"Concerning... 'The Hoard'" revealed

[gondowe]

Yes. I think you are correct in the chronology that you expose, I would add the little that The Tale of Years tells us.

And it's very possible that you are right in what you say about Text X.

I just want to give the benefit of the doubt and a little respect for CT's work. In the absence of evidence on the dating of the damned Text X. After all, it is possible to combine both concepts with little narrative change, using the phrasing of the SIl77 and BoLT/C..TH texts.

In any case, I prefer to see what several people think about it.

And sooner or later, I don't know how but, I suppose the text X will come to light.

Greetings

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by gondowe

I just want to give the benefit of the doubt and a little respect for CT's work. In the absence of evidence on the dating of the damned Text X. After all, it is possible to combine both concepts with little narrative change, using the phrasing of the SIl77 and BoLT/C..TH texts.

True - but remember that CT had no idea that "Concerning" existed. In its absence, Tolkien's final word on the matter was a string of notes which either didn't mention the outlaws at all or didn't mention them entering Doriath. If Text X is, say, a 1950s note on one of the older documents (even something as simple as "only Nauglamir?" on the passage about Hurin bringing the treasure would meet the description), then without "Concerning" it would be a logical 'last idea'. With "Concerning" available, it seems likely that Tolkien rejected the concept, at least to me.

Originally Posted by gondowe

And sooner or later, I don't know how but, I suppose the text X will come to light.

I actually wonder whether it was either part of the "Turins Saga" notes (mentioned in notes to Tale of Years D 503), or a note on Tale of Years D itself. We know Tolkien wrote "cannot" on the invasion of Doriath; an "only Nauglamir?" note against Hurin taking the treasure of Nargothrond would make as much sense. There could even be a correction to 502, from "wrought" to "remade". If these corrections were struck through by Tolkien, that would explain why CT originally used them, then felt guilty enough to write a massive apology in HoME XI, but then was able to refer to them as "a later version" in B&L.

Originally Posted by gondowe

Yes. I think you are correct in the chronology that you expose, I would add the little that The Tale of Years tells us.

Oh, wow - the TY actually tells us a whole lot! Thanks for catching that. It's silent on the outlaws, but it's great for the other end of the tale. It's the only version in which the dwarves don't take the Nauglamir - because Melian takes it to Beren, so that Beren doesn't have to attack the dwarves (Cel'n'Cur do it instead).

TY also has the "cannot", and the associated note which says "Doriath cannot be entered by a hostile army!", and proposes that Thingol be lured out of Doriath entirely.

I'm not sure on the exact dating of the Tale of Years section. CT indicates it's post-LotR, but also that it predates Letter 247 from 1963 (which has Beren once again taking the Nauglamir from the dwarves). Comparing it to the early-1950s sources, it looks likely to be later than the Grey Annals, but earlier than the "Narn synopsis" - TY makes no mention of the ruin of Brethil, which seems to have first arisen in the synopsis before being expanded in "Wanderings". (The Grey Annals specifically say that Hurin does not go to Brethil.) Since the "Kilby slip" is on the back of some comments on "Wanderings", the TY story definitively predates that.

So the situation seems to be that in the early 1950s, Tolkien considered the Nauglamir story for the first time in a while. He decided to remove the outlaws entirely, remove any breach of the Girdle, remove Beren from the fight with the dwarves, and possibly make the Nauglamir Finrod's.

But then, in writing "Wanderings", he reversed the first decision, making the outlaws a central part of Hurin's tale (as he said in the Kilby slip). By 1963, he had put Beren back in his usual place as well. And by 1964, he had walked back the other decisions too, keeping Thingol inside the Girdle (in Menegroth itself!), and once again having the necklace made for Thingol.

If it weren't for "Wanderings", I would wonder if he simply forgot about the TY changes. But given how closely they must have been written in time, I think it most likely that the various notes attached to "Wanderings" are a deliberate rejection of the no-outlaws version of the story.

hS

[gondowe]

I think you are right with your analisis.

We don't have any problems with the story after the death of the outlaws.

It seems to me now that the question of the Nauglamir alone or not is related to the existence of outlaws.

But the only evidence we have is that the outlaws always existed (as far as I can remember, and the silence of the TY could be only due to the schematic text).

The only reason to consider is if the outlaws were to Doriath or not.
But taking only the Necklace must be only due to the loneliness of Húrin in Nargothrond.

So the text or notes X must contain a story without outlaws, and in that or those text/notes must be the only ones that consider the Finrod's Nauglamír.

Are you agree with this line of thought?

Greetings

Edited and added. Now I came to my home and was thinking.
When CT published Beren and Luthien, did know that C..TH existed, because C. Scull had show it him in early 80's (if I'm not mistaken). So, I wonder, why did he not mention it in B&L?

[gondowe]

And another thing. Did you noticed thatTolkien wrote that both Maedros and Maglor perished with a jewel?

[Mithadan]

There are a number of "inconsistencies" between Concerning... The Hoard and The Silmarillion. I have not gone back and compared these to the various HoME versions of tales, but note a few, certainly not all, here in addition to those mentioned above. Again, I question whether these are a matter of JRRT working from memory without his drafts in front of him, whether he was engaging in "stream of consciousness" rewriting or revising his prior work as experimentation, or if this is simply a hurried summary not necessarily comporting to his final conceptions (assuming that there were any on details of his work). Regardless of the date of this note, it is pure speculation to assume that anything in The Hoard represents his "final" decisions.

In The Silmarillion, Hurin does not laugh in contempt at Thingol and leave Doriath, but rather Melian speaks to him, breaking the spell of deceit put upon him by Morgoth, and Hurin apologizes.

The cause of the failure of the Girdle of Melian seems glib and conclusory or confused. Her power failed due to the evil "within" Doriath (which evil, the treatment of the Dwarves or the presence of the treasure?) or Melian lifted it, dismayed at the deed that had been "done" (which deed?). If the latter, I wonder if this is a timing issue. If Thingol had been slain (per The Silmarillion), I can see Melian departing into the West leaving Doriath unprotected. If Thingol was still alive, I doubt that she would simply let the Girdle fail.

The Hoard implies that Galadriel went into the east after the War of Wrath. This was something that was undecided per JRRT's late writings in Unfinished Tales. She may have left Beleriand earlier.

The narrative mentions that after the Darkening of Valinor, the Valar first asked that Feanor turn over the Silmarils, then demanded it after he declined, resulting in his rebellion. This is very inconsistent with prior versions and even implies that some blame for the rebellion of the Noldor rests with the Valar.

The Hoard also seems to imply that Earendil's star rose after the War of Wrath. This may be an interpretation or it may reflect that the summary nature of the document resulted in it being unorganized and ambiguous.

It does make for interesting discussion...

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

There are a number of "inconsistencies" between Concerning... The Hoard and The Silmarillion.

It's definitely worth doing a full comparison of "Concerning" with the other texts, but I will point out that:

Originally Posted by Mithadan

In The Silmarillion, Hurin does not laugh in contempt at Thingol and leave Doriath, but rather Melian speaks to him, breaking the spell of deceit put upon him by Morgoth, and Hurin apologizes.

Is attested nowhere except the published Silmarillion, and is not mentioned in CT's note on "Text X". Given that literally every other character in the Turin tale ends badly, the fact that Hurin gets a redemption moment feels like exactly the sort of "overstepping the bounds of the editorial function" that CT regretted in his commentary in HoME XI.

Similarly,

Originally Posted by Mithadan

The cause of the failure of the Girdle of Melian seems glib and conclusory or confused. Her power failed due to the evil "within" Doriath (which evil, the treatment of the Dwarves or the presence of the treasure?) or Melian lifted it, dismayed at the deed that had been "done" (which deed?). If the latter, I wonder if this is a timing issue. If Thingol had been slain (per The Silmarillion), I can see Melian departing into the West leaving Doriath unprotected. If Thingol was still alive, I doubt that she would simply let the Girdle fail.

There is no narrative by Tolkien which puts Thingol outside the Girdle at his death. This idea was suggested by Tolkien in a single note on the "Turins Saga" sheet, which seems to date from the early 1950s (ie, before the Narn synopsis in my timeline earlier). "Concerning" is ten years later, and should at least be considered as an alternate solution to the question.

Okay: working from memory, here are the differences between "Concerning" and the other latest texts.

The story concerns the great hoard of Nargothrond, which contained much of the treasure and works of Elvish art that has been preserved from the wreckage of the Elven-Kingdoms under the assault of the Dark Lord

I don't remember any statements that Nargothrond took refugees and treasures from the other kingdoms; that must mean Mithrim, right?

Húrin’s Kingdom was destroyed

Implies Hurin was a king; but could mean "the elvish kingdom Hurin was a lord in".

[Turin] fled from Doriath after a deed of violence in the King’s hall, and became a wandering warrior (or knight-errant).

Turin's key act of violence was normally outside Menegroth. The knight-errant phrasing is an interesting one, and puts a different conception on Turin, at least for me.

All the Hurin/Thingol differences previously noted: the outlaws reach Doriath and are slain there, the Nauglamir is silver, Thingol wants silver thrones, no first battle with the dwarves, the Girdle falls due to the evil done inside (which must be Thingol's breach of his oath, contrasted with the "dwarven honesty"), and Thingol seemingly dies in Menegroth.

Fugitives from Doriath brought news to Beren in Ossiriand, especially of the rape of the Silmaril. He gathered a force and waylaid the Dwarves on their return march, at a ford across one of “Seven Rivers of Ossir”.

In the Tale of Years, this battle is by the sons of Feanor, with Melian taking the Nauglamir to B&L. Similarly, no two versions agree on who told Beren about the attack.

the ship-havens at the mouths of the great River Sirion, where was the last refuge of the remnants of the Kingdoms of Elves and Men

Balar appears to be ignored here, though this looks like just brevity.

the Sons of the Valar aided by the remnants of the Elves and the Dúnedain (or Men of Elf-alliance) overcame the Dark Lord

I don't believe the elves are usually said to have joined the Last Battle. "Sons of the Valar" is a phrase which doesn't occur much in later texts, but could easily be metaphorical.

the Elf Kingdoms were at an end

Seems to ignore the existence of Lindon.

Some passed over the Mountains (e.g. in particular Galadriel) into the lands which are the scene of the Lord of the Rings.

As Mithadan says, Tolkien was very undecided on Galadriel's timeline. This aligns with the text called "Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn" in UT; it doesn't match the "very late and partly illegible note... set down in the last month of his life" given just above it.

Eärendil, who had first set foot upon the “immortal” land of the Valar, was not permitted to return to mortal lands, but his ship was set to sail in the heavens as a star, lit by the brilliance of the Silmaril.

Again per Mithadan, this kind of implies the Star only rose after the Battle. Given that Earendil was out there shooting down dragons, it's fair to say that this was when he was finally sent upstairs, and it's not a clear enough statement to be a revision.

But the last surviving sons of Feänor (Maedros and Maglor), in a despairing attempt to carry out the Oath, stole [the Silmarils] again. But they were tormented by them, and at last they perished each with a jewel: one in a fiery cleft in the earth, and one in the sea.

Per gondowe, this seems to be the only source for the death of Maglor. It also uses the name "Maglor", at a time when Tolkien seems to have switched over to "Maelor"; I'm not sure what the situation is with "Maedros".

The “War of the Rings” is, as it were, a breaking out again of the “Wars of the Jewels”, though in a different mode.

This is an interesting concept! I don't remember him saying it elsewhere, and it certainly puts a different spin on the Third Age: not a great conflict in its own right, but the last ragtag end of the battles of the First Age.

The Silmarils were made by Feänor, greatest of the Elves, and chief of all craftsmen, originally with no motive but the making of beauty.

HA! Does anyone believe that?

when the Valar commanded him to relinquish them (since the light which gave them their beauty and sanctity was theirs, and had only been lent to him) he became obdurate, and rebelled

This is certainly based on Tulkas' words, and Feanor's, but the explicit command isn't one I remember being in other sources. Tolkien was drifting towards a less pro-Manwe view, so it's possible this was an actual shift; but I think this story was told again after "Concerning", so probably just a compression. (What they actually did was imply they would command him, which led to his rant comparing them to Melkor.)

Feanor then with his Seven Sons, swore the abominable Oath, to hold anyone Elf or Vala, even the One, his enemy if they held or retained a Silmaril and did not surrender it.

I don't think there's another version of the Oath which holds Iluvatar as an enemy if he takes a Silmaril; most of them just call him as witness. And, y-i-i-i-kes.

Morgoth’s triumph became almost complete. All the Kingdoms of Elves and their allies were destroyed. Beleriand was ruined and ravaged. Only the capture of one Silmaril by Beren and Luthien marred his success. It came at last to the remnant of the Elves of the “Mouths of Sirion”, and so to Eärendil — and so brought the vengeance of the Valar upon him at last — when it was surrendered to the Valar, and set out of reach of Elves and Men.

A really interesting footnote; because of the Silm's focus on the refugees, I don't usually register the completeness of Morgoth's victory. I also note that the Silmaril was "surrendered to the Valar"; I don't recall that phrasing before, usually Earendil just sort of uses it to get to them and then keeps it.

The Silmarils had become to Feanor symbols and instruments of power: he called himself “the lord of the lights”.

Feanor getting in on the too-many-names game. This is presented totally out of order (unless Feanor lived to the end of the First Age! There's no mention of his death in LotR, you know. ), and I can only imagine he used it in Formenos. Probably wrote it above the door: "Welcome to Formenos, House of the Lord of the Lights; abandon humility, all ye who enter here".

Hmm... apart from the death of Maglor, and the whole Nauglamir section, all of these strike me as reasonable compression of the "text" at the time. They're not always the latest comments Tolkien had - see Galadriel - but they don't seem wildly at odds with 1964 Tolkien. Though like I said, I'm working from memory, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'd got an error or two in there.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Per gondowe, this seems to be the only source for the death of Maglor.

Letter 131 is another source:
"The remaining two Silmarils are regained from the Iron Crown — only to be lost. The last two sons of Fëanor, compelled by their oath, steal them, and are destroyed by them, casting themselves into the sea, and the pits of the earth. The ship of Earendil adorned with the last Silmaril is set in heaven as the brightest star. So ends The Silmarillion and the tales of the First Age."

and compared with Concerning the Hoard:
"The other two Silmarils were also taken by the Valar from the crown of Morgoth. But the last surviving sons of Feänor (Maedros and Maglor), in a despairing attempt to carry out the Oath, stole them again. But they were tormented by them, and at last they perished each with a jewel: one in a fiery cleft in the earth, and one in the sea.
So the three Silmarils were lost for ever “until the remaking of the world”: in air, earth, and sea. Thus ended the First Age."

Edit:
Going through Letter 131 similar comparisons in verbiage can be drawn, e.g.:
"The chief of the stories of the Silmarillion, and the one most fully treated is the Story of Beren and Lúthien the Elfmaiden."
Letter 131

"The most important “tale” in this [[† network?]] of legend is that of Beren and Lúthien, but as that is sketched in the Lord of the Rings it is not told here."
Concerning...
et.al.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I don't remember any statements that Nargothrond took refugees and treasures from the other kingdoms; that must mean Mithrim, right?

Tiny side-point: Mithrim could certainly be part of the source for the treasure and refugees here, particularly after the Nirnaeth, but it's hardly alone: Nargothrond is the last bastion of the wider Finarfinian realm, and was the last-built part of it--there was Dorthonion and Minas Tirith, each with a Finwëan or two resident, and it's quite probable that there were Elves once settled across West Beleriand who retreated to Nargothrond after the Bragollach, and we're told in the published Silm that the Finarfinians brought the greatest number of treasures with the out of Valinor.

And there's also the Fëanorians: Celegorm and Curufin, obviously, with plenty of indications that some of their people (see: Celebrimbor) and maybe things stayed behind when they were driven out by Orodreth after the death of Finrod.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

( . . .) There is no narrative by Tolkien which puts Thingol outside the Girdle at his death. This idea was suggested by Tolkien in a single note on the "Turins Saga" sheet, which seems to date from the early 1950s (ie, before the Narn synopsis in my timeline earlier). "Concerning" is ten years later, and should at least be considered as an alternate solution to the question.

I note that you write "seems" to date from the 1950s, and I've no problem with that. I'm just wondering if these notes could be later, perhaps even very much later . . . so, anything preventing this?

I couldn't find Hammond and Scull attempting to date 'em. Christopher Tolkien explains that the word "cannot" [invasion of Doriath] "may well have been written against the entry for 503 in The Tale of Years at the same time as this." And "this" refers to the note about Thingol being lured outside his borders (and slain), which is said to be written at the same time as the other "Turin's Saga" page of notes.

So (unless I've missed something obvious), I can't yet find a certain connection to these ideas and the dating of the Tale of Years. That's not to say I think your chronology is not well thought out, I'm just wondering how certain we can be.

For example, there's a marginal note to section 149 of The Annals of Aman (the typescript, itself dating about 1958) that seems very late indeed -- judging by the content, I would say the note itself is post 1967.

Anyway, again just wondering'

[Val Balmer]

It is a long time since I have posted in this forum, even if I have consulted it from time to time. This is because I had lost my password and didn't manage to restore it in any way...

But this conversation is so interesting that I have decided to create a new account.

The dating you are proposing seems to me correct...

To further support it 'Concerning... "The Hoard"' contains the term Dunedain, which is clearly post Lord of the Rings. Right ?

Also, the newly rediscovered manuscript shows clearly the importance of the "hoard theme" for Tolkien and would have created another resonance with the Hobbit.

The stress on silver and not only gold is also interesting as it reflect the differences between the old Tinwelint (with his leaf crown) easily fascinated with gold, and the new Thingol (a rich king), who initially fells for the silver in particular of which evidently he shouldn't have had much...

[Mithadan]

Welcome (back) to the Barrow-Downs, Val.

[Findegil]

I agree to the idea that the Nauglamir being made for Finrod and being the only treasure transproted by Húrin alone to Doriath, is a nice 'end point' for the line of development in in which the fight of the Outlaws in Menegroth was eliminated. And with the story as told in Concerning ... 'The Hoard', where JRR Tolkien removed the fight of the Dwarvish smiths in Menegroth the elimination of the Outlaws became 'unnecessary', since one fight in Thingols Halls before his fall is okay but two are too much.

But as long as we have no farther info about what we call Text X, it is still speculation. Tolkiens motive for the Nauglamir made for Finrod could be completly diffrent. Over all we see a constant expansion of the role the Dwarves play in the stories of Beleriand. And a development from more doubios race to the noble children of Aulë. In that 'line of development' the earlier history of the Nauglamir could be a way to enhance the dwarfish claim for the necklace.

But that is as well specutlation, and according to the sound principle that in complex matter the theroy should be as simple as possible, I agree that Text X most likely was later then the other sources but predated Concerning ... 'The Hoard'.

Respectfully
Findegil