never write down.

Since that sound very theroetical I will examplify that last point:
Since we have only Beleg and Túrin as long time suviver of the battle and we learn that neither Túrin nor Gwindor revaled much about the time at Amon Rudh, we need someone to who knows details of the fighting to get the story we have. Beleg is the most probable source. To whom did he speak after the battle? We know for sure that he spoke with Gwindor, but he is dead and of tradition as we learn. Now would the son of his rescuer not be a potential communication partner for Beleg? We could either think that Andvír and probably other members of the greater army of Dor-Cúrathol came to Amon Rudh after all signals stop from there or probably Beleg, knowing were Andvír was, and that being in the right direction could have visitied him, to give meassage of the vailant death of his father. Thinking farther in that direction, Andvír must for that storyline not even be a member of Dor-Cúrathols forces at all. He could have lifed in Brethil at that time since Beleg passed that country by when he hunted for the Orcs, and Andvír could have been visitied by his father at some point when Dor-Cúrathol prospered.

I still hesitate between option 1 and 2. But the more I think about it the more option 1 gets the upper hand. I have more then once said that our project must not solve all questions for the reader. If the text does hold a confusing sentence, why not? As long as there are possible conclusions and as long as we did not creat that confusion by our editing, let it stand.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

It sounds like we are close to an agreement; at least the three of us agree it must be option 1 or 2.

Findegil wrote:

Thinking around three corners I could say that the author of the text wanted to give all the credential he could to Dírhavals sources and thereby had overdone it. By excident or by propose he decievd us to belive at this point that Andvír had communication with Andróg, though we later learn that this is impossible.

So you suggest that the author may be deliberately misleading? I admit this is possible, but I think it is a little bit of a stretch. The 'author' of this text is, after all, the modern editor, i.e. Tolkien, is it not? And in any case, since this is a preface to the Narn, any reader who is succesfully misled into thinking that Androg lived for a long time after the battle will find out otherwise in short order.

I also find the possibility of Beleg communicating with Andvir plausible but not entirely convincing - largely because it seems to me that Beleg would have set out after Turin as quickly as possible and would not have made any other stops. Of course, one could imagine that he happened by chance to meet Andvir on the way.

But I keep coming back to the simple fact that it seems everyone who reads the passage in A&D initially and unhesitatingly interprets it to mean that Androg lived for a significant time after the battle. If this is so, does that not suggest that the wording of the passage favors that interpretation? And if that is so, does it not seem likely that this was the meaning Tolkien intended when he wrote it?

I was browsing through some old discussions earlier (since it's been such a long time since I was heavily involved in the project) and I happened upon a quote from Jallanite connected with the discussion of our principles that has perhaps some relevance here. In talking about the cursory LQ2 revisions, Jallanite wrote:

This better indicates that latest idea is not always latest text than trying to word this into the principles.

In other words, the principles compel us to use Tolkien's 'latest ideas' wherever possible, not necessarily his 'latest text'. In the case of Androg's 'survival', while the letter of the text does not contradict the Narn, it may be that the idea Tolkien was trying to express does.

Add to this the fact that if we delete the reference to Androg's survival, we have either deleted something contradictory (which would be good) or deleted something redundant (since it is told later that he lives past the fighting). I think, therefore, that I now lean toward agreeing with Aran that option 2 is the safest.

[Findegil]

Okay, I can live with both option 2 or option 1 thus I would think it is option 2 if no body will come up to complaine about it.

After that is settled, we may come back to connected questions I brought up earlier:

a) When did Andróg got his wound healed by Beleg?
Christopher Tolkien did place it in CoH not at the raid in the winter, which brought Beleg upon the track of the outlaws but in the spring of that year. Christopher Tolkien did not use that winter raid at all. Do we us it? And if so, is this the oportunity for Andróg to get his wound?
b) Which curse does Andróg utter against Mîm?
Christopher Tolkien used in CoH the one with the arrow in the throat. And reading the Narn he gives that version some more wieght their as well.
c) How does Mîm die in the end?
My image from the text of TT was a blow with Húrins fist that felt the old Dwarf. At least it was not with bow and arrow since it was said Húrin 'smite' him. But then we have the Q30 text and last but not least the note in the plot synopsis given in WH, which do not at all mention how Mîm dies.

Aran prefered for a) the winterraid and Andrógs wounding in that, which I all think is the more logical story.
For question b) and c) Aran suggested to use the alternative curse of lacking a bow at need, but finds the version of Mîm death with an arrow in his throut workable. I think that the arrow in the throut has to be taken since it is Tolkiens lasting image of the traitors death. And I can also not see any good connection about the lake of bow and arrow and the secen of Mîms death. Of course a curse must not become true, but that could be used with both curses.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aran e-Godhellim]

I would just like to point out that I did not read the line originally as referring to Andróg's survival, but that could be just because I was already so familiar with the story of his death that I didn't consider it. It doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd say it.

And actually, I have begun to have my doubts about Andróg's healing occurring during the raid. In CoH, Christopher Tolkien puts it at a later date. I must assume he had some reason for doing so, so we must take into account that that version of the healing may be a later one, as in UT he states that there were in fact many versions of the healing.

That said, I do believe we need to retain the winter raid, even if the healing is moved.