![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#41 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
RD-EX-77.5:
I am okay with "for" -> "since" §51d: The symetrie of the warnings is a good argument which I did not consider. we will skip the cruse by the blood stain. But your editing does skip the comma which I think is grammatically needed: Quote:
Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
When we made the addition from [bRos[/b] and the Shibboleth we missed a footnote, which I think should be taken:
Quote:
Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
RD-SL-27: Coming back to the discussion about where the battle toke place. There is one new information so it might be considered very thin. In his new book Beren and Lúthien Christopher Tolkien does not provide any new texts, but he gives some comments and some interisting editing. Normaly Christopher Tolkien does in this book not introduce changes to the texts, so that very old names like 'Tinwelint and Gwendeling' stand beside new once like 'Thingol and Melian'. But then we come to the last part of Berens story and the book, where his fight against Naugladur is described. Again old Names like 'Glómund' or 'Lamp of Faëry' for the Silmaril are allowed to stand. But on change in the course of the narrative is done, so not consequently. It starts with an editorial replacement (marked as such) in the first sentence:
Quote:
Quote:
What this showes, in my oppinion, is that for Christopher Tolkien the ford that was the palce of Berens last fight was that over the river Ascar and not that over Gelion/Duin Daer as we used it. If it changes something or not is up to the farther discussion of this case. But at least I think this is worth considering the case again. Respectfully Findegil P.S.: This is the only case that I could find in Beren and Lúthien that is worth mentioning for the project. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
I would say that this is merely his opinion, as he presents no new information to back up that change, and he has been known to make mistakes of this kind before.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
No question that is only Christopher Tolkiens opinion. I never said otherwise. But in a case like this, where we long debated and did take the decision in the end based on the feeling of the participants of the discussion, Christopher’s opinion is at least worth notice.
Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
As I posted in the other thread Of the Founding of Nargothrond and Gondolin, the footnote of CT in Beren and Lúthien is troubling in its implications for this text:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
RD-SL-27: I've just read through our discussion of this from years ago, and it is such an obscure and complex issue that I can easily believe that a reasonable person could come to either conclusion based on the evidence we have. In the end, I still think I agree with the conclusion we adopted. But I am still far from 100% certain about this conclusion. Christopher Tolkien's opinion is obviously not to be simply discounted, but without any new evidence I don't see any particular reason to change our conclusion. I remain unsure, though, and could certainly be persuaded by a strong argument one way or the other.
About the Nauglamir: This is indeed puzzling and has potentially very important repurcussions for our text. In particular, I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with two things from "The Wanderings of Hurin". Quote:
Quote:
In the absence of any further evidence of this "later story", I don't think it would be wise for us to change the story here. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
I agree with your conclusion because, as you say, CT has provided no documentation to back up his comments in B&L and the Sil77 story, so it is clearly safer to go with the earlier story in as much as keeping the outlaws and hoard and such. However, in the current text as it exists we have provided no story of the Nauglamír's creation. Might we then take only that part from the Sil77 version while keeping the rest the same?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
But if we discount this statement by Christopher Tolkien without further evidence, then shouldn't we keep the story that the Nauglamir was not made until Thingol commissioned the Dwarves to craft the gold?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
My bad, I didn't notice the story was already included. In the current draft, it reads thus:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
![]() |
I came to this thread after have went for an updating in my structure.
I had readed this note from CT when read Beren and Luthien, but I think my mind didn't want to assume. The main thing is to assume that there is an unpublished text that CT never showed us. If this is assumed, so we MUST change things in our texts. Editing: On the other hand, It would be a step back from CT in what he said in the famous note on the chapter of the ruin of Doriath in Sil77 published in WotJ that everybody knows. (I'm going to be evil: can anybody have access to a modern edition of TWotJ, to see if that famous note was erased, of course not by CT decision, but editorial decision?) Greetings Last edited by gondowe; 11-04-2018 at 03:07 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
1. Christopher Tolkien doesn't tell us what this presumed text says or when it dates from. 2. The statement in Beren and Luthien appears to contradict what Christopher Tolkien said in HoMe XI. 1 means that even if we wanted to follow this text, we would not know exactly how to implement it, other than lifting text directly from QS77. 2 means that at some point, either in HoMe XI or in Beren and Luthien, CT apparently made a mistaken statement about this. What he says in HoMe XI is backed up by the texts given there. The fact that we have in B&L only this one mention of a text otherwise uncited suggests that it's at least possible that CT was mistaken in his statement there. In the end, I just think that this one contradictory statement is awfully shaky ground on which to make such a major change. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 | |||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
The original Lost Tale reads thus:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 11-05-2018 at 02:10 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
This looks good to me. On small note is that looking again at RD-EX-36.5, I don't think the editorial addition is actually needed. It's clear from the previous paragraph that they are working on the necklace.
But I think your idea of retaining the two stages of treasure making is good, as it better retains the structure of the Lost Tale and I don't see any of the later, very brief, accounts as contradicting it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
I have re-read a great deal in this thread and in the story line discussion, but it seems that we never discussed that note in BL explicitly. The fitting editing mark in the story line discussion was FD-SL-13.
Anyhow I agree with Aiwendil: the note contradicts strongly with what Christopher Tolkien had written in HoME XI and since HoME XI is rather a work of research in the textual history in comparison to BL, I wonder how serious we can take that note from BL. For reason of comparision we might look to the Narn texts: from UT and all HoME versions it is made clear by Christopher Tolkien that farther texts are extant, so what we find then in The Children of Húrin his take at this farther texts. In that full narrative we can find passages that are clearly based on these unpublished sources. Compared to that in BL we have only compiled extracts from already published sources and some very few and some times a bit obscure editorial notes, like the one we discuss here. If the note is really based on some unpublished source, why doesn't Christopher take the opportunity to give it in full? I am inclined to think that the note is rather based on a false memory. About the making of the Nauglamír in Menegroth: As our story goes Thingol explicitly ask the Dwarves to make for him a necklace 'whereon to hang the Silmaril' [see the end of RD-EX-29]. In this part our story line was strictly based on Q30, therefore the two waves of smith work by the dwarves was rejected by intention. We might reinstall it, but as Thingol already gave the task of making the Nauglamír to the Dwraves I don’t think the conversation can stand as Arcus Calion gave it. The naming of the necklace Comes in the Moment when Thingol wears it for the first time only one § later. For me that is a fitting place to give the Name. By the way, any reader will guess that name at once since the title of the chapter gives it away. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
I see the difficulty, but I still have two points.
1) I found it jarring the way the name of the necklace is introduced in our text. Can we at least say Quote:
2) For me the text as it stands is odd: the Dwarves present the Nauglamir as if it was a surprise, but it was essentially the driving force of Thingol's contract with them, and was there watching them make it. Why then do they have to explain that they kept a part of gold in order to make a necklace. I suppose they could simply be being ceremonial, but it seems odd to me. Perhaps I am simply reading into it too much. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
First a word of doubt about the matter of the making of the Nauglamír by the Dwarves long before for Finrod Felagund: In HoME XI, The Tale of the Years; Note on Chapter 22 Of the Ruin of Doriath Christopher Tolkien starts with the following sentence:
Quote:
Now to the matter of the second smthying, I can see the oddness of the naming, as why should it be the Necklace of the Dwarves when all the stones and specially the Silmaril are elvish? And yes the flow of Arcus Calion’s version is better. In addition if, as Aiwendil put it, the two phases of smithying are not ‘contradicted by more authoritative sources’ we actually have to retain them. But as I mentioned the dwarves can at the end of the first phase not ask Thingol for the allowance to smith the Nauglamír as a ‘boon’, since he already ordered them to make it. Nonetheless seems it very fitting to me that the Dwarves should first show their talent on lesser works and then ask Thingol to deliver the Silmaril since now they would like to start that work he had asked for. And in that way we as well get a chance to reinstall Thingols request to be present while the dwarves made the necklace: Quote:
Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
For me this is perfect! It addresses all the concerns and flows far better than the original. I only have one gripe, and it is a new one:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
This looks good to me. I also think ArcusCalion is probably right that we must remove this reference to the scantiness of the treasure of Nargothrond.
One small correction. In RD-EX-40: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#61 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
![]() |
Quote:
I also think that the band of Húrin with the whole treasure carried to Menegroth and the making of the Nauglamir there (not in Nargothrond) is the best solution and is the one I want to follow. But, taking that CT reaffirms,in 2017, the solution taken in Sil77, I don't know if we are correct. I mean that possibly CANON Sli77 is fixed by CT NOW. Thougts? Greetings |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
I agree to both changes, the one in RD-EX-40 ‘thou has asked for’ => ‘thou hast asked for’ and the one in RD-EX-39 concerning the scanty treasure of Nargothrond. (Actually I think we discussed that one before and the reinstallation was a mistake of mine during the editing of the new passage.)
Posted by gondowe: Quote:
That said, I can nonetheless see your argument. But I don’t see it in that way: For me the note in BL is rather a ‘justification’ than a ‘reaffirmation’ for the version in Sil77. A reaffirmation or even confirmation would have been if Christopher Tolkien would have included the note with the Nauglamír made in Nargothrond and so on, as a component of the story as reconstructed in BL. But that is exactly what he didn’t. He rather follows his own suggestion how his father would have handled the story, that he uttered in HoME XI as far as the existing texts allow. But alas, it is a rather complex matter. In BL Christopher Tolkien does not use (as we do in our version or he does in HoME and Sil77) short notes to reconstruct the story. The components used in BL are rather long excerpts of full texts that are minimally edited. So some doubts remain, but I still think we have strong and just arguments for the version we created. Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
![]() |
Quote:
But my doubts are that possibly that note exists and the story used in Sil77 (I mean of canon Im speaking only inthis matter) I insist, is reaffirmed. Im thinking in those people who potentially read our versions, and could be confused about an authorised modern book compared with ours. Don´t know. Are my doubts, fears, thougts... Greetings |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
Maybe I was not clear enough in my last post, so I will try again:
- Yes, I believe that a note exists that contains the story of the Nauglamír made for Felagund and being the sole treasure brought from Nargothrond to Menegroth by Húrin. For easier and clearer farther reference let us name that note ‘text X’. - Yes, I agree that the confirmed existence of ‘text X’ gives more weight to the version of the story told in the Sil77. - And it is clear that if, we come to the conclusion, that this version of the story, is to be taken, the actual text of Sil77 is the one and only option, because it is the best representation of the content of ‘text X’ that we have. But as we don’t have any farther information about ‘text X’ and its timing or circumstances of writing or anything else concerning it, we must base our decision about it on something else. For me it seems that, the only choice we have as measure for that judgment is the treatment of ‘text X’ by Christopher Tolkien. So how does Christopher Tolkien treat ‘text X’: A) Christopher Tolkien used in the years 1974-75 ‘text X’ as basis for the story in Sil77. B) He does not give ‘text X’ in HoME. Even in HoME XI; A note on chapter 22 Of the Ruin of Doriath (published in 1994), where a very fitting place would have been for it, he does not more than hinting very unspecific to ‘a few matters of detail in texts and notes that have not been published’. So what he did was summarizing the story as found in Sil77, so that the features of ‘text X’ are given together with features for which ‘there is no authority whatever in my father's [JRR Tolkien’s] own writings’. C) He does mention its existence and content of ‘text X’ in the footnote in BL (published 2017), but does not give it in full nor base the story told in that book on its content. As can be expected B) gives some background information on A): b1) Christopher Tolkien speculates that JRR Tolkien ‘ would have reintroduced the outlaws from the old Tales (II.113-15, 222-3) as the bearers of the treasure’. Which means, that Christopher Tolkien thinks that his father would not have used the content of ‘text X’ for his ‘final’ story. This speculations is backed up by late (1966) writings concerned with The Wanderings of Húrin. b2) Christopher Tolkien confirms that there had been much ‘experimentation among alternative conceptions’ and that the final text of Sil77 ‘owes much to my [Christopher Tolkien’s] discussions with him [Guy Gavriel Kay]’. Guy Gavriel Kay was for sure NOT onboard of these discussions due to his special knowledge about the textual history of the story or his good judgments about what JRR Tolkien would have done – for such matters Christopher Tolkien was for sure the better judge. Mr. Kay told us in an interview with The Guardian that Christopher Tolkien ‘saw the editing process in the classic ‘senior academic working with the bright young graduate student’ way, which is the template for so much academic work.’ Nonetheless since Mr. Kay became later a fantasy author, his input was most probably on the ‘literary value’ of the ‘alternative conceptions’. In the end C) Indeed changes some possible interpretations of B) and has to be interpreted in itself: c1) Since C) does confirm the existence of ‘text X’ the first major criticism utter in B) that, the story in Sil77 ‘is fundamentally changed, to a form for which in certain essential features there is no authority whatever in my father's [JRR Tolkien’s] own writings’, does not apply to the features told in ‘text X’ (Nauglamír made for Felagund in Nargothrond, Nauglamír being the sole treasure brought to Menegroth by Húrin). (As we discussed that matter first before the publication of BL, I think we all based on the second part of B) were under the impression that there was no ‘text X’ in existence.) c2) As well as the first criticism (see c1)) the last, that with creating the story as given in Sill77 he was ‘far overstepping the bounds of the editorial function’, does not apply to the features of ‘text X’, since C) does confirm the existence of ‘text X’ and choosing between alternative texts is the function of an editor. c3) In BL Christopher Tolkien for the first time edits the presented story as ‘history in sequence’ as he named it. That makes the text together with the note fully ambivalent of what was the ‘true’ story. All that ‘facts’ collected, what do I make out of it? The clear statement of C) is that using the text of Sil77 in the matter of the Nauglamír and what part of the Nargothrond treasure came to Doriath is an reasonable option for us (which it had not been before). But in b1) I see a hint that ‘text X’ was older than 1966, otherwise the features of ‘text X’ would have been a way out of the difficulties that the story as told in Q30 represent. As we do with writings of JRR Tolkien, we as well should do with such of Christopher Tolkien: His knowledge about the texts of his farther would have become greater with longer studying time. Therefore B) does have much more weight for me than A). Specially Last edited by Findegil; 01-07-2020 at 10:10 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
![]() |
Findegil, Thank you for your detailed analysis of the matter. My lack of time and not having access to my original books prevents me from analyzing it correctly, although I could never expose it in the same way that you did.
But in the end, in summary, is what I think. The only thing that bothers me is, as I said, the mention of CT in BT of the Sil77 decision. Obviously I would have liked that CT had remade the Silmarillion in the same way that we did but unfortunately it was not like that. I do not know if his heirs will ever do it (or even be done, waiting for the appropriate time for publication), (I am completely sure that our work never went unnoticed by the Tolkien Estate and CT). Anyway, I agree with our common decision. Now, considering your last sentence, the only thing we could do is decide if the Nauglamír was done or not for Felagund. Now I'm not, as I said, (nor was I, nor will I be in the future unfortunately, because I also have a problem in the eyes that is going over and I do not know how I will finish in the next few years), in conditions to analyze it by my same. Thank you and Greetings |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
I started this posting some time before the death of Christopher Tolkien. But as it has happened now, this seems to be a kind of showing respect to him and his work; even so I am sure that we all have had that before.
Coming back to the matter of the Nauglamír made for Finrod. I have reread all the text we have and our discussions. And looking at it with grater distance, this might be again a case where we were driven away from the ture solution by the fact that our editing has a lot of very fine details, which would a shame to be lost. The result I came to now mihgt be a relieve for some (lindil are you still with us) and a no go for others. Therefore as always, please feel free to disagree with me. I will use my references from posting #64: ‘[b]text X[b]’: A note containing the story of the Nauglamír made for Finrod and being the sole treasure brought by Húrin to Menegroth. A) Christopher Tolkiens treatment of the Story in Sil77. B) Christopher Tolkiens not giving us ‘text X’ in HoME and his A note on chapter 22 Of the Ruin of Doriath. C) The footnote from B&L. For all we know ‘text X’ does only stat two things: 1. The Nauglamir was made for Felagund by Dwarves long before the Fall of Doriath 2. The Nauglamír was the sole treasure that Húrin brought from Nargothrond and gave to Thingol. That said ‘text X’ does not contradict the following features of other sources: - Húrin had a band of followers, when he came to Nargothrond. - The followers took the complete horad from Nargothrond. - Húrin followers died by querrals on the way. Of course it is ture as Christopher Tolkien said that it ruines the gesture if Húrin must fetch Thingols help to get the treasure to Menegroth with which he then tries to humiliate Thingol. And to reinstall the battle between Húrins men and Thingols Elves is as well out of question. But what if ‘text X’ was Tolkiens way out of this dilema: Húrin took only the Nauglamír as it was the single most valuable pice, but his men took the complete treasure from Nargothrond. But then they where killed by quarrels on the way. Lets set that part out first: Quote:
RD-EX-08b: I adde this marker only for clearness of reference. RD-EX-09.1: I have skipt the reference to Húrin in Mîm’s answer. How could Mîm idntify Húrin as up to that point he did not name himself. And if he did why would he fear for his life at once? RD-EX-09.2: Okay, here the real changes begin. I moved the taking of the treasure to a later point to give Húrin a chance to go in alone and catch the Nauglamír, so it is for the worth of Húrins men that made Mîm start his cursing. RD-EX-11.5c: At this point only, when he had launched his attaked Mîm that Húrin does reveal his identiy to Mîm. RD-EX-11.51b: I think this slow dying of Mîm we have already discussed. RD-EX-11.52: Now Húrin goes in alone to catch the Nauglamír. This is not necessarly the story as told in ’Text X’ but it is the best text that we can use. RD-EX-11.53: This addition is necessary to tell that in the end the hoard was taken by Húrins men. RD-EX-24b, RD-EX-26 & RD-EX-27: I moved this from the point where in the Lost Tales the treasure was described in Menegroth to here, because otherwise we have no description of the hoard left in our story. RD-EX-11.54: I inserted that marker only for clearness of reference with the new additions. And I changed ‘some was lost’ to ‘much was lost’ since now only the Nauglamír that Húrin carried himself came in the end to Menegroth. RD-SL-05b: The change form ‘And’ to ‘For’ at the beginning makes this to an explaintion why much of the treasure was lost. And at the end I changed the text so that Húrin does not begged help for the transport but goes to Menegroth alone and with only what he had chosen as specially precious and ‘usefull’ for his plan. As Húrins men were killed on the way, so the hoard was lost. So in the end only Húrin came to Menegroth and he carried only the Nauglamír, This of course makes some changes necessary in the farther text: Quote:
RD-EX-12b: Here Again Húrins men are skipt. RD-EX-14b: At the end of this § we have to change ‘gifts’ to the singular ‘gift’ of the Nauglamír. RD-EX-16: Is gone since it was a change in a part that spoke about Húrins men. RD-EX-17b: I tooke more of Sil77 as it is here the best representation oft he content of ‘text X‘. RD-EX-15b & RD-EX-15c: These two pessages from TT I have introduced into the Sil77passage. RD-EX-17.5: Of course this reference to the horad must be changed to the necklace alone. RD-EX-20b: Here again we have to change the reference. I found ‘that horad’ is no longer sufficient as now only the necklace is actually present. RD-SL-08 to RD-SL-10: All the rest of this sub-cahpter dealt with Húrins men and is therefore gone. In the Rest of the chapter only smaller references must be changed: Quote:
RD-EX-24b: The necklace is nothing to be gathered up. RD-EX-29b: This must be changed for we have no longer any unwrought gold, so that the only tasked for the Dwarves is the re-fashioning of the necklace. RD-EX-35b: Again there is no unwrought gold, so the plan of the dwarves only metioned implicit here would have been to feign that they would do the work in Nogrod and return with the finished product. RD-EX-36b: In the beginning I put in a bit more of this passage in, since it seems clear that the dwarves are forced by Thingol to remain in Menegroth. RD-EX-37 to RD-EX-39: This was the first smithing of the unwrought gold from the dragon hoard and the description of its results. It must go in the new story. RD-EX-36b & RD-EX-40b: As these came together now we have to adapt the end and the begining accordingly. RD-EX-40.5c: There is no longer a first smithying, so this one can nolonger becalled the last. RD-EX-46b: In the version with the Nauglamir made for Thingol we had to change the passage from Sil77, but now that is no longer necessary. RD-EX-74.5: What the Dwarves carry is no longer the hoard of Glaurung but the plunder of Menegroth. RD-SL-27: I did not change this, since we already used the phrase from Sil77 unchanged. RD-EX-79b: Again it is no longer the hoard of Glaurung, but here the change is simply to remove Glaurung since the reference is clear enough. RD-EX-81.5: The treasure that is drowned in the River is no longer the accursed hoard of Glaurung so we have to change the reference here to the Nauglamír alone and in the next sentence the ‘indeed’ makes no longer any sense. Again, please feel free to disagree with me. The first and foremost point for the discussion should be if my idea of combining the Nauglamír made for Finrod and carried all the way from Nargothrond to Menegroth by Húrin himself and the story of his companions periching by feuds on the way together with consequent loss of Glaurungs hoard seems plausible. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |