Fall of Doriath - Outlaws in Menegroth

[Aiwendil]

Another point I just noticed:

RD-EX-22<TN Now<editorial brigde when Húrin and his Band had departed from Menegroth> came {Gwenniel}[Melian] to {Tinwelint}[Thingol] and said: ‘Touch not this gold, for my heart tells me it is trebly cursed. Cursed indeed by the dragon's breath, and cursed by RD-EX-23 {thy}[Orodreth's] lieges' blood that moistens it, and the death of those' they slew; but some more bitter and more binding ill methinks hangs over it that I may not see.’

And RD-EX-24:

Therefore he let wash it clean of its stains of blood in clear waters, and display it before him.

In TN there has just been a battle in Thingol's halls, and the gold is literally moistened with blood. Here it looks like we are changing the references to blood so that they refer to the blood spilt at the sack of Nargothrond. But surely the blood of Orodreth and his people is not still literally upon the gold, after years of lying in the hoard of Glaurung and after being carried far by Hurin and his band. I think we must remove both elements: Melian's words concerning the blood and Thingol's washing of the gold. How then shall we report Melian's words? One option is to try to find the closest substitute possible for the second curse in Melian's list, e.g.:

RD-EX-22<TN Now<editorial brigde when Húrin and his Band had departed from Menegroth> came {Gwenniel}[Melian] to {Tinwelint}[Thingol] and said: ‘Touch not this gold, for my heart tells me it is trebly cursed. Cursed indeed by the dragon's breath, and cursed by RD-EX-23 {thy lieges' blood that moistens it, and the death of those they slew} [the spell of Morgoth that drove Hurin hither]; but some more bitter and more binding ill methinks hangs over it that I may not see.’

But that's too big a fabrication and I can't think of anything better. Another option is:

[QUOTE]

RD-EX-22<TN Now<editorial brigde when Húrin and his Band had departed from Menegroth> came {Gwenniel}[Melian] to {Tinwelint}[Thingol] and said: ‘Touch not this gold, for my heart tells me it is {trebly} [doubly] cursed. Cursed indeed by the dragon's breath, and cursed by RD-EX-23 {thy lieges' blood that moistens it, and the death of those they slew}; but some more bitter and more binding ill methinks hangs over it that I may not see.’

In RD-EX-24 I think we can simply use:

Therefore he let {wash it clean of its stains of blood in clear waters, and} display it before him.

Another point that I had noticed but forgot to mention: in §24b we say that Thingol summoned "the Dwarves of Nogrod and Belegost". This is the story in Q30, replacing that in TN that only the Dwarves of Nogrod were involved. But it is said in "Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn" that only the Dwarves of Nogrod were involved - so we should delete Belegost here.

[Aiwendil]

And another thing . . .

I wonder about using this:

RD-EX-25 <TN Cups and goblets did the king behold, and some had double bowls or curious handles interlaced, and horns there were of strange shape, dishes and trenchers, flagons and ewers, and all appurtenances of a kingly feast. Candlesticks there were and sconces for the torches, and none might count the rings and armlets, the bracelets and collars, and the coronets of gold; and all these were{ so} subtly made>

If I remember correctly, this is in TN a description of the gold after it has been fashioned by the Dwarves. It might be a suitable description of the treasure in its original state, but then again it might not. I would rather not add this merely for the sake of more vivid description.

[Findegil]

RD-SL-10: So you think the § should simply read:

§20 (§291) RD-SL-09<TN Now were the Elves of the wood in turn displeased, who long had stood nigh gazing on the gold; but the wild folk[ among Húrin’s band] did as they were bid, and <editorial bridge all his men departed,> RD-SL-10<TN and none may say what was {his}their unhappy weird thereafter{; and little but a tortured heart got he from the Gold of Glorund}.>

I wonder if Maedhros will agree to that, but for me it is okay.

RD-EX-21: I at last would find it utterly starnge if the youth and upgrwoing of Húrin is told in the Narn but not the final end of the tragedy in which he still played a major part. In addition a chapter called the "Ruin of Doriath" that goes for half of its lenght through the ruin of Brethil will not work for me. If WH is not included in the Narn (however we would indicat that at all) then I think it must be still seperated from the "Ruin of Doriath" or better "Nauglamír". The insertion of the chapter heading was the point were I think the chapterbreak has to be.

RD-EX-28: The problem is, that when we remove the Silmaril from Thingols speech we must add something in Melains repley. In view of Thingol being over-concerned with the Silmaril, I don't think that Melian would have remebered him about it. It is much more naturall that Thingol him self make the comparision. What about are more radical editing:

§24a (§3) RD-EX-28<TN Now as he gazed {Tinwelint}[Thingol] said: ‘How glorious is this treasure! And I have {not a tithe thereof, and of the gems of Valinor none}[nothing to compare with it] save that Silmaril that Beren won from {Angamandi}[Angband].’ But {Gwenniel}[Melian] who stood by said: ‘And that were worth all that here lies, were it thrice as great.’>

RD-EX-37: Okay, if you think the superlativ most go then we change the passage to:

§28c (§8) RD-EX-37<TN A golden crown they made for {Tinwelint}[Thingol], who yet had worn nought but a wreath of scarlet leaves, and a helm too most glorious they fashioned; and a sword of {dwarfen}[dwarven] steel brought from afar was hilted with bright gold and damascened in gold and silver with strange figurings wherein was pictured clear the wolf-hunt of {Karkaras Knife-fang, father of} [Carcharoth, the Red Maw greatest of all] wolves. RD-EX-38{ That was a more wonderful sword than any Tinwelint had seen before, and outshone the sword in Ufedhin's belt the king had coveted. These things wereof Ufedhin's cunning, but} And the Dwarves made a coat of linked mail of steel and gold for {Tinwelint}[Thingol], and a belt of gold. ...

RD-EX-40: I think you misunderstood my attemp in the last post. I have abondend the second smithying, following your suggestion. What I tried was to hold the discription of the dwarves. It was given as to indicat what they wanted to do, but I changed it to discreib what they had done before they present the result. The addition of RD-EX-36.5 is not really needed, or it can be change. I wanted it in the text because I find the detail that Thingol was at the smithying should be mentioned. Christopher Tolkien used it in Sil77 and I think we should respect these at least were it does not contradict our understanding of the storyline.

RD-EX-42: Agreed.

RD-EX-22 & RD-EX-24: Agreed in principal, but you do not think that the treasure was clean when Húrin brought it out of the dragon hoard. Thus I think we can hold the washing of the treasure, now with the meaning that the Dragons stench was removed. The cruse by the blood we can simply remove:

§22 (§1) RD-EX-22<TN Now<editorial brigde when Húrin and his Band had departed from Menegroth> came {Gwenniel}[Melian] to {Tinwelint}[Thingol] and said: ‘Touch not this gold, for my heart tells me it is trebly cursed. Cursed indeed by the dragon's breath RD-EX-23 {, and cursed by thy lieges blood that moistens it, and the death of those they slew}; but some more bitter and more binding ill methinks hangs over it that I may not see.’

§23 (§2) RD-EX-24 TN Then, remembering the wisdom of {Gwenniel}[Melian] his wife, the king was minded to hearken , and he bade gather it up and cast it into the stream before the gates. Yet even so he might not shake off its spell, and he said to himself: ‘First will I gaze my last upon its loveliness ere I fling it from me for ever.’ Therefore he let wash it clean of its stains{ of blood} in clear waters, and display it before him. ...

§24b The summon to Belegost: Why should be the summon of Thingol restriced to Nogrod? Thingol called for best Smith the dwarven nations had and the Belegost dwarves left it for Smith of Nogrod. (For what ever reason, maybe they had have the last contract and it was simply this time the turne of Nogrod or they recongised that the smith of Nogord were beter for the special order Thingol had placed.) I don't see a forcing reason to skip the summon to both cities. We do restrict the answer to it on the Nogrod-dwarfes and that is sufficient for our purpose.

RD-EX-25 You remeber correctly this is the discription of the hoard after it was fashioned by the dwarves in TN. My reason to put it in was to compensat for the lake of discription the treassure other wise would get in our version. The hoard has a central part in the narative. Its overhelming beauty did even effect even Thingol the magnificant King of Beleriand (and that without someone to urge him, as it was needed for Tinwelint the simple and poor Woodlandking). For this the discription as given at the scene in TN is to scanty. The discription is in a way ambigious. If you root a big and rich kingdom like Nargothrond you will find such things. So I do not see why it can not be used here, with the given reason.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

RD-EX-21

Findegil wrote:

I at last would find it utterly starnge if the youth and upgrwoing of Húrin is told in the Narn but not the final end of the tragedy in which he still played a major part.

The "final tragedy" of the Narn is the death of Turin and Nienor. This, at any rate, is the way Tolkien divided things up in every post-LT re-telling.

In addition a chapter called the "Ruin of Doriath" that goes for half of its lenght through the ruin of Brethil will not work for me.

I can but repeat my mantra: no matter what we do, there are huge problems of scale in the later portions of the Silmarillion, at least if one views things from a literary perspective. I don't think that we should strive to 'fix' things through clever chapter breaks, since our goal is not a literary work but rather a simple account of 'canonical' (in the sense defined by our principles) events.

RD-EX-28

Ah, I do see the problem there now. I like your suggestion, though it is a 'risky' emendation. I will think about this and see if I can come up with anything better.

RD-EX-40

I did misunderstand. But the passage is still not quite perfect. First of all this sentence needs some tense changes:

And he said: ‘Yea’; but {Ufedhin}[they] said: ‘Know then that great store of thy best and purest gold{ remaineth still, for }[did]we have husbanded{ it}, {having a boon to ask of thee, and it is this: we would}[to] make thee a carcanet and to its making lay all the skill and cunning that we have, and we desire that this should be the most marvellous ornament that the Earth has seen, and the greatest of the works of Elves and Dwarves.

I would suggest:

And he said: ‘Yea’; but {Ufedhin}[they] said: ‘Know then that great store of thy best and purest gold {remaineth still, for }[did] we {have} husband{ed it}, {having a boon to ask of thee, and it is this: we would}[to] make thee a carcanet and to its making lay all the skill and cunning that we have, and we desire[d] that this should be the most marvellous ornament that the Earth has seen, and the greatest of the works of Elves and Dwarves.

The following sentence:

Therefore we {beg of thee to let us have}[took from thee] that Silmaril that thou treasurest, that it may shine wondrously amid the {Nauglafring}[Nauglamír], the Necklace of the Dwarves.’>

. . . may not work because they are telling Thingol that they took from him that which he had already given them. I can see that one could look at it as a sort of recapitulation to Thingol of that which he already knew. But it reads awkwardly. It still sounds on the whole as though the Dwarves are claiming the making of the Nauglamir as their own idea.

I'm really not sure whether there's a problem with the paragraph or I'm reading too deeply into it.

As for RD-EX-36.5 - it does seem a bit odd to have Thingol doubt their purpose and only reluctantly give them the jewel now. I suppose we ought to delete this.

RD-EX-22 and RD-EX-24

Okay, I suppose it makes sense for him still to wash it of its stains. But to remove the curse of the blood from Melian's words we would need to do as I suggested and change 'trebly' to 'doubly':

RD-EX-22<TN Now<editorial brigde when Húrin and his Band had departed from Menegroth> came {Gwenniel}[Melian] to {Tinwelint}[Thingol] and said: ‘Touch not this gold, for my heart tells me it is {trebly} [doubly] cursed. Cursed indeed by the dragon's breath, and cursed by RD-EX-23 {thy lieges' blood that moistens it, and the death of those they slew}; but some more bitter and more binding ill methinks hangs over it that I may not see.’

§24b The summon to Belegost: Why should be the summon of Thingol restriced to Nogrod? Thingol called for best Smith the dwarven nations had and the Belegost dwarves left it for Smith of Nogrod. (For what ever reason, maybe they had have the last contract and it was simply this time the turne of Nogrod or they recongised that the smith of Nogord were beter for the special order Thingol had placed.) I don't see a forcing reason to skip the summon to both cities. We do restrict the answer to it on the Nogrod-dwarfes and that is sufficient for our purpose.

If I remember correctly, in TN only the Dwarves of Nogrod are summoned, and only they are involved in the quarrel. In Q30, the Dwarves of Nogrod and Belegost are summoned, and both groups are involved in the quarrel.

So in every version we have, the Dwarves that are involved in the quarrel are the same as the Dwarves that are summoned. There is no indication that any of the Dwarves summoned would not have accepted Thingol's offer (why should they?), so I think that the statement that only the Dwarves of Nogrod were involved should be taken to imply that only they were summoned to work for Thingol.

RD-EX-25

I'm inclined not to use this description because we are putting it in a different context from that for which it was written. It was intended to describe the work of the Dwarves, not the original hoard. Now, the original hoard has changed somewhat. But I don't think that means that we can apply description to it that wasn't meant for it.

[Maédhros]

I wonder if Maedhros will agree to that, but for me it is okay.

I'm ok with this.

I can but repeat my mantra: no matter what we do, there are huge problems of scale in the later portions of the Silmarillion, at least if one views things from a literary perspective. I don't think that we should strive to 'fix' things through clever chapter breaks, since our goal is not a literary work but rather a simple account of 'canonical' (in the sense defined by our principles) events.

As I have said before, I see nothing wrong with the subtitle of the Necklace here. I would add the subtittle and not a different chapter break.

As for RD-EX-36.5 - it does seem a bit odd to have Thingol doubt their purpose and only reluctantly give them the jewel now. I suppose we ought to delete this.

Where is RD-EX-36.5?

RD-EX-22 and RD-EX-24

Okay, I suppose it makes sense for him still to wash it of its stains. But to remove the curse of the blood from Melian's words we would need to do as I suggested and change 'trebly' to 'doubly':

Yes, this is absolutely necessary.

So in every version we have, the Dwarves that are involved in the quarrel are the same as the Dwarves that are summoned. There is no indication that any of the Dwarves summoned would not have accepted Thingol's offer (why should they?), so I think that the statement that only the Dwarves of Nogrod were involved should be taken to imply that only they were summoned to work for Thingol.

One could make the point that if both houses of dwarves were summoned, why would only one come to Menegroth? I think it is best to have Thingol only summon one house.

I'm inclined not to use this description because we are putting it in a different context from that for which it was written. It was intended to describe the work of the Dwarves, not the original hoard. Now, the original hoard has changed somewhat. But I don't think that means that we can apply description to it that wasn't meant for it.

It is a shame to loose the description but I think that Aiwendil is correct.

[Findegil]

RD-EX-21: I after I have read the note about the Númenórean tradition of the ‘Great Tales’, I have to agree that WH is not necessarily a part of the Narn i Chîn Húrin, but it is clearly a part of Narn e·mbar Hador. Considering this I would suggest the following chapter structure for later part of the ‘Translation from the Elvish’ (‘Great Tales’ are bold and underlined and there content are marked by quote boxes; chapter headlines are bold, subchapters are italic and section headings are in normal script, mark that especially in the beginning of our work not all chapters are part of a ‘Great Tale’, question marks are added where headings are uncertain or need discussion later on):
…
Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin
Narn Beren ion Barahir or Narn e·Dinúviel

The Lay of Leithian
Of Thingol in Doriath
Of Lúthien the Beloved
Of Dairon Minstrel of Thingol
Of Morgoth & the Snaring of Gorlim
Of the Saving of King Finrod Felagund by the XII Beorings
Of Tarn Aeluin the Blesses
Of Gorlim Unhappy
Of Beren Son of Barahir & his Escape
Of the Coming of Beren to Doriath; but first is told of the Meeting of Melian and Thingol
Beren's meeting with Lúthien
Beren before Thingol
Luthien's captivity in Doriath
Beren in Nargothrond
Beren and Felagund before Sauron
Lúthien in Nargothrond
The defeat of Sauron
The attack by Celegorm and Curufin
The disguising of Beren and Lúthien and the journey to Angband
Fingolfin and Morgoth; the meeting with Carcharoth
Beren and Luthien in Angband
Escape from Angband
?The Hunt for Lúthien and the Loss of Dairon?
?The Home-coming of Beren and Lúthien?
?The Wolf-hunt?
?The Recall of Beren?

Narn e·mbar Hador

Narn i Chîn Húrin or Narn e·’Rach Morgoth
The Childhood of Túrin
?Of the Fifth Battle: Nirnaeth Arnoediad?
The Words of Húrin and Morgoth
The Departure of Túrin
Túrin in Doriath
Túrin among the Outlaws
Of Mîm the Dwarf
?Of Dor-Cúrathol, the Land of Bow and Helm?
?Of Túrins Rescue by Beleg?
?Túrin in Nargothrond?
The Return of Túrin to Dor-Lómin
The coming of Túrin into Brethil
The Journey of Morwen and Nienor to Nargothrond
Nienor in Brethil
The Coming of Glaurung
The Death of Glaurung
The Death of Túrin
Of the Ruin of Doriath
The Wanderings of Húrin
The Nauglamír Necklace of the Dwarves, ‘Sigil Elu-neath’ Necklace of the Woe of Thingol
Narn en·Êl or Narn e·Dant Gondolin ar Orthad en·Êl
Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin
Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath
Of the Great Battle and the War of Wrath
Of the Last End of the Oath of Fëanor and his Sons
Of the Passing of the Elves
The Second Prophecy of Mandos

Is that a structure we all can go with?

RD-EX-40: Agreed so fare. (But is “did we have husbanded” grammatically correct?) What if we change the second part like this, to let it sound more like Thingol’s own idea:

§28d (§9) … RD-EX-40<TN Now when all was done and their smithcraft given to the king, then said {Ufedhin}[the Dwarves]: ‘O {Tinwelint}[Thingol], richest of kings, dost thou think these things fair?’ And he said: ‘Yea’; but {Ufedhin}[they] said: ‘Know then that great store of thy best and purest gold{ remaineth still, for}[did] we have husbanded{ it}, {having a boon to ask of thee, and it is this: we would}[to] make thee {a}[the] carcanet and to its making lay all the skill and cunning that we have, and we desire that this should be the most marvellous ornament that the Earth has seen, and the greatest of the works of Elves and Dwarves. Therefore {we}[you] beg {of thee to let} us{ have}[to take] that Silmaril that thou treasurest, that it may shine wondrously amid the {Nauglafring}[Nauglamír], the Necklace of the Dwarves.’>

RD-EX-36.5: Maédhros, you will find that addition in post #10. But since Aiwendil is not happy with it, read first my new suggestion which follows.
Posted by Aiwendil:

As for RD-EX-36.5 - it does seem a bit odd to have Thingol doubt their purpose and only reluctantly give them the jewel now. I suppose we ought to delete this.

But can you understand my reason for clinging to the passage? If so, here it might be one of the few places were the text of Sil77 might be helpful:

§28a (§7) RD-EX-36 <TN Being therefore without counsel they bowed before the king, and the faces of the Dwarf-folk show seldom what they think. Now after a time of rest was that{ last} smithying begun in a deep place of {Tinwelint}[Thingol]'s abode which he caused to be set apart for their uses{, and what their hearts lacked therein fear supplied, and in all that work Ufedhin had a mighty part}.> RD-EX-36.5 <Sil77 Long was their labour; and Thingol went down alone to their deep smithies, and sat ever among them as they worked{.}><editorial addition on the necklace.>

RD-EX-22 and RD-EX-24
Sorry I left out “trebly” -> “doubly”. But your passage has an editing problem since you left “, and cursed by” stand which must be deleted. But I think that is not more than a slip of the pen. We seem to be in agreement with the content.

§24b The summon to Belegost: Your argumentations is good, I agree, we will skip the summon to Belegost.

RD-EX-25: If you both think it must go then we will skip the description.

It seems there is not overmuch left. I wonder that we found an agreement in RD-SL-10 so easy.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

About chapters: this is a general question and not one that need be answered here.

The main headings at least seem all right to me. But some of the proposed subheadings will be quite long and others quite short. It seems odd to me to prefer this because making the Great Tales "chapters" would result in disproportionality.

RD-EX-40

But is “did we have husbanded” grammatically correct?

No. That's why I suggested "did we husband" - as it really must be.

The second part of this still doesn't quite work:

and we desire that this should be the most marvellous ornament that the Earth has seen, and the greatest of the works of Elves and Dwarves. Therefore {we}[you] beg {of thee to let} us{ have}[to take] that Silmaril that thou treasurest, that it may shine wondrously amid the {Nauglafring}[Nauglamír], the Necklace of the Dwarves.’>

The 'therefore' isn't logical anymore. Also, the Dwarves' last sentence has little point and sounds strange.

I think there is a real danger in getting into very detailed alterations to individual sentences like this. It becomes very difficult to say for sure what is satisfactory and what is not. This passage has a certain function in the context of the original tale - the Dwarves are here asking, with guile, that Thingol yield the Silmaril to them so that they can make the Nauglafring. We have altered that context completely - now it is not an act of guile at all, and indeed Thingol has already given them the Silmaril, and he's done it of his own accord. To try at all costs to retain the passage, even in the new and very different context, by changing it's whole purport seems a dubious proposition to me. That's why I am inclined to err on the side of deleting rather than changing. My first choice, to be honest, would still be to replace the whole passage with a simple statement that they brought forth the Nauglamir.

RD-EX-36.5

But can you understand my reason for clinging to the passage? If so, here it might be one of the few places were the text of Sil77 might be helpful

This emendation does seem to work, and I suppose I can live with the '77 here.

RD-EX-22 and RD-EX-24

Ah, yes - I did accidentally not delete 'and curse by'.

RD-SL-10: I am in agreement with Findegil's last proposal here.