Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering

[Aiwendil]

Aran wrote:

1. This is a small thing, but the editorial bridge must either go or be altered, because Tolkien stressed at least twice that the Narns were not "sung."

Very much agreed.

2. This is more major. How can we justify having this portion of the Lay at all? After all, the later conceptions of the lay ended before the Wanderings of Húrin! I don't see where this fragment comes in.

Interesting question. Of course, if we remove the editorial bridge then we no longer claim that the lines of alliterative verse are an excerpt from the Lay of the Children of Hurin. They could just be an account of Mim's death, with no more 'in-universe' existence than our prose narratives.

But I imagine it very likely that there was a lay that told of Hurin's visit to Nargothrond. For one thing, I find it remarkable that the 'Atanatarion' would cover all the later tales of Beleriand with the sole exception of the Ruin of Doriath. More convincingly, Tolkien called 'The Wanderings of Hurin' the link to 'Sigil Elu-naeth', 'The Necklace of the Woe of Thingol'. Now, we don't know that the tale of 'Sigil Elu-naeth' was a 'Narn' in the same meter as the Narn i Chin Hurin, but it's at least plausible that it was, and that our excerpt comes from that lay.

Personally, I imagine the 'Narn e'Rach Morgoth' to consist of two parts, the 'Narn i Chin Hurin' and the 'Narn Sigil Elu-naeth', just as the 'Narn en-El' consists of 'Narn e-Dant Gondolin' and 'Narn Orthad en-El'. But of course this is just my own fancy.

[gondowe]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Personally, I imagine the 'Narn e'Rach Morgoth' to consist of two parts, the 'Narn i Chin Hurin' and the 'Narn Sigil Elu-naeth', just as the 'Narn en-El' consists of 'Narn e-Dant Gondolin' and 'Narn Orthad en-El'. But of course this is just my own fancy.

I'm agreed with you, the idea comes possibly from the ancient LT T of Tinuviel ,TT, T Nauglfring, FoG and T of Earendel. But it is not clear what was the last idea of JRRT, because apart from the sentence published in Myths Transf, with the Atanatarion there is a sentence (I don't remember where) that the great tales must be four. Which is the fourth Sigil elu naeth? or Narn en-el?
When I worked on the final chapter and divided in two, I consider in include it after the narn Gondolin, but it's difficult, and still doubt.

Greetings

[Findegil]

First to the text:

'traitorous' sounds by itsself a bit blocky but it alliterates nicely.

I understand why 'trunk' is not good in line 696, but couldn't we use 'beech' from line 696 in line 699?

The editorial bridge is gone, save the closing phrase of Húrins direct speech. The 'singing' in these phrases must be contrilled in the others. Since Aiwendil put the in question generally, I will to have to have a look at them any way.


'Narn Sigil Elu-naeth' as of the Atanatarion: Seem not like a fancy to me but a nice theory. It explains why in the 'Narn i·Chîn Húrin' Húrins further actions are not told.
So the overall structer might have looked like this:

ATANATÁRION
.Narn Beren ion Barahir or Narn e·Dinúviel
.Narn e·mbar Hador
..Narn e·'Rach Morgoth
...Narn i·Chîn Húrin
...Narn Sigil Elu-naeth
..Narn en·Êl
...Narn e·Dant Gondolin
...Narn Orthad en·Êl

Nice, but the more I look at this the more I can understand what dounted the old Professor. If we agree on this I will have to look in to the chapter structer of 'Translation from the Elvish', if it changes anything there.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

I understand why 'trunk' is not good in line 696, but couldn't we use 'beech' from line 696 in line 699?

Good idea! I think we can.

[Aiwendil]

A very small thing I just noticed, but might as well point it out before I forget.

NA-TI-15.5:

<NA; Note 10 Then Algund, the old outlaw who had fled down Sirion from the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, said{ that Túrin}/: ‘Your/ eyes {had}/have/ long reminded {him}/me/ of another whom {he}/I/ could not recall, and{ that} now {he}/I/ knew {him}/you/ for the son of Húrin.

'Knew' should be 'know':

<NA; Note 10 Then Algund, the old outlaw who had fled down Sirion from the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, said{ that Túrin}/: ‘Your/ eyes {had}/have/ long reminded {him}/me/ of another whom {he}/I/ could not recall, and{ that} now {he}/I/ {knew}/know/ {him}/you/ for the son of Húrin.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Originally Posted by Findegil

I understand why 'trunk' is not good in line 696, but couldn't we use 'beech' from line 696 in line 699?

I personally would rather not. Why loose the effect of the full alliteration when not necessary? It could be also argued that the fact of the tree being a beech was significant due to the fact that the death originally occurred in Doriath, where beeches seem to have been held in high esteem, if not revered. Perhaps it is even so suggestive of Doriath that it needs to go?

[Aiwendil]

Well, 'tree'/'trunk' doesn't alliterate in line 699 so that shouldn't be an issue. But you may have a point about the beech being tied to the earlier location of the scene. Beeches are apparently common in and around Doriath but I don't recall any references to them near Nargothrond. Of course, that's not to say that they couldn't have been there.

[Aiwendil]

A small thing I just noticed: At NA-EX-21 the word 'Enfeng' ('Longbeards') appears several times for the Dwarves of Belegost. Since it was later decided that the Longbeards were Durin's folk from Khazad-dum and not the Dwarves of Belegost, this must be changed. I think we can simply replace it with 'Dwarves' in this case.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Well, 'tree'/'trunk' doesn't alliterate in line 699 so that shouldn't be an issue.

I feel so stupid. I must have not been thinking when I said that. Oh, well. You're absolutely right.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

A small thing I just noticed: At NA-EX-21 the word 'Enfeng' ('Longbeards') appears several times for the Dwarves of Belegost. Since it was later decided that the Longbeards were Durin's folk from Khazad-dum and not the Dwarves of Belegost, this must be changed. I think we can simply replace it with 'Dwarves' in this case.

This brings up an interesting point. Why can't the Ennfeng/Enfeng (either spelling is correct, technically) have been the Dwarves of both Khazad-dûm and Belegost? If they were related to Dúrin's folk, "friendliest to the Elves," it might help explain why they didn't participate in the later attack on Doriath.