"Concerning... 'The Hoard'" revealed

[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