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

[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?

[Findegil]

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

I don't think so. So we will use option [b]c[{b]:

Therefore gathering new forces in Nogrod FD-SL-18{and in Belegost} they returned at length, FD-SL-20c{ and aided by the treachery of certain Elves on whom the lust of the accursed treasure had fallen} they FD-SL-21a{passed into Doriath secretly. There they} surprised Thingol upon a hunt with but small company of arms and {Thingol was slain} < HoME11; [i]The Tale of The Years[i] {Somehow it must be}[somehow they] contrived [it] that Thingol {is}[was] lured outside {or induced to go to war beyond} his borders and {is}[was] there slain by the Dwarves. Then Melian {departs}[departed], and the girdle being removed Doriath {is}[was] ravaged by the Dwarves.>

RD-16 & RD-17

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.

Agreed. We can finde arguments for both, so we must let it ambiguous.

RD-21 Sarnathrod & Sarn Athrad to Harathrad
Agreed

RD-22 Lamp of Faëry to Silmaril (jewel of Fëanor) per Bolt II.
The blue lamps of the Noldor were discribed later when Beleg meets Gwindor and when Tour meets Arminas and Gelmir. Thus "Lamp of Eldamar" which is an proper update for "Lamp of Faëry" would be missleding in my view. But I am not sure if the phrase is still part of the (pruposed) text. Thus I can not look up the circumstances of its use, which I would like to know before we prupose a change. I am sure that the phrase was not often used even in TN. Thus I don't think it is wourth a discussion about a general change.

RD-38 Agreed. (But it seems I have missed RD-37.)

Respectfully
Findegil

[Maédhros]

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

From The Book of Lost Tales II: The Nauglafring

Then did he unloose the necklace, and he gazed in wonder at it- and beheld the Silmaril, even the jewel he won from Angband and gained undying glory by his deed; and he said: "Never have mine eyes beheld thee O Lamp of Faëry burn one half so fair as now thou dost, set in gold and gems and the magic of the Dwarves"; and that necklace he caused to be washed of its stains, and he cast it not away, knowing nought of its power, but bore it with him back into the woods of Hithlum.

The blue lamps of the Noldor were discribed later when Beleg meets Gwindor and when Tour meets Arminas and Gelmir. Thus "Lamp of Eldamar" which is an proper update for "Lamp of Faëry" would be missleding in my view. But I am not sure if the phrase is still part of the (pruposed) text. Thus I can not look up the circumstances of its use, which I would like to know before we prupose a change. I am sure that the phrase was not often used even in TN. Thus I don't think it is wourth a discussion about a general change.

In view of the text, I would use the word Silmaril. I'm open to suggestions though.

Aiwendil, regarding this change:

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

Must the change be to Harathrad?

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"'.

Couldn't it be also Athrad Daer too?

[Findegil]

If we change Gelion to Duin Dhaer than a change from Saranathrad to Athrad D(h)aer would look strange from me. But that is only a matter of taste. Nevertheless I wold rather take Athrad i-Negyth. Harathrad is clearly older than Athrad Daer, thus Athrad D(h)aer or Athrad i-Negyth are the possible names. But we do not know if Dhaer or Daer is the later. If Daer is later we have to change Gelion to Duin Daer.

Concerning the "Lamp of Faëry": Unfinished Tales; part I: The first age; chapter 1: Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin; Note 2:

The blue-shining lamps of the Noldorin Elves are referred to elsewhere, though they do not appear in the published text of The Silmarillion. In earlier versions of the tale of Túrin Gwindor, the Elf of Nargothrond who escaped from Angband and was found by Beleg in the forest of Taur-nu-Fuin, possessed one of these lamps (it can be seen in my father's painting of that meeting, see Pictures by J. R. R. Tolkien, 1979, no.37); and it was the overturning and uncovering of Gwindor's lamp so that its light shone out that showed Turin the face of Beleg whom he had killed. In a note on the story of Gwindor they are called "Fëanorian lamps", of which the Noldor themselves did not know the secret; and they are there described as "crystals hung in a fine chain net, the crystals being ever shining with an inner blue radiance."

Thus "Lamp of Fëanor" could be a good change.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Maedhros wrote:

Gelion to Duin Dhaer.

I had missed this entirely. I suppose we must implement this, though I can tell you it will take some getting used to.

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.

Then we are agreed on this.

Findegil wrote:

Thus I can not look up the circumstances of its use, which I would like to know before we prupose a change. I am sure that the phrase was not often used even in TN. Thus I don't think it is wourth a discussion about a general change.

Agreed - we can discuss when it comes up the text.

Maedhros wrote:

Couldn't it be also Athrad Daer too?

It looks like we have three names among which it's very difficult to choose: Harathrad, Athrad D(h)aer, and Athrad i-Negyth. I'm not sure that the name "Athrad Daer" invalidates "Harathrad" - in fact, one could suppose that all three names were used, "South Ford", "Great Ford", and "Ford of the Dwarves". But that's baseless speculation. I suppose we must go with either Athrad D(h)aer or Athrad i-Negyth to be safe. But which? There's almost nothing to push us either way. However, since it was "Athrad Daer" that was written against "Harathrad", and thus "Athrad D(h)aer" shows up more times than "Athrad i-Negyth" I would say that perhaps we should go with it.

That leaves us with the "Dhaer" vs. "Daer" question, and I can see no way of guessing which is later. Perhaps "Daer", since it shows up in "Duin Daer" as well, while "Dhaer" only appears once? I don't know.

I think we are agreed on the storyline, though. I do want to look it over when I get a chance, but I can think of no further problems at the moment.

[Findegil]

Now I am myself the one to re-open the storyline discussion.
Aiwendil wrote:

FD-SL-22: I wonder about using Mablung here. In the 77 he defends the Silmaril to the last, but as I recall I could find no precedent whatsoever for this in any of JRRT's writings.

Your feeling that Mablung was problematic was very good, but you look in the wrong place for the reason of it. I had a similar feeling when I prepared the text of the expanded Version but did only search all the sources for the dad of Thingol to find the reason. Now at last I found it, when I re-read Ælfwine and Dírhaval for the post in the Myths Transformed thread.

Here begins that tale which Ælfwine made from the Húrinien: which is the longest of all the lays of Beleriand now held in memory in Eressëa. But it is said there that, though made in Elvish speech and using much Elvish lore (especially of Doriath), this lay was the work of a Mannish poet, Dírhavel, who lived at the Havens in the days of Earendel and there 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. From Mablung he learned much; and by fortune also he found a man named Andvír, and he was very old, but was the son of that Androg who was in the outlaw-band of Turin, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rudh. Otherwise all that time between the flight of Túrin from Doriath and his coming to Nargothrond, and Túrin's deeds in those days, would have remained hidden, save the little that was remembered among the people of Nargothrond concerning such matters as Gwindor or Túrin ever revealed. In this way also the matter of Mîm and his later dealings with Húrin were made clear. This lay was all that Dírhavel ever made, but it was prized by the Elves and remembered by them. Dírhavel they say perished in the last raid of the sons of Fëanor upon the Havens. …

This is the first version of the introduction. In the second one it is Ælfwine himself not a later editor that does write and in that second version neither Mablung nor Andvír are mentioned. The question is now if we consider the information about Mablung (and Andróg) still valid after the perspective of the telling of the inroduction has changed the text.
After we have removed Ælfwine from our version we can not use either version of the introduction without any change, but it might be much easier to rework the first one than the second one. But that is not the issue here.

The question here is:
Do we consider Mablung alive in the days of Dírhaval (as he is named in the second version) or not? If we consider him alive, do we still see him as a part of the fatal hunting party of Thingol?

As a matter of fact I see even more need to change the details of Thingols death: to avoid another failure with Mablung I made in intens search and have read all scenes were he is named in The History of Middle-Earth. By that search I discoverde the follwing Note applied to the sentence of Thingols death beside Mablung in TN:

Yet in the end were they all fordone, and Mablung and the king fell side by side -- but Naugladur it was who swept off the head of Tinwelint after he was dead, for living he dared not so near to his bright sword or the axe of Mablung.

Against this sentence my father wrote a direction that the story was to be that the Nauglafring caught in the bushes and held the king.

Now we can consider the note to mean that Naugladur did sweep of Thingols head while he was alive but rendered helpless by the acrused Necklace clinging to some bushes or we considere it only a further detail of his death by someone else. But this is clearly a discussion about textual details that we will do in the thread "Ruin of Doriath - Attack on Menegroth"

Respectfully
Findegil

[Findegil]

After providing the facts in the last post, I will, after some thought, give away my oppinion about Mablung and the hunt:
For me the information that Mablung did survie to speak with Dírhaval at the Haevens is valid. With that it would be easiest to skip him from the hunt completly. But the easiest way is not the one I would go. He is Thingols chief thane and by his deads in the original Wolf-hunt I would find it strange if he would not have been there when the celebration hunt was so special in that year. Thus I think, if we let him take part in the hunt but mention that he was not with the small company that was lured outside the girdle we only make explicit what is to be expacted.

Looking at the note, I think that Naugaldur killed Thingol when he was bound by the Necklace. It was Tolkiens last (formulated) idea and it would make Melians and Berens acrusing Naugladur as a morderer more just. In addition it fits very well with the cruse of the Nauglamír and its effect in the fight of Beren and Naugladur.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Maédhros]

The question here is:
Do we consider Mablung alive in the days of Dírhaval (as he is named in the second version) or not? If we consider him alive, do we still see him as a part of the fatal hunting party of Thingol?

I think that the simplest change would be not to introduce parragraph 35, as I intended to do in the Attack on Menegroth discussion. So that we can be vague about the fate of Mablung.

[Arvegil145]

Can you explain me step by step Ufedhin was rejected?

Here is a passage from the Narn i-Chîn Húrin:

Therefore Beleg gladly became the guide of the wanderers, and he led them to a lodge where he dwelt at that time with other hunters, and there they were housed while a messenger went to Menegroth. And when word came back that Thingol and Melian would receive the son of Húrin and his guardians, Beleg led them by secret ways into the Hidden Kingdom.

The Girdle of Melian always seemed to me more as a labyrinth then a "force field".

Which led me to believe that a single Elf could guide the Dwarven army into Doriath following "Ariadne's thread".

Besides - why would the Dwarven army attack Doriath if they knew that it was protected by the Girdle? I would seem a bit idiotic.

[Findegil]

Ufedhin's rejection was not only conected to the gridle. Anyhow, if simple knowledge of a way through would have been enough to overcome its protection, the dwarves would not have needed any traitor, as they often had been welcomed guests in Menegroth.
Ufedhin was rejected because the majority of project members found it unprobable that there was a traitor from Doriath to the Dwarves at all.

I also imagin the gridle like to a Labyrinth. But more in the vain of the Old Forest east of the Shire: All ways you could find would lead you out again sooner or later. Only if you were a welcomed guest a way would open for you to go in, and even then it would probably be safer to have a guide.

And in thinking in that direction explains way many members found Ufedhin would not have been succesfull: Coming back with bad intetion against Doriath would lead the trees to force you out again equaly if you had know a former way in or not.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Perhaps. But why would the Dwarves decide to attack a kingdom which they knew was impenetrable?

[Maédhros]

Where are we right now then?

It seems that we have agreed on the most difficult points regarding the storyline. One would think that we would follow a very similar path like the one we used in the Fall of Gondolin, in which we took the later text Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin to the end and then we joined it with the Tale of the Fall of Gondolin.
In this particular case it would be the Wanderings of Húrin with the Tale of Turambar and the Tale of the Nauglafring, but unlike in our work with the Fall of Gondolin, it is a little different. In the Fall of Gondolin, the evolution of the characters didn't change that much as the story evolved contrary to that of the Tale of the Nauglafring. The elves of Gondolin, there is really not that big a difference between those in the Tale and those in later Tuor, while there is a huge difference between the "wood elves" in the Tale and the later "elves of Nargothrond". Also in the Tale Tinwelint has no treasure in comparison to the latter Thingol who does. The good thing however is that Thingol attitude hasn't changed much as the story changed over time.
I also wonder about the treasure of Nargothrond. In the Tale, a great deal of the treasure was of "unworked" gold but I wonder why that should be in our later story. At the time of the Tale, the Rodothlim were very different that the Elves of Nargothrond. Why would the later Elves of Nargothrond had a great part of their treasure in "unworked" gold if they were the same who brought from Valinor a greater part of their gems than any of the other Ñoldorian exiles?
From the Book of Lost Tales II: Tale of Turambar

In this passage is found (so far as written record goes, for it is to be remembered that a wholly erased text underlies the manuscript) the origin of Nargothrond, as yet unnamed. Among many remarkable features the chief is perhaps that Orodreth was there before Felagund, Lord of Caves, with whom in the later legend Nargothrond was identified, as its founder and deviser. (In The Silmarillion Orodreth was one of Finrod Felagund's brothers (the sons of Finarfin), to whom Felagund gave the command of Minas Tirith on Tol Sirion after the making of Nargothrond (p. 120), and Orodreth became King of Nargothrond after Felagund's death.) In the tale this cave-dwelling of exiled Noldoli is a simpler and rougher place

I don't think that matter of the treasure is a big deal, but it is something to be considered.

The question that now come is this:
How many details can we add from the Tale to our story?
Aiwendil, Findegil has proposed an addition of the last part of the attack of the sons of Fëanor with Dior, and I liked it a lot, I wonder what do you think about it and if we can get away with using that?

Because Findegil and me have worked in our versions of the story, we are in a way very advanced but I wonder which text will we use as our base text for the story now.

[Findegil]

Because Findegil and me have worked in our versions of the story, we are in a way very advanced but I wonder which text will we use as our base text for the story now.

If we would now go back to your or to my version and take that up as a basis text, we would again be hard put to fight down details in favour of the established storylinie. Well, all that I did in this thread was meant to creat the basis text! I provided it in post #65. Since that, some emendations have been made in the following discussion, which we have to integrate.
The next step is to replace phrases and sentences of that basis text with more detailed material. The crux is now not to change the storyline by the exchange or adddition.
Thus the basis text is Q30 and we have to groups of changes RD-SL-zz for changes done to make the storylinie fit our understanding developed above and RD-EX-zz for expansions taken from some other source to make the story more detailed.

I have already started that process and will bring forth a text in the privat forum soon. In the moment I do not see how I can rip that text of enough content to post a version of it here in the public forum, but I will think about that when the text is complet (because I at least highly disire to make the discussion understandable for (interested) visitors).
Just to make Maédhros more confident with the process: I a sure you that I had your draft 4 in front of me when I search for possible addition. I do that work really by a comparison of three texts (not that easy to do): The text given in post #65 with the emendations discussed there after; Maédhros draft #4 and my owne version made in response to Maédhros draft #1. To make that comparison easier to follow, I did adopt the §-numbers form draft #1 (as I did in my version, but without each § mentioned that was droped or moved). In addition each change will be indicated by one of our "editorial markers" (RD-yy-zz).

So fare for the moment, and I now will go back to the work on the text.

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.:

I think we are agreed on the storyline, though. I do want to look it over when I get a chance, but I can think of no further problems at the moment.

Aiwendil, I am not sure you will get that chance before we start the discussion about added details, but that does not hinder any part of the storyline to be discussed again if you find that it needs some further discussion and / or change. If you would rather like me to wait with the above promissed text, please make a remark here. I will not post the text before tomorrow and will chek her before posting.

[Aiwendil]

Go ahead and post it. I will, alas, be quite busy over the next few days and won't get much time to look things over.

Could we perhaps post the changes in the public forum by only indicating the beginning and end of extracts? For example, for a long insertion from TN:

Text from Q30 <TN Beginning of first sentence of extract . . . end of last sentence.> Text from Q30.

[Findegil]

I have posted the text in the privat forum. I stiked to the sections Maédhros has once made, even if they do not sweet my text very good.

A version for the public forum will follow as soon as I can manage to creat it. So please restrict yourself for a short time and start the discussion here in the public forum, after I posted the text here.
The public version will ofcourse not have a "cleaned" text and it will be much harder to follow. Therefore I would recommend the privat version to any member.

I am sure that not all my addtions to the text will make it to the final version, but I hope that my version does bring the project forward. At least the "cleaned" text should be a nice read.
So sit back, take some time and enjoy!

Respectfully
Findegil